Part two of Srila Sridhara Maharaja explaining the significance of Vasanta-pancami.

The Appearance of Sri Raghunatha Dasa Goswami

Then, the fourth personality is Sri Raghunatha Dasa Goswami. He was born nearly five hundred years ago in Krishnapur village, Hooghly District. He came in the Kayastha caste. His father, Hiranya Majumdar, was a very rich man. His father had one brother, Govardhana, but Raghunatha was the only child. His father and uncle were state landowners. At that time, they collected 20 lakhs (2,000,000) rupees in taxes. Twelve lakhs was to be paid to the king, and their net income was 8 lakhs.

Raghunatha heard about Mahaprabhu after his sannyasa. Hiranya and Govardhana had association with Advaita Acarya, and they used to make an annual contribution to all the superior Sanskrit scholars and their schools, in Bengal, of the time.

When Mahaprabhu went back to Sri Advaita Acarya’s house after his sannyasa, Raghunatha Dasa came and saw him, and became mad with love of Krishna. His heart was completely melted by Mahaprabhu’s beauty and charming personality, his devotion and his teachings of devotion for Krishna. Mahaprabhu himself was also aware of this. Raghunatha would not leave Mahaprabhu, but the Lord told him, ”Go home. Don’t be over-enthusiastic; control yourself. Keep your divine love for Krishna within your heart, and don’t express it outwardly. Don’t advertise it. Very soon the time will come when Krishna will guide you. He will make a way for you. Don’t allow any external show but keep it within your heart.”

sthira hanya ghare yao, na hao batula
krame krame paya loka bhava-sindhu-kula

“Compose yourself and go home – don’t be a madman. One reaches the shore of the material ocean gradually.”

Then, he later came into the association of Nityananda Prabhu in Panihati. Nityananda Prabhu said to him, “Give a feast here for my followers. You are the son of a rich man, so manage to give a feast here for my followers.”

Raghunatha did so, and Nityananda Prabhu was very satisfied. He also blessed him, saying, “Very soon your bright day will come.” And he addressed his devotees, “See this young boy—he has immense wealth; in abundance he has everything required for a young man’s enjoyment, but he does not care for it. Krishna’s grace has come down into his heart, so he does not care for anything of this world; but he’s mad to leave his home of material grandeur and become a street beggar. He has become mad for Krishna. Just see this high ideal—devotion, attraction. Love of Krishna has made him mad. He is very, very fortunate. This royal dignity and prosperity cannot please him.”

Anyway, he returned home. But one day Hiranya and the others noticed that he no longer entered the inner section of the house. He began to stay in the outer section only. His father and other guardians thought that his condition had become very grave, so ten men were engaged to keep guard that he may not leave.

One day in the early morning before sunrise, the family guru, Yadunandana Acarya, suddenly entered the house. Finding Raghunatha in the outer section of the house, he met him and requested him, “I am going out for some important business, but there is no one to worship my deity. So please ask one brahmana disciple in my name to serve the deity for a day or two during my absence.” As Yadunandana Acarya left, Raghunatha went with him. The guards saw him going with the family guru, so they did not interfere. On the way, Raghunatha requested the guru, “You may go ahead with your business, and I shall request the gentleman to do the worship in your absence.”

The guru left. Raghunatha took advantage of the situation. Perhaps he requested that man to do the service, but he started off in the direction away from Puri. He knew that as soon as they realized at home that he wasn’t returning, they would send men to search for him on the way to Puri. So for the whole day he walked in the opposite direction. In the evening he stopped at a cowherdsman’s house, took a little milk from him and passed the night in the cowshed. Then in the morning he started for Puri.

When his guardians found that Raghunatha had not returned home, they heard from the guards that he had gone with the family guru. They went to the guru’s house, but Raghunatha was not to be found. Then they thought that he must have left for Puri, and they sent ten men to that side. They returned without finding him. In this way, Raghunatha cleverly managed to escape. For twelve days he walked to Puri, taking food here and there for only three of those days. On the other days no food was necessary. He was helped by divine love, surcharged.

He had already heard that Mahaprabhu was at the Gambhira, the Kasi Misra Bhavan. He went there, and in the courtyard fell flat in obeisance unto Mahaprabhu. Mukunda Datta announced to the Lord, “Raghunatha has come.” Mahaprabhu said, “Yes, look after him. He has come with great difficulty, walking and walking without food. Take care of him for a few days. Then, he will manage for himself.”

That was the direction of Mahaprabhu. For a few days Raghunatha took prasadam there. After that he began to beg at the gate of the Jagannatha Temple. The parents now thought it was impossible to bring him back, and they did not make any further attempt. But they sent some money with one brahmana and two servants, instructing them to hire a house and offer Raghunatha a place to stay, and see that their son may not die without food. They tried their best, but Raghunatha continued to subsist on alms. Over a period of two years, Raghunatha invited Mahaprabhu to take prasadam at that house, and the Lord did so for his satisfaction. After that, Raghunatha left that idea, thinking, “This is only to produce some name and fame for me. Mahaprabhu is not pleased with such prasadam.”

Svarupa Damodara was the dearmost attendant of Mahaprabhu, and a very good scholar as well. Raghunatha was also a scholar; we find that later he left the world beautiful poetry in Sanskrit. Mahaprabhu gave Raghunatha over to the charge of Svarupa Damodara, saying, “I request Svarupa Damodara to take your charge, and he will advise you what will be necessary for your devotional life.”

But suddenly one day, Raghunatha approached Mahaprabhu: “Why have you managed to take me out of my house, and what is my best benefit? If you please tell me in your own words, my heart will be satisfied.”

Mahaprabhu said, ”I have given you over to the charge of Svarupa Damodara. He is more qualified than even myself. Still, if you want to hear something directly from me, then I say in brief:

gramya-katha na sunibe, gramya-varta na kahibe
bhala na khaibe ara bhala na paribe
amani manada hanya krsna-nama sada la’be
vraje radha-krsna seva manase karibe

“Don’t indulge in worldly talk, don’t hear worldly talk. Try your best to avoid mundane matters. Don’t eat delicious dishes, but take whatever ordinary food may come of its own accord; and don’t dress luxuriously. Always try to take the name of Krishna with the attitude of giving respect to others, without expecting respect from anyone. Be humble, but never aspire after respectful dealings from others. In this way, try to take the name of Krishna constantly. And within, try to serve Sri Sri Radha-Krishna in Vrindavana. Mentally, be in Vrindavana rendering service to Sri Sri Radha-Krishna lila.”

Mahaprabhu told Raghunatha that this was the essence of His advice to him. Then, He again took Raghunatha’s hand and offered it to the hand of Svarupa Damodara. He said, “I am giving you to the charge of Svarupa Damodara. He is the best spiritual teacher. He will take care of you.”

After Raghunatha’s arrival in Puri, Mahaprabhu stayed there continuously for sixteen years. After that, Mahaprabhu departed from the world. Raghunatha left Puri and went to Vrindavana, thinking, “I have what is to be had; now I only want to see Vrindavana dhama once, and then I shall leave this body by jumping from the highest peak of Govardhana.” With this idea he went to Vrindavana, but there he came into contact with Sanatana Goswami and Rupa Goswami; he found the beginning of a new life. He thought, “What is this? Mahaprabhu has not departed. He is living in them.”

Mahaprabhu delegated Rupa and Sanatana with the power to preserve the devotional current they had received from him, and to present it in a new light. They were asked to prove by drawing upon different scriptures that Mahaprabhu’s teachings are the very gist and purpose of all the scriptures. As is stated in Bhagavad-gita, vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah: “The attempt of every revealed scripture is to show me as the highest center. I am the Absolute.” So Mahaprabhu said, “Krishna is the Absolute. With the help of the different Scriptures and historical reference—by all means possible—try to prove that Krishna is svayam-bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and that Vraja lila, Vrindavana lila, is the highest achievement.”

The two brothers had already begun that work when Raghunatha came into their association, and he found, “Oh! Mahaprabhu is here.” He abandoned the idea of leaving this world, and joined Rupa and Sanatana as their disciple. Mahaprabhu had already ordered Sanatana Goswami, ”My followers are very poor and helpless. You’ll have to look after them whenever they come to Vrindavana. You’ll have to be the caretaker of all my disciples that come to Vrindavana.” So Raghunatha came to Sanatana Goswami, and Sanatana took care of him. Raghunatha was so self-forgetful that one day as he was sitting on the banks of Radha kunda and taking the name, a tiger came just beside him to drink water, but Raghunatha paid no attention. Suddenly, Sanatana Goswami came upon the scene. He was astonished. Up until then Raghunatha had lived under the shade of a tree, but Sanatana said, ”Please construct a hut to live in. Don’t disregard my request; I entreat you to do this.” Then from that time he managed to construct a small dwelling and stay there. His abnegation, vairagya, was incomparable. Sanatana, Rupa, and all the Goswamis’ indifference to worldly enjoyment was extreme, but Raghunatha’s abnegation surpassed all.

When he was in Puri, sometimes he would beg prasadam at the gate of the Jagannatha Temple, and sometimes he would take prasadam at a chatram or free kitchen where rich men distribute prasadam for beggars. But then he thought, “I am taking what is due to others’ karma.”

The unsold Jagannatha prasadam is given to the cows of Jagannatha Puri. But when it becomes so stale that it emits a bad odor, even the cows cannot eat it. So now Raghunatha would wash that Prasadam with sufficient water, and adding a little salt he would eat that. Mahaprabhu heard about this, and one day when Raghunatha was taking that prasadam Mahaprabhu approached and suddenly took some and ate it. He said, “Oh! I have tasted many times the prasadam of Jagannatha, but such sweet prasadam I have never taken anywhere!”

So, what is the taste in prasadam? It is not mundane. Raghunatha had such intense faith in Prasadam that he lived on apparently rotten things with a little salt, and he was the son of a family of kingly opulence. So much indifference was in him. And in his last days in Vrindavana, he would pass each day taking only a pot of ghol , buttermilk. This is not possible for a man of flesh and blood. Great souls like the Goswamis are really personalities come down from the other world, and so it was possible for them to show the ideal of abnegation. It is not possible for ordinary humans of flesh and blood to observe such a degree of abnegation without dying. But the Goswamis created the standard and ideal by such vairagya. At the same time, Raghunatha studied Rupa Goswami’s presentation of the highest type of rasa or devotional Sentiment: madhura-rasa. By our association with this day and by our humble attempt to discuss all these matters, we may be benefited in the achievement of our goal. This is the day of the advent of such great personalities.

Departure of Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura

Today is also the day that Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura departed from this world. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura appeared about 180 years after the Advent of Sri Gaurangadeva. He composed a commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam and many other books to help the devotees coming later in the sampradaya . He was such a great acarya. In his own special way, he has dealt elaborately with many spiritual matters, giving the proper approach. He was the scriptural dispensation of Sri Rupa-Sanatana, etc. By his grace, Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana composed the Gaudiya Vaishnava commentary on Vedanta-sutra, Sri Govinda-bhasya . From such great masters there is much to be read.

Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti was born in a brahmana family in Devagram of Murshidabad district. He was a great scholar of Sanskrit. He came in the line of Sri Narottama Thakura and gave us extensive scriptural writings to help us very precisely and elaborately to know about the pastimes of Mahaprabhu and Radha-Krishna, Vrindavana, Navadvipa, and the guru-parampara . The Gurvastakam we chant daily was written by him, as well as many other important works. Srila Rupa Goswami wrote Sri-Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, or The Nectarean Ocean of Devotional Joy, and Srila Visvanatha wrote Sri-Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu-bindu, or a drop of that ocean. And from Sri Rupa’s Sri-Ujjvala-nilamani, The Brilliant Jewel of the Supernatural World, or Krishna in madhura-rasa, he gave Ujjvala-nilamani-kirana, or a ray of that jewel. In this way, he has given volumes of books and poems. As Sri Rupa Goswami gave the astakaliya-lila of Krishna, or twenty-four hour service engagement with Sri Sri Radha-Govinda, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti has similarly given in Caitanya-lila twenty-four hour engagement in the service of Sriman Mahaprabhu. So he has done great service to the sampradaya and profusely bestowed his mercy upon us.

Sri Pundarika Vidyanidhi

By Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Deva-Goswami

In the following excerpt from Sermons of the Guardian of Devotion: Volume Two Srila Sridhara Maharaja begins to speak about some of the numerous events that make Vasanta-pancami an especially holy day.

The Appearance of Srimata Vishnupriya Devi

Today is the Holy Day of Vasanta-pancami, the fifth day of the light fortnight of the moon, month of Magha, when Krishna is worshiped with the new flowers of spring. On this day, the holy advent of Srimati Vishnupriya Devi occurred. Her father was Sri Sanatana Misra of Navadvipa, who was a brahmana and great devotee of Lord Vishnu. Srimati Vishnupriya Devi is the eternal consort of Sri Gaurasundara in his feature of Gaura-Narayana, and according to Sri-Gauraganoddesadipika, she is directly Satyabhama in Krishna’s Dvaraka lila.

She was the second wife of Sriman Mahaprabhu in the householder period of his pastimes. From childhood, she was devout in the divine service of the Lord. Kasinatha Pandita was the intermediary in her marriage to Mahaprabhu. She was the ideal of divine self-surrender at the lotus feet of Mahaprabhu. When she was only fourteen, Mahaprabhu took sannyasa, and after that she lived the rest of her life in penance. From early morning she would chant the holy name the whole day, and for every mahamantra that she chanted, she would put one grain of rice into a clay pot. After chanting her quota, she would take that rice and cook it and offer it to the Lord. That was all she would take for her subsistence, so gradually she became emaciated. She passed her days in this way.

Her brother was her guardian after Saci-devi departed, and ultimately she had a murti of Mahaprabhu, and she would worship him in that form. And since the time of Vishnupriya, that worship is being continued up to the present in the temple here in Navadvipa known as ’Mahaprabhura Badi’ (the home of Mahaprabhu). So this day of the year is connected with her holy memory, and we may achieve her grace if we honor this time in her name, discussing her pastimes. She will be propitiated and Sri Caitanyadeva will also be pleased with us, giving us a step forward in our transcendental march towards him.

The Appearance of Sri Pundarika Vidyanidhi

Today is also the appearance day of Sri Pundarika Vidyanidhi. He is considered to be Vrishabhanu-raja of Varsana, Vrindavana, the father of Srimati Radharani. Sri Pundarika Vidyanidhi was born in a brahmana family at Chattagram, and he bore the title “Vidyanidhi” on account of his scholarship. Apparently he was a man of luxurious habits. In those days, people who could afford it would have a house in Navadvipa on the banks of the holy Ganges river; they would from time to time visit Navadvipa to regularly bathe in the Ganges and remain for some time in this Holy Place, and then return to their homes to continue their livelihood. So, Pundarika Vidyanidhi also had a house in Navadvipa.

Here, in Gaura-lila, Gadadhara Pandita was the representation of Srimati Radharani herself. At that time, Gadadhara Pandita was a young boy. He was younger than Mahaprabhu. Mukunda Datta was a follower and admirer of Mahaprabhu Sri Caitanyadeva, and he also came from Chattagram, the village of Pundarika Vidyanidhi. He knew Pundarika Vidyanidhi to be a man of higher religious type, that is, a Bhagavata type or Krishna bhakta. But outwardly Pundarika Vidyanidhi lived a life of luxury. He was a well-to-do man, a general zamindar (state landowner). Mukunda Datta naturally knew him when he came to Navadvipa, since he hailed from the same place. Mukunda Datta went to Gadadhara Pandita and asked him, “Would you like to have the darsana of a Vaishnava?”

From childhood Gadadhara Pandita was very fond of Vaishnavas and Krishna nama. He had much fondness for Nimai Pandita when the Lord returned from Gaya. Previously he was very much afraid of Nimai Pandit, because whenever they met, Nimai Pandit would always tackle him with some apparent quarrel about etymology or something of that nature. So, after returning from Gaya, when Sri Caitanyadeva expressed his devotional aspect, he said one day, “Gadadhara, from your very childhood you are a devotee of Krishna, and my days have been wasted discussing grammar and mundane literature. But you, Gadadhara, my friend, your life is very successful. You have fulfillment of life. From the beginning you are fond of Krishna nama.” So, from the beginning Gadadhara Pandita’s heart was towards Krishna. Therefore when Mukunda Datta asked him, “Would you like to see a Vaishnava who has come from afar?” the reply came, “Yes, yes, I shall go; take me there.”

So Mukunda Datta took Gadadhara Pandit to Pundarika Vidyanidhi. And what kind of Vaishnava was Pundarika Vidyanidhi? He was sitting on a luxurious bedstead, smoking a very ornate and valuable pipe. His head was adorned with beautiful oiled curly locks, and many valuable pastes were anointed on his body. Two attendants fanned him on either side. Gadadhara Pandit thought, “Mukunda has brought me to this luxury loving man sitting on the bedstead and smoking? What type of Vaishnava has he brought me to see?” He was disappointed at heart, and Mukunda could guess it. Mukunda Datta was a very good singer, and in a very sweet tone he sang this sloka of Bhagavatam :

aho baki yam stana-kala-kutam
jighamsayapayayad apy asadhvi
lebhe gatim dhatry ucitam tato ‘nyam
kam va dayalum saranam vrajema

This sloka was chanted by Mukunda in a very sweet tone, and this created a wonderful effect in Pundarika Vidyanidhi. The Bhagavatam says, “Who else but Krishna should we approach? Who can be so kind, so gracious? There is limitless grace in him. Why? Baki, Putana, came to kill him in a treacherous way, taking the garb of dhatri, a motherly garb. In this way she came to try and kill him; yet Krishna gave her a position as a nursemaid in his group of assisting mothers. So gracious is the Lord. Who else can we approach for our good?”

This is the meaning of the verse. “She painted deadly poison on her breast, and came to suckle the boy Krishna. So treacherous was her action. In the garb of motherly affection she tried to murder the boy, and she was given such a high position as an attendant of his mother. She was elevated to the motherly group. Such grace, such mercy he showed, without considering or passing judgment on the worth of that action. So other than that kind-hearted and gracious Krishna, where else should we go for shelter?”

This entered the heart of Pundarika Vidyanidhi and began to vibrate, and produced such force that he was stunned; then shivering began, and madly gesticulating, he began to pull his hair and tear his silken dress, kicking over the tobacco and pipe. His rich bedding and dress were ruined, and he began to roll on the ground and cry, kam va dayalum saranam vrajema: “In whom shall we take shelter other than Him?” Then Gadadhara Pandita thought, “Oh, I have committed a great offense in my mind, thinking that he was not a Vaishnava, because of his fashionable dress and style. Really, how great a Vaishnava he is—what a wonderful effect the memory of Krishna caused in him!”

Then Gadadhara Pandit revealed his mind: “Mukunda, I have committed an offense against this great Vaishnava. What will be my fate? When I first saw him, I shunned him; I committed an offense. I think that if I take mantra from him, become his disciple, then he may forgive all my offenses. There is no other way to be absolved from this Vaishnava aparadha. I shall have to inform my Lord Gauracandra, Nimai Pandit, about this.” So they left the place of Pundarika Vidyanidhi, and Gadadhara went to take Nimai Pandit’s permission to become the disciple of Pundarika Vidyanidhi.

Before anyone knew that Pundarika had come from Chattagram to Navadvipa, and even before Mahaprabhu had met him, Mahaprabhu was seen to suddenly cry, “Bap Pundarik! Bap Pundarik! ” In the mood of Srimati Radharani, Nimai was taking his name. Bap means father. So he was calling, “Father, Pundarika! Father, Pundarika!” Nimai Pandit was chanting like this, in the mood of Radharani.

When Gadadhara made his proposal to Mahaprabhu, the Lord immediately replied, “Yes, very good proposal. Go and accept him at once.” Gadadhara Pandita represents Radharani in Gaura-lila, and Pundarika is Radharani’s father in Krishna lila: the guru is like the father, and the disciple is like the child. So Mahaprabhu at once approved and Gadadhara took initiation from Pundarika Vidyanidhi. He was none other than Vrishabhanuraja, and Gadadhara was the incarnation of Radharani in Gaura-lila.

Pundarika Vidyanidhi would not take a bath in the Ganges because he could not tolerate that his feet would touch the holy Ganges river. Before daybreak, he would go to the Ganges and take some of the water on his head. He did not go to the Ganges by day, because he could not tolerate to see persons who would dive into the water or spit there and contaminate the pure, holy water by misusing it. Before worship, prayer, etc., the general pandita section may bathe in the Ganges and fast to purify their bodies of sin. But Pundarika Vidyanidhi would rather drink some Ganges water prior to his daily worship and duties, thereby teaching us the proper worshipful respect due to the Ganga.

In Puri, his dearmost friend and associate was Sri Svarupa Damodara. When he went to Puri, he felt some pain in his heart that the priestly servants of Jagannatha dressed the Lord in starched cloth, which is generally considered impure. When cloth is manufactured by hand loom, the thread is soaked in boiled rice water which acts as a paste to hold it firm in the loom. That cloth is considered impure, and must first be rinsed in water before offering it to the Deity. But in Puri, that was not the practice. They directly used starched cloth for dressing Lord Jagannatha, and Pundarika Vidyanidhi could not accommodate this.

That night, he dreamt that both Jagannatha and Balarama came to him and dealt slaps to his cheeks, saying, “You have come here to point out the defects in my servitors? What is this?!”

They both began to slap him, and the dream was so intense that when he rose in the morning he found that both his cheeks were inflamed. He expressed to his most intimate friend, Svarupa Damodara: “My dear friend, Svarupa Damodara, such is my position. I had this objectionable feeling in my heart towards these servitors, so Jagannatha and Balarama have punished me in this way. See the swelling on both cheeks!”

Such was the nature of Pundarika Vidyanidhi. In essence, we are told that he is the father of Srimati Radharani, incarnated here as Pundarika Vidyanidhi. A slight holy association of this day, his appearance day, will help us a great deal in our advancement of spiritual life.

The Appearance of Sri Raghunandana Thakura

Thirdly, this is also the birthday of Raghunandana Thakura. He was born in a place named Srikhanda, near Katwa, in a Kaviraja family, a lineage of Ayurvedic doctors. Raghunandana was the son of Mukunda Kaviraja, who was such a notable doctor that even kings called for him for treatment. Raghunandana was a bachelor his whole life. His figure was extraordinarily beautiful, and he was very fond of dancing. From the beginning he was, of course, a natural devotee.

The family of Mukunda Thakura worshiped their ancestral Deity at home. Once, when Raghunandana was a growing boy, who had perhaps only recently received the sacred thread and admission to worship, his father asked him, “I’m going out and won’t return in time. You please worship the deity and feed him—offer bhogam for his food.”

When he was away, Raghunandana’s mother cooked many items and brought them to the temple, and asked Raghunandana to offer them to the deity. Generally the doors are kept closed during worship, so behind the closed doors Raghunandana offered and prayed to the Lord , ”Please take these dishes I am offering you—please eat.” But the Sri Murti did not answer or come forward to eat. Raghunandana began to cry. ”My father will rebuke me! He has requested me to feed you, and you are not eating. I’ll be punished. You have to take this food!” The sincere boy began to cry in such a way that Krishna had to eat. Raghunandana was satisfied, and came out from the deity room. His mother came to remove the prasadam.

“What is this? All the plates are empty!”
Raghunandana replied, ”You asked me to feed the deity. He has taken.”
His mother said angrily, ”You, boy, you have eaten it! The deity doesn’t eat. We offer, everything remains, and afterwards we take the prasadam . You wicked boy, you have turned out to be such a rogue, you have eaten everything.”
“No, no, I did not eat, the deity ate everything.”
“This is impossible, you foolish boy! Do you want to make a fool of me? This can never happen!”
He began to cry, ”No, I’m speaking the truth.”
“Alright, let your father come, and I shall ask him to punish you.”
Mukunda returned, and Raghunandana’s mother complained, ”Your boy has grown to be such a rogue! He says the deity has eaten.”
Raghunandana also petitioned his father, ”Yes, the deity has eaten. He would not take in the beginning, but I began to cry, and then he ate.”
“Is this true?”
“Yes, it is true my father, I am not lying.”
“Can you show me?”
“I shall try.”

So he was given another chance to worship, and from a hidden place his father could see that the Deity had actually taken the food.

Such a devotee was Raghunandana Thakura. When he danced in sankirtana, it was such a charming scene that even Mahaprabhu was attracted. During the Jagannatha Ratha-yatra seven special groups would chant and dance, and in the party from Srikhanda we find that Raghunandana was the dancer. So today is the day connected with the memory of Sri Raghunandana Thakura, who is considered to be Pradyumna avatara . Many more incidents occur in his pastime; I have only touched on them. It is also said that near the banks of the lake Madhu-puskarini there is a Jambu tree, and according to his wish two Kadamba flowers bloom on that tree every day for the worship of his deity. Many miracles are found in his pastimes.

Mantralogy is a New York-based collective owned by Saci-suta, Keli-lalita, Gauravani, and Rasa-acharya. They strive to stimulate the kirtana scene by promoting the bhakti lifestyle alongside their professionally produced albums and their clothing line. They are probably best-known for their releases of Gauravani and As Kindred Spirits’ Ten Million Moons and The Mayapuris Mridanga, but that’s only a small part of what they have come out with and many new releases are on their way.

I got intrigued by their approach to sharing the teachings and lifestyle of bhakti because it brings out so clearly the never-ending tension between conserving and renewing, caution and risk-taking, dynamism and stagnation. This tension seems to be especially heightened in relation to ancient spiritual traditions that have to answer to the challenges of the constantly changing  modern times: how to re-present the basic elements of the path to better affect people’s lives without re-presenting one off the path altogether? Often the line between renegade and reformer is a fine one. Here I offered Gauravani and Mantralogy a chance to draw the lines themselves instead of having others do it for them.

Gurunistha dasa: What was the reason for forming Mantralogy and what is your mission statement? What are you trying to accomplish?

Gauravani: In a very simple way, Mantralogy is meant to support and grow the subculture surrounding mantra music, sacred music. Saci-suta and Keli-lalita had started Equal Vision Records originally as a Krishna Core record label doing hardcore music. That was primarily devotees teaching bhakti through punk rock music. Over time their record label has become more mainstream, but their passion for bhakti and for music that transmits bhakti and shares bhakti in a relevant way has not changed. And so when we all met we had the opportunity to talk about some more ideas and the idea came up to do this creative company that was built around the idea of creating, sustaining, and supporting the subculture of mantra music.

Gurunistha: It says on your website that you “seek to combine the edgy punk rock attitude with the ancient uplifting philosophies and culture of conscious living and music.” How do you harmonize the two seemingly opposing influences? What is similar about punk rock and kirtana?

Gauravani: Actually they are extremely similar, because they both have an element of revolution. And the ultimate revolution was the revolution that was brought into the streets of India 500 years ago by Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the revolution of consciousness, the first statement of which was that “I am not this body.” It is so revolutionary. Because so many great people throughout time have created revolutions with a simple idea, like we are all equal in the eyes of God, or that race should not separate the rights of an individual, but an even more revolutionary statement is that not only is there no difference between black and white, but you are actually not even that body. That body is just a vehicle, an experience for your soul. That is an even greater revolutionary statement. So art, music, poetry has always been the backbone of revolution. Right now the world is experiencing a revolution: in the way we eat, people are eating organic food, food grown locally; in the way we dress, organic cotton, sustainable fabrics; our politics, we are trying to be more kind; energy policy, moving away from things like nuclear energy to more sustainable kinds of energy like wind, solar . . . Even the way we worship. We are trying not to just be spiritualists in a church or in a temple but to be spiritual in our lives, in the way we deal with our children, the way we deal with our spouses, our community; it’s a revolution. I mean, that’s what the 60s were all about, a convergence of all these seemingly disparate influences, country music and folk music, gospel and blues, philosophy and youth energy and politics, it was all coming together around this idea of a revolution of equality. But this revolution is even more important than the revolution of the 60s because this is a revolution of consciousness. This revolution that we are all experiencing now is going to come together like a real tsunami of consciousness.

Gurunistha: So you believe it’s actually going to be a worldwide movement?

Gauravani: It’s already happening. The only thing is that people like us, revolutionaries like us, need to see and facilitate the connections. Someone asked me at Yoga Journal about mantra music and how I define it and I said, “I consider Christian rock a form of mantra music.” Because what is Christian rock? Young people they want to worship Christ in a way that they can understand. They don’t want to be living in their parents’ or some ancient version of Christianity; they want relevant Christianity. So it is all the same, whether it’s kirtana from India, or whether it’s Christian rock, or it’s gospel music, or native traditions it is all the same. It’s a revolution in making spirituality real and relevant, right here, right now.

Has it become the mainstream? No. Okay, but arguably, this world is a place where people are facilitating their own desires, so it will always be a place where anything that is against that is an outsider philosophy, against the norm. So I agree with that, I suppose, but that is not our mood at Mantralogy. Our mood is, just like within 18 days the Pandavas had completely destroyed all the demonic forces and the whole world was handed to them, and said: here you go, now do something wonderful with it, so our mission is, tomorrow morning everything is going to change, it’s all right around the corner, its coming. (laughter) And if we live our whole lives like that and ultimately we look across the room at each other and we are old guys playing our drums and singing our songs, that’s okay too. But at least it will be a revolution of consciousness. Even if it doesn’t manifest externally, the most important thing is that we are able to really make it manifest inside our hearts.

Gurunistha: Mantralogy has been the trailblazer of making Gaudiya kirtana more appealing and marketable to the masses. And it seems like you’ve been really successful in making it available for non-devotees and devotees alike. But apparently some devotees have felt that it’s too commercial. I was interested to hear what their accusations were and how you deal with that kind of a thing?

Gauravani: How do you answer a question like this? (laughter) Here is what it comes down to: there are often two extremes to any idea, that is the way of the world that; that is the way of the accepting and rejecting of the mind. There is one side and there is another side. So people like me and most of the crew at Mantralogy, our idea is to be in the mood of the munificence of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, which is that the fruits grow and they fall and if people take them they take them, you do what you can. You’re not worried about the problems but more trying to make the opportunity available.

I guess there are so many things that people could criticize about what we do. They could say that we are all allowing for there to be money in exchange for kirtana. They could say that we are chanting with people who are not pure. We are supporting and encouraging people who don’t have a strong spiritual practice, or they could say that someone like me, I’m a musician, what qualification do I have to chant the holy name? I have no taste, I have no deep understanding, I have no experience. I just have a little bit of love for other musicians and chanters, I like doing it, and I like to share it with people. So there are a lot of things to criticize and I’ve come to the conclusion that probably many of the criticisms are true. So that’s not the problem, the problem is not that they are not true. The problem is, what do you do with these things that people have highlighted?

My sense is that each of us, according to our nature, has some service to render in the world, and that rather than looking at our difficulties, looking at things that we don’t like with each other, what we should try and do is choose those few things that we really appreciate about each other and fan the flames. I’ve had criticism from some people who don’t know me; I’ve had criticism from some very close friends. But I’ve also had encouragement from both of those groups. To be very honest with you, it took me this last year through a dark time, where I was really questioning everything, questioning myself, questioning what I was doing, and questioning if I was creating some offense or difficulty for other bhaktas. And by the Lord’s sweet grace I have come through that. And now I’m not questioning so much because in the Bhagavad-Gita Krishna says how it ‘s better you do your duty improperly than you do some one else’s perfectly.

I’m sure I will learn, I am sure all of us at Mantralogy will look back 10 years, 15 years from now and say, “Boy, if we’d only known we would have done so many things differently!” But now we are just excited, we are happy to be doing this. We are grateful and we are moving forward.

Gurunistha: There seems to be a strong need for unity and non-sectarianism among the younger devotee crowd and they really seem to respond well to what you guys are doing. But it seems like a lot of them have this idea that the solution to the controversies and differences among the devotee community is to emphasize kirtana and de-emphasize philosophy. Because there’s a lot of room for differences and fights in philosophy and debate. What do you see as the solution to the problems within the Gaudiya community.

Gauravani: I would answer this question differently depending on who I am speaking to. The culture of the Vedas is a culture of respect, so even great sages who would disagree with each other would first hear each other out completely, and would do that in a cycle endlessly until some resolution was achieved. One would hear the other one out completely and then ask, “Have you finished? Okay, now let me address it.” Then the next sage would address, address, address and then ask, “Have you finished?” “I’ve said everything.” “Okay, now my turn”. They would go back and forth like this. If there is no resolution then lets break as friends and next time we come together we will again begin a discussion from this place. That letter that I just read I think addresses a little bit of the mood that sometimes in our eagerness and enthusiasm to do something we forget that the point is the people you are involved with. The point is, it’s supposed to be a practical opportunity to apply and learn the spiritual principles. If we get so caught up in the thing that we forget to build up the relationships then we’ve made the mistake.

And I think for our Vaishnava community, and frankly for the world–I really don’t see a difference between the two, which is an answer to the previous question–the fighting that goes on in the world, the fighting that goes on in all the different communities or families or relationships comes down to this idea that sometimes when someone disagrees with us we feel like it is our job to shame them. We do it in our politics; we do it in our interpersonal relationships. Disagreement can result in separation, but it shouldn’t necessarily result in shaming. Neither party should be shamed. There should be a sense of worthiness, that even though we disagree I respect you and I value your perspective and I give you encouragement and respect, even though I disagree. I think we in ourselves need to start by trying to cultivate a sense of worthiness, that we are children of God, that we are Krishna’s loved and cherished people. He loves us and he has seen us do things that we can not even imagine: terrible things, but still he loves us. So we should say okay I get it I am worthy. I need to act in a way that shows that I am worthy of God’s love. That is the key thing. We need to move away from this culture of shaming one another. If someone shows a weakness, vulnerability actually it is a great opportunity to express love and encouragement.

Gurunistha: Do you feel like there is more of trying to shame other people in religious circles? It seems like that sometimes.

Gauravani: It’s a good question. I think it can be seen like that. I don’t think so, but I think because religious organizations tend to have a shared set of rules and scriptures, that it’s easier to checklist whether someone is on or off. So it seems like there is more of a culture there. But I think people will find ways to shame each other. (laughter) Politics is full of it, there is so much mud slinging, it is just one person trying to shame the other guy so much that people won’t vote for him. It comes from the same place that terrorism comes from: deep fear, deep anger, and deep shame. That is why kirtana is the only thing that can defeat terrorism. Because kirtana wakes up your soul and you begin to use your voice, the voice of your soul, and you begin to hear yourself sing, singing these beautiful words and you hear yourself doing this worthy and beautiful thing, appreciated by those around you. It begins to grow a culture of appreciation and encouragement on a spiritual level, because in kirtana, whether someone can sing our not everyone is encouraged to chant. Everybody’s doing something, learning to play an instrument and embracing each other while they dance. We’ve all seen it, even people who don’t get along they dance right next to one-another, through kirtana those things fade.

Gurunistha: That brings me back to the original question. It does seem like you feel kirtana itself is sufficient to bring people together but what about the philosophical side? How much needs to be known about the philosophy behind kirtana? How effective is it if you don’t have a clear idea of what it’s about?

Gauravani: That is an important question. If you’re asking me, is it important to also take time to listen and hear and read and associate with people who are more knowledgeable than yourself to try to understand in a deeper way, yes absolutely. But my sense is also that chanting the holy name is like one of those little things that

the kids get, you put the little thing in water and it turns into a giant dinosaur! (Laughter) It’s all in there, you put it in water and it expands. So if you don’t take care of it properly you could probably ruin it, but basically the name is all you need. That is my understanding. There are so many different pieces. Like in the analogy of the seed, you have the sun, and you have the weather, and you have the rain, and certain temperature and a type of soil . . . But those things can’t be quantified, basically the name is golokera prema dhana…It’s this touchstone, the name Itself. I really believe it. Especially with the way Mahaprabhu did it in sankirtana. The name brings two devotees together and when you have two devotees together you have a sanga. That means you have association and loving service, and with loving service, you then have an opportunity to cleanse the heart and become humble through that service. This is all just through the natural experience of kirtana. Then through a humble heart you begin to have a deeper spiritual understanding to hear the name more properly. So it all comes but it comes from kirtana, sanga kirtana I think is the magic thing, the name is powerful, yes, it’s all in the name but sankirtan, that is the main thing, that is how I see it. This is why so many young devotees stress sankirtana over japa. This is a bit of a contentious issue, because many young people do japa, obviously everyone values japa as a personal connection to Krishna, but many young people are more attracted to kirtana than to japa. And people have criticized before, certain hard-line devotees, they say, “You’re just in kirtana so the guys can look at the girls and the girls can look at the guys; You’re just in kirtana to show off your mrdanga playing . . .” or whatever. But the point is, many people don’t think that these young kids could be at the mall, or they could be going on a date to the movies with the same girl they are in kirtana with, but instead they are in kirtana. So we just try to encourage. “You want to see this girl? Take her to the 24-hour kirtana at New Vrindavan, Agnideva prabhu will be there! Come, bring your girlfriend and sit with her for 24 hours of non-stop Harinam! (Laughter)

Gurunistha: That is a strong point, that if you guys didn’t do it the way you do it a lot of the kids would never go to the temple, they would never show up. It’s not attractive to them.

Gauravani: I think our job as representatives of Caitanya Mahaprabhu is to distribute the fruit. So if someone doesn’t want to take the fruit – you just do your best, you try to give it in a way that they will appreciate what it is. So we just try. Everyone has their own capacity, and there are people out there conversing with scholars in a language I don’t understand, and there are people who are immersed in puja, there are so many unlimited aspects of this beautiful, beautiful life and this world of bhakti and seva. So the main thing I think is that we should all appreciate each other and the different ways that we’re doing it, and help each other and care for each other, and if we see someone going into a place of difficulty we should reach out a hand, with a sense that they are worthy, not to create shame.

Gurunistha: Historically speaking it seems like there is like a moment of breach happening right now in the movement. The young Gaudiyas are breaking out of the old mold and the die-hard old school bhaktas resist that, but it seems like they can’t stop it.

Gauravani: The way I see it, whether it is two people or two hundred people working together, you have to be like minded, you have to work with people you can work with. I see that actually, there are many older devotees who are trying to see how to begin to train and synergize with the younger devotees. That is the key thing I think, there are many people who are harmonic, resonant and we should work together. I was just speaking with Agnideva prabhu about helping him record his next album. I have a certain energy and creative enthusiasm and a certain technique and he has the same thing from his experience, and he is wiser than me, more experienced than me, so together we’ll be able to do something better than either one of us could do by ourselves. So that is the future. The future is people from not even Gaudiya traditions saying, “Oh, you want to do this and we want to do this. Let’s work together. You have a beautiful center and you want to learn Gita and we can teach Gita, let’s work together. Vegetarian cooking, we can serve you in some way; chanting, everyone working together. The way I see the mission of Mahaprabhu’s movement is, not to say “Oh, these guys have a nice thing we’ve got to have one of those. They have nice dancers, we need to have nice dancers!” I don’t see it like that. I see these guys are amazing at dance, lets try to find a way to introduce Krishna consciousness into their presentation in a way that will give them something better than what they had before and allow them to use all their expertise in a way that we never could to bring this message to everyone. I know Prabhupada used to say that he was building a society of brahmanas, and this is my humble understanding: a brahmana is a teacher, a facilitator. So rather than to take over society, our mission should be to find any place in society where we can serve with knowledge in a humble and heartfelt way and those people will very soon see that this is that touchstone, that transcendental gem that can transform all these wonderful qualities that they had and bring it to the next level. We’re not trying to stop people from doing what they are doing. We’re trying to transform what they are doing into something even better than what they originally imagined. So our mission as “brahmanas”–, you know I’m not even first initiated so I can’t say that. But our mission of attempting to be brahmanas is to see ourselves as facilitators and guides and to help people do what they do better. It’s and offering.

Gurunistha: The New York kirtana scene seems to be pretty active and growing.

I was particularly interested in how the New York City kirtana scene has evolved during the time that you have been part of it and what part have you guys played in its growth?

Gauravani: It’s growing all over the whole world. We were just in Australia. It’s booming in Australia, its booming in Trinidad, its booming everywhere. It’s growing. But in New York an interesting thing happened, sometimes people criticize me or Mantralogy for trying to be business-minded. The truth is actually  that we’ve been creating an encouragement to anyone who wants to take up kirtana to start chanting. So I notice that more and more regular people are starting practicing chanting, learning harmonium, learning drum and chanting. So that is one contribution we’ve made: to encourage people that you don’t need to be a musician, you can just be a regular old Joe or Lisa and chant, and learn, and enjoy. So that is something that I have seen really booming, growing fast. I like that a lot. The other thing I’ve seen a change in is we really try our best to introduce people to Caitanya Mahaprabhu in a way that helps them understand how vital he is to really getting deep into chanting. We’ve introduced people to the Siksastakam, we’ve introduced people to the story of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and to that deep crying and calling aspect of chanting which is not there so much in some of the light, just fun kirtanas. We are really encouraging people to go deep. That is also something people really resonate with.

Gurunistha: Is that something that’s absent in the rest of the kirtana scene?  Is it more like a big party otherwise?

Gauravani: I think it is a nice opportunity for people to get together. So I think people see it as a replacement for this group singing and chanting which has existed in all cultures of the world, which has just evaporated in western culture. Gathering together to make music is such a vital part of any community, which is gone. So people have used kirtana to replace that, but I think it is just a divine trick of Krishna, of God, to use that to reintroduce chanting. Because of course chanting in not just community music, chanting is reciting these super powerful sounds. So now we’re getting the chance to reintroduce the idea of really, really going deep and crying and calling as part of that experience. The other thing that we have done in New York especially is that we have really tried to encourage everyone to get together from different communities. We are trying not to have it be just Gaudiya chanters, Hare Krishna’s only. We are trying to say oh, you’re from here and you’re from here, lets all do this together. We’ll support you and you’ll support us and we will create a community around chanting.

Gurunistha: That seems to be something that helps other groups appreciate Gaudiyas more.

Gauravani: Sankirtana is our game man, we know all about bringing everyone together and chanting. But the Gaudiyas have a lot to learn from everyone else too. It’s nice, we can learn how to take care of our bodies a little better. We come from this ascetic tradition so we could take care of the body a little better to keep the kirtana going longer. Eating healthy, these things we can learn from all the beautiful yogis and how to do seva, how to keep things as they say in India very “pukka”, keeping things very nice and high class and having everything just right so it attracts the mind as well as the soul. There is so much sharing going on.

I should say that my Guru Maharaja is putting a lot of energy into this center on the Lower Eastside called the Bhakti center. They have a café now and they are doing nice vegan and vegetarian Prasad. We host a lot of the kirtans there, there are yoga classes. So it is a nice place where people from various traditions can come together and just get a very laid back but straight forward Vaisnava experience without so much of the usual associations of a temple or ashram.

Gurunistha: What do you see as the future of kirtan in general and that of Mantralogy?

Gauravani: You are the future of kirtan. I mean that. It was a joke, but I do mean that. Well let’s see what Krishna Caitanya Mahaprabhu have in mind.

Gurunistha: You don’t have any five-year-plans or anything like that?

Gauravani: Actually, I am here in New York for a series of meetings. We are always getting together to rethink this: how are we doing this, how are we doing that; How do we do this right. It’s hard since I am speaking on behalf of a team of people but I’m just one of the team of people. So from my perspective this is how I see it: the grassroots movement of kirtana should really be encouraged to grow. I really want to focus the next five years on putting energy into events like the 24hour kirtana, which are just really about getting together and really chanting and putting our hearts into it, and encouraging others to learn instruments and grow, grow, grow. More people, more opportunities, grow the grassroots side of it. The other thing we will be focusing on is really trying to create the kind of elements that give a subculture life: cool clothing, cool music. Things that people can bring into their “normal” life as a connection to this alter ego that they have, with the ultimate idea of unifying it all under one [persona], “This is who I am. I love kirtana!” So creating clothes that are cool to wear around when your going out or when your with your friends. Also teaching people how to play the instruments and sing the songs and creating good music, cool music they can listen to anytime; creating events that they are excited to go to and they want to bring their friends to and invite other people; create a subculture that will sustain the growth of this – that’s my focus . . .

That, and not pissing anyone else off.

Gurunistha: That’s a tough one!

The following is another installment of our classroom series:

Text two

atyahara prayasaas ca prajalpo niyamagraha jana-sangas ca laulyam ca sadbhir bhaktir vinaasyati

Eating too much or collecting more than necessary, performing extraneous endeavors that are against devotional service, speaking about mundane subject matters, neglecting the injunctions of the scriptures or blindly following scriptural injunctions, associating with mundane people and mental restlessness – these six things destroy devotional service.

Illumination by B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami

Atyahara refers to whatever we collect, and also to feed oneself more than necessary. Whatever I collect, I want a portion of that thing. We are all busily engaged in collecting things for our sense satisfaction. Whatever we shall require, we can transform that into sense pleasure. Generally we fix things in such a way that we can collect the maximum money and with that money we earn some sense pleasure.

Our relationship with this mundane world should not be for sense pleasure, but we should work as much as required to keep this body fit. Money should be utilized not for sense pleasure but to satisfy our duty and the aim of our duty should not be to go downwards again but it will be for the apavarga—crossing these three necessities of life to seek for a higher purpose. Money should help us to discharge our duty and duty should be arranged in such a way that we shall inquire about our self and the environment – “Who am I? Where am I? What is my aim in life? What is real satisfaction?”

jivasya tattva-jijnasa nartho yaas ceha karmabhi

A human being is meant to inquire about the Absolute Truth. Nothing else should be the goal of one’s activities.¹

That is the only requirement for us and that should be our only aim. That should be the object of our life. By amassing money, the real principle is lost. If we are not genuine, then we will be carried away by money towards the exploiting world. Money may be collected, but that must be distributed for the service of the sampradaya, for the service of the Vaishnavas. Amassing money is a sign of deviation.

Generally the devotees should engage themselves in the subjects of the Lord, but in the Gaudiya Matha we find they are handling money, motorcars etc, but for what purpose?

matala hari-jana visaya-range pujala raga-patha gaurava-bhange

It is to show what is the raga-patha. Generally it is thought that one must give up everything and only through internal love worship the Lord—not by external sources. Majesty and reverence are not necessary. But here we are extensively handling the wealth of the outer world. What is the meaning? The meaning is to show that the raga-patha is above all. The position of those that are followers of the raga-patha is very high. They have left everything and are taking the path of worshiping him in their heart. All this grandeur, all reverence, everything should go to serve them. Pujala raga-patha—everything has its fulfillment if it can be connected to worshiping the feet of those that are living in that plane. Majesty, awe, reverence, wealth—everything is only meant to serve those niskincanas who have made the Lord of love and beauty the all in all in their lives. The whole world must learn this for its own welfare, and to teach this to the world, the Gaudiya Matha is handling all these things.

While in Bombay one Bengali gentleman who was an officer in the mint asked me, “You have come to collect money but you are a very rich man.” I told him, “Yes, we say we are rich and we also say that we are beggars. Now we must come to some understanding. You say that we are very rich. Why, because we spend money like water? A man who has got so much money can spend his money like that. An ordinary man would agree that this must be superfluous money; otherwise a beggar would not spend money for such purposes. One who has got millions can throw away thousands for luxurious activities. You think we have got much money. But we say we are beggars with no money. Still we spend money in such a way. Now the question will come whether what we spend will be for a good purpose or a bad one. A doctor may not be wealthy, but he has got a motorcar because he can attend many patients thereby—this is not a luxury. Generally men will think that one who has got a car or a plane must be a moneyman of high order, then only can he keep such things. But for business purposes he may keep such things. A doctor may have many patients he can visit by motorcar. We also use things in that way. You may think that it is superfluous to decorate the Deity, but we think that this is the fulfillment of life. All good things must be used to serve Narayana. That is our creed. Beggars we are, but still we spend money like water—for decoration, for festivals, for distribution of prasadam. We beg money and we spend lavishly, but not for ourselves. We feel the necessity of our particular nature. The real question is how we spend the money, not how much money we have got. We are poor beggars; still we spend money like a rich man. A rich man would be afraid to spend money like that.” Wealth only has its fulfillment in the service of those that are above this monetary world. The greatest goal possible is to worship the Lord and connect Him with this world.

Useless Endeavors

It is mentioned in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu that it is prohibited to endeavor to build temples and all these things on a grand scale.

sanga-tyago vidurena bhagavad-vimukhaira janai asisyady ananuvandhitvam maharambhady anudyamauh

One should keep a distance from those who are averse to the Lord, avoid accepting too many disciples and not be overly enthusiastic about initiating great projects.²

When our Guru Maharaja was delivering lectures on the sixty- four kinds of devotion I marked that this is prohibited in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu but he was doing the same thing. On a big scale he was making propaganda. He was spending money in great quantities to construct temples and other things. That which has been prohibited by Rupa Gosvami, our Guru Maharaja had undertaken all those things. What would he say when this point comes up? He told, “Cut your coat according to your cloth.” This is a point of personal capacity. One man can manage an empire and he may find time for much leisure, and another man cannot even manage his own family of two or five members—the whole time he is engrossed there and becomes mad to manage that family. It is all a question of personal capacity.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written that there are two types of people. One reads and collects many things in the form of advice and understanding but cannot find the gist, the very substance of the thing. The other is the saragrahi who collects the very gist of everything and eliminates the burden. The saragrahi is the highest class of devotee. Externally he may be managing the government and society, but internally perhaps he is a gopi of Vrindavana. There he is another. He is doing his duty. In that way externally he is a king or he is a general. He is fighting. Such a double function one may have sometimes. In Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s Bengali translation of this verse from Upadeasamrta he says, visaya-prayasa, which means a false errand, an enthusiastic attempt for something undesirable. To prefer a life of devouring each other and disturbing each other, that is undesirable. That is maya.

dvau bhuta-sargau loke’smin daiva asura eva ca visnu-bhakta smrto daiva asuras tad-viparyaya

There are two kinds of created beings in this world, godly and demoniac. Those dedicated to the devotional service of Lord Vishnu are godly, and those opposed to such service are demoniac.³

This is in Vishnu Purana. And in Gita:

dvau bhuta-sargau loke’smin daiva asura eva ca daivo vistaraasa prokta asuram partha me asrnu

O Partha, there are two types of people born into this world – the divine and the diabolical. I have described the divine in detail. Now listen to Me as I describe the diabolical.⁴

Asura means struggling for closer bondage, and deva means struggling towards the right direction. There are two sections struggling here – one towards the positive, the other towards the negative. To make oneself big at the cost of others is a concocted illusory line. Everyone is struggling to become big but that is an illusion – that ‘big’ is not really big. Real bigness is on the other side. To become big is easy. “I am a big man, I have something to be proud of.” But to accept that we are nothing in the face of the Absolute, to accept this creed in its true color, is very difficult.

The Vaisnava is also struggling, but to be reinstated into a harmonious life. That should be known here – all should struggle to be reinstated into the real harmony of the whole. Sincerely we should pray to the Lord, and we will find his help in no time. Then, in our innermost hearts, we shall find our connection with the fundamental plane of loving service to the Sweet Absolute. Then we shall find that the Lord of love is Krishna, the beautiful reality.

When a beginner is trying to conquer his senses, at that time he cannot avoid struggle. Progress means struggle of different types. Generally the time of trouble begins at the stage of the madhyama-adhikari. At the lower stage of the kanistha-adhikari, one does not measure how much devotion he is getting or not. With a peaceful mind he is engaged in arcana etc. But at the madhyama-adhikari stage, a real struggle begins in ones life. How to adjust—not only as advised by the scriptures, but also our social position, our relationship with the world, with the society, with education etc. The tendency to preach for propaganda comes at this stage. The madhyama-adhikari wants to extend himself and remove the difficulties in his environment and tries to convert the environment for that purpose. The madhyama-adhikari is a life of struggle and when he reaches the stage of uttama- adhikari, then he becomes peaceful in life. He sees everywhere that things are going well according to the will of Krishna. Very easily he can see the will of Krishna everywhere, so he has not much to struggle for. But when living in this ignorant plane of misconception, he acquires harmony by seeing both things – maya, and Isvara. He wants to install God consciousness, and he tries his hardest to remove the misconceptions. That is a period of struggle. Sadhana-dasa—this stage is full of struggle. Then when he comes to the stage of apana-dasa, he feels peaceful in bhava-bhakti and then prema-bhakti.

But there is again another struggle when he is already in lila. That is in another plane. In Vrindavana there is also competition, there is also struggle. Yasoda will think how to control this naughty child, “I failed. I can’t manage him.” In this way there is some sort of a struggle, but that is produced by yogamaya. Prema-bhakti is also dynamic in character, not static. Where there is something dynamic, there is some struggle. The competition is there. There is a play in the sakhya-rasa, two parties—one party wants to conquer another party. One says Krishna, another says Balarama. That is also a struggle. But that is purely of another type; that is transcendental play. And in madhurya-rasa also there are several parties – Radharani’s party, Candravali’s party, so many parties there are. And the servitors of every party are to manage for their own interest, the interest of their mistress.

That type of dynamic character means some sort of struggle, a sweet struggle. And here in this plane it is bitter. Here we have to struggle to remove the nescience and to invite pure knowledge. This struggle is a little bitter – not only that, it is tasteless and painful sometimes. But when we enter that higher arena, the struggle becomes more sweet. Lila means a sort of struggle.

1. Bhag. 1.2.10
2. BRS. 1.2.78
3. Vishnu Purana
4. Gita. 16.6

Q. I have heard that Krishna’s sister Subhadra is a form of Laxmi Devi, the goddess of fortune and consort of Narayana. Is this correct and can you tell me more about her?

A. Regarding Krishna’s sister, she is named Subhadra and thus her name indicates that she is active in two realms. Bhadra (auspicious) refers to her presiding over the material energy, as demonstrated when she exhibited this form to Kamsa (Bhadra Kali). Su (very) refers to her higher side as a form of Yogamaya, in which she presides over Krishna lila by making very auspicious arrangements to facilitate the will of Sri Krishna.

In the lila she married Arjuna. In terms of her representing the goddess of the material energy, she is Siva’s consort. As Yogamaya behind the scenes in Krishna lila, she is unmarried. Purnamasi and Vrinda-devi are her overt manifestations in the Vraja lila and neither of them are really married (as portrayed by Sri Jiva Goswami). To identify her with Laxmi is a bit of a stretch, but she is a goddess and she does bring good fortune.

Q. What is the connection between Krishna’s consort Srimati Radharani and Vrinda devi (Tulasi)?

A. Sri Jiva Goswami describes Vrinda devi as a forest nymph named Vrindarika, known by the nickname “Vrinda.” Purnamasi introduced her and Madhumangala to Krishna one after the other. As she placed Madhumangala’s hand in Krishna’s hand, Purnamasi told Krishna to keep the company of Madhumangala and thus make his life auspicious. Understanding that Madhumangala would bring the essence of joy to his lila, Krishna looked carefully at him and then embraced him sealing their eternal friendship. Vrinda was introduced and ordered by Purnamasi from that day forward to move about in service to Krishna at all times with great attention. Krishna then garlanded Vrinda and felt greatly encouraged by the prospect of her participation in his life.

Vrinda is possessed of affection and love for both Radha and Krishna, but Sri Rupa Goswami describes her as one of Krishna’s gopi messengers. She is well acquainted with the sacred geography of Vraja and overall her service is similar and related to that of Yogamaya. She is sometimes referred to as Krishna’s “lila shakti.”

Q. The Srimad-Bhagavatam describes Krishna’s pastimes with the cowherd girls (gopis) and in one place says that Krishna’s brother Balarama was romantic with the gopis as well. The text reads as though Krishna and Balarama were involved with the same gopis but the commentary to verse 10.65.17, which cites Sridhara Swami, Jiva Goswami, and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, states that this was not the case.

The question I have is why couldn’t Balarama, being an expansion of Krishna and thus the same divine person (God), also enjoy pastimes with Krishna’s gopis? Krishna and Balarama are one, so what could be wrong with this? Couldn’t the acaryas have commented as they did simply because an uninitiated reader of the Bhagavatam might consider it improper for Krishna and Balarama to be romantic with the same gopis?

A. Balarama is an expansion of Krishna, so in this sense they are one, but this does not override the fact that the two are emotionally different. Their emotional difference is vital, as Krishna’s play (lila), fueled as it is by divine love/bhava, thrives on difference. The bheda, or difference, in Sri Caitanya’s metanarrative of acintya bhedabheda (inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference) gives rise to lila. Thus Balarama is not one with Krishna in the sense that in his absence Balarama can substitute for him as Radha’s lover. Indeed, Balarama is respected by Radha as Krishna’s elder brother so she is not even romantic with Krishna in Balarama’s presence out of deference to him.  Thus knowing the truths that govern rasananda—rasa-tattva—the Goswamis have pointed out how the Bhagavatam does not say what it may appear to say on its surface. The Goswamis are revealing the feeling of the text as they understand its implications even better than its author Vyasa did—vyaso vetti na vetti va.

However, the text of the Bhagavatam itself depicts the relationship between Balarama and Krishna’s gopis as mutually reverential, rama-sandarsanadrtah. This is quite different from the spirit of their relationship with Krishna, and it prohibits the possibility of an intimate relationship between Balarama and Krishna’s gopis, who by love’s law were already married to Krishna. As for the paramour nature of their relationship with Krishna, there is no question of complicating it further by putting Balarama in the mix!

Earlier Krishna sent Uddhava to represent him and deliver a message to the gopis, but Uddhava had no experience of Vraja bhakti. Thus he could not convey Krishna’s heart to the Vraja sundaris. He explained philosophy to them and became bewildered by their bhava, srutibhir vimrigyam. As they unpacked the actual significance of Krishna message that Uddhava delivered, he himself became unglued by its implications. Thus after seeing what happened to Uddhava, Krishna sent Balarama to speak to the gopis to make sure that his heart message was conveyed. Balarama is most faithful to Krishna, and Balarama knows Krishna’s heart much better than Uddhava does. Balarama is a Vrajavasi, and therefore he knows what Vraja bhava is.

Thus Balarama expressed Krishna’s heart to the gopis and pacified them with the assurance that Krishna would return in a week’s time. His relationship with Krishna’s gopis is one of representing his brother faithfully, as Lakshman represented Ramachandra and never imagined enjoying Sita himself. After delivering Krishna’s message and pacifying the gopis to an extent, Balarama, following Krishna’s order to him before he left Dvaraka, pursued the marriage of another group of younger gopis who did not participate in rasa lila with Krishna. After getting the permission of the elders, Balarama married them without an overt celebration due to Krishna not being present to participate, his greatest joy being the pleasure of his younger brother, in separation from whom Balarama is not entirely himself. Balarama’s gopis are the gopis Krishna refers to in his eulogy of Balarama in the Bhagavatam‘s tenth canto, kurvanti gopya iva te priyam iksanena. Balarama danced with these gopis earlier in the springtime during Holi celebrations when Krishna killed Sankhachuda.

Balarama’s relationship with his gopis is one of maryada, not raga. The raga of Balarama is his sakhya reality, his friendly love for Krishna. He is Krishna’s best friend, and it is this higher aspect of Balarama that the Goswamis have focused on and opened a window to for all of us to view. This view shows Balarama in the best possible light. If we are to pursue love of Balarama, we shall pursue love of Krishna-Balarama, sambandhanuga raganuga bhakti.

There is no kamanuga with Balarama as there is with Krishna. He does not directly participate in parakiya-bhava. The secrets of his marriage to other gopis related above aside, his principal wives known to all are Revati and Vasudha in Dvaraka. He is well known for his marriage to these two. And again, this is not parakiya or kamanuga. It is ruled by maryada.

While it is true that Balarama manfests his sakti as Ananga-manjari, the younger sister of Radha, Ananga-manjari is not Balarama’s consort in Vraja. He is one with her in tattva in as much as sakti and its source saktiman are one, but the two are very different in bhava. Radha and Krishna are also one in this sense, but they are more importantly different. If they were not different but rather one in all respects–if Krishna as Radha (his sakti) fully tasted the mahabhava of parakiya–there would be no need for Sri Caitanya. Therefore, in Nityananda Rama’s lineage it is only Jahnava, a representation of Ananga-manjari in Gaura lila, who distributes parakiya-bhava, while Nityananda Rama himself distributes sakhya rasa. That said, it is of course also a fact that no one can taste parakiya-bhava without the blessing of Nityananda Rama—ara kabe nitaicand karuna karibe samsara vasana mora kabe tuccha ha’be.

The three young men—perhaps eighteen years old—huddled closely, speaking in whispers as they gestured towards the life-sized diorama. One shook his head while stifling a laugh amidst a playful, but hushed debate. The boys were gathered in front of a model of samsara, depicting the movement of the individual soul through a growing, maturing, and aging human body. Readying a rusty Bhagavad-Gita sloka and rustling up a bit of boldness, I inserted myself into the conversation and pointed decisively towards the figure that I thought best corresponded with the young men’s relative youth. I then, with a self-deprecating roll of the eyes, gestured to the more mature figure that might represent me.

Although I had done little more than extend a finger in the direction of some resin statues, I suddenly had a rapt audience. Not insignificantly, I was also a Caucasian westerner who had traveled all over these young people’s country of India, and who seemed (to the group’s collective amazement) to also know something of the philosophy underlying the fairly crude tableau that served as a backdrop for our meeting.

One of the men asked, “You have this [philosophy] in the USA?” I replied, with a hint of pride, that not only did we have the philosophy, but for several decades we have also had – in nearly every major city – deity forms that are only beginning to manifest in this particular region of India.

Not one to dominate a conversation, I asked my new acquaintances about their ambitions, schooling, and hometown. And not to my surprise, this group wanted just about everything that, at least on some level, characterized my life back in the U.S. Indeed, what eighteen-year-old in India is not excited by the economic developments in that country, new prospects for mobility of all kinds, and the demise of some of the most stringent socio-religious norms?

When I was younger, I might have cautioned this same group: “You won’t know what India is losing in its pursuit of ‘progress’ until it’s gone. Trust me. I’m an American. The west is a hellish place.” For various reasons, I did not conclude my interactions with this small but impressionable audience by issuing a grim prophesy. Rather, I wished them the best and took my leave with folded hands and a smile.

As I made my way onto the grounds of the architecturally staggering Radha-Krishna temple, I contemplated why I didn’t use my impromptu “authority” to decisively win those boys over on philosophical grounds. Did I lack faith? Has the intensity of my personal convictions waned? The group spoke reasonable English. I could have dropped the philosophical hammer and practically ensured that my new charges left the temple complex with no fewer than ten books and several meters of tulasi beads between them.

The more I reflected on that meeting, however, the less I worried about what I’d said (or didn’t say). I instead thought about the profound differences between the diffusion of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy in the West and its diffusion in countries that are striving—in nearly every way—to become like the West in terms of standard of living, sophistication, and social character. That latter group of countries, although often imbued with a cultural richness, traditional set of values, and general moral turpitude long ago forfeited by the West, also embrace some ideas and beliefs that will not endure the tide of Western influence. That tide will dislodge things both good and much less good, as new and often well-reasoned information about history, psychology, and biology crashes into worldviews based on more ancient means of knowing.

In the meantime, however, outreach efforts by Gaudiya groups across the planet appear to have flourished in places that have not yet been exposed to the full face of powerful alternative views from academic disciplines and social movements. Such positions are not so easily brushed aside with a casual wave of the hand and a simple retort. But for the moment, even with little in the way of actual realization or expertise on my part, I probably had enough philosophical firepower in the holster (made credible by my unusual appearance among Indians) to leave a long-lasting, if not transformative impression.  Something about doing so, however, felt disingenuous. I moved on.

I haggled for an auto rickshaw outside the temple complex. As luck would have it, I negotiated a ride with a young driver who gave me a break on the price, perhaps in exchange for my (somewhat feigned) appreciation of his auto’s sound system and dance-club interior lighting. The pulse of deep bass from the vehicle was like the restless heartbeat of the young man in the driver’s seat. Although performing a humble job, he seemed to be looking to the future with optimism, rather than to the past with reverence.

Tearing through the city on three wheels, I realized how long it had been since I’d actually shared something direct about Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy with a complete stranger, what to speak of with teenagers who, in America, constitute one of the more challenging demographics. I thought about what it would take to effectively share that deceptively simple point, “kaumaram yauvanam jara,” with worldly, educated, and reason-demanding people. Could I do it? Would I sound genuine and relatable? Do I possess the vocabulary? The answer, I’m afraid, was an emphatic “No.”

Yet moments before, perhaps I could have convinced my small congregation of the fallacy of the entire scientific paradigm and compellingly put forward the precise formula for skirting the influence of Kali Yuga. (All with one hand bound securely in my bead bag, no less!)

The issue began to take shape as my rickshaw wove through traditional obstacles like cows, careened past new threats like passenger cars, and negotiated new nuisances like pedestrians engrossed by their mobile phones. To share Gaudiya Vaishnavism in a way that will resonate with a world that is reaping the fruits (some ripe, some spoiled) of reason and science necessitates an understanding of the essential spirituality that serves as the tradition’s basis. It necessitates the development of a language and supporting realization that allows one to talk to (and sympathetically hear from) his or her own contemporaries. It requires that one come to terms with the worldview of the present, and from there to discern a point of entry. This is much more difficult than conquering three eighteen-year-olds with one’s relative worldliness and seniority, or charming them with a few carefully chosen barbs flung at the west.

As the towering temple receded into the distance, I recognized that I had not yet reached the threshold of realization required for sharing something important to me in a way that will matter and make sense to those in my immediate world. And I didn’t want to put forward anything less to those three young men at the temple. They (and I) will ultimately need to develop a firm, yet flexible faith that can deal with—rather than flatly deny—the intellectual and other challenges that arise as science- and reason-driven perspectives come to dominate.

In light of that almost inevitable dominance, I chose (and choose) to focus on Gaudiya Vaishnavism’s capacity to effectively respond to, accommodate, and even embrace new information and change. The application, potential appeal, and transformative power of the tradition are not tied to any place, to any time, or to any phase in any culture’s trajectory. Rather it is a participatory tradition, the relevance and essence of which is perpetuated in the hearts of the true sadhus and acaryas who inherit, process, and—after some time—share something very old, anew. I recognize, too, that I need to become an active agent in that process of realization and renewal, rather than someone who mechanically passes on a few foreign words, to a few foreign people.

By Bhrigupada dasa

There is widespread confusion in the Western Gaudiya Vaishnava world concerning the term adhikari. Adhikari(n) refers to a person with adhikara, qualification or eligibility, for some specific task. In Hari-bhakti-vilasa, for instance, the treatment of every vrata, or vow, is prefaced by a discussion of what persons have the adhikara to perform that specific vrata, or in other words, who are adhikaris for it. There is nothing particularly Gaudiya about this use of the words adhikara and adhikari; it follows a long-established tradition of scriptural exegesis. Rather, the confusion arises in comparing two sections of the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu (1.2.14–19, echoed in Chaitanya-caritamrita 2.22.64–69) and Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.2.45–47).

In the first of these two sections, Srila Rupa Goswami discusses the question of eligibility for treading the path of vaidhi-sadhana-bhakti, or devotional practice following scriptural regulations. After first stating and scripturally proving that anyone who has the good fortune to have faith in serving the Lord and who is not too attached or detached from the world is qualified (adhikari) for bhakti, Sri Rupa further subdivides this qualification into three grades. One who is expert in both the scriptures and in logical reasoning, and who has unwavering and strong faith in bhakti, is most qualified (uttama-adhikari). Qualified to the middle degree (madhyama-adhikari) is one who has faith but less knowledge of scripture, least qualified (kanistha-adhikari) is one who has weak faith.

Now, Indic authors love classifications. When Patañjali states that there are three types of ardent desire for yogic practice (Yoga-sutra 1.22)—mild, moderate, or intense—the commentator Vyasa is quick to point out that these can further be subdivided into mildly mild, moderately mild, intensely mild, and so on! But apart from this, what is Rupa Goswami’s point in dividing qualified people into three classes, if the bottom line is that faith in the scriptures in general gives one qualification?

Though not explicitly stated in the text, I believe the main reason is to explain the differences in how different devotees progress on their path. Even though following exactly the same practices, two persons may progress differently based on the faith they begin with.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura hints at another answer in elaborating on this division of qualification for bhakti in the introduction to his famous Krishna-samhita. In keeping with the modernist spirit of the Bengali Renaissance, he defines the faith of the least qualified (kanistha-adhikari) as an unquestioning understanding of only the external meaning of the scripture. The middle qualified (madhyama-adhikari) tries to connect faith with reasoning, but is plagued by doubts and uncertainty, while the most qualified (uttama-adhikari) is expert at connecting faith and reason. Understanding this division of people qualified for bhakti, expert teachers modify their teachings to suit their audience the best. When speaking to kanistha-adhikaris, the teacher will be careful not to upset their tender faith by questioning the literal meaning of the scriptures, while when teaching madhyama-adhikaris he will be able to accommodate other viewpoints as well.

While Bhaktivinoda’s explanation may not be accepted by all modern Gaudiya Vaishnavas, it is hardly incompatible with Srila Rupa Goswami’s basic definition. The confusion arises when that is compared to the definition of three kinds of devotees (bhagavatas) in the eleventh canto of the Shrimad-Bhagavatam.

The passage in question is part of a discussion between King Nimi and the sage Havi. Havi has been glorifying the devotees of the Lord, after which Nimi asks him to speak in more detail about these devotees, or bhagavatas. Havi replies by first dividing the bhagavatas into three classes. The topmost bhagavata (bhagavata-uttama) sees the Lord in everyone and everyone in the Lord. The middling (madhyama) bhagavata shows love, friendship, mercy, and disregard to the Lord, his devotees, innocent people and the envious, respectively. The materialistic (prakrita) devotee, in turn, has faith in the sacred image of God and in his worship, but not in his devotees or in others. The division here, then, is not one of faith, but one of pervasiveness of vision of God. While the topmost devotee sees God in everyone, the middling devotee discriminates between different types of people, and the lowest grade, or materialistic, devotee sees the Lord only in his image. That the topmost devotee is the focus of the text is evident by the fact that the section ends with seven more verses in glorification of him or her.

What is the point of this classification, then? First, to show that the best devotees may not be the ones that explicitly look like good devotees. Rather than properly following all the rules and regulations of image worship, they may wander the world like tramps. Secondly, it functions as a road-map for devotees, which they may use to see whether they are progressing on the path or not.

This classification is thus not compatible with that of Rupa Goswami’s. While both use the terms superior, middle, and inferior (uttama, madhyama, and kanistha, though the last term is only implied in the Bhagavatam), they describe altogether different things. This is evident from the fact that neither Rupa Goswami or any of his commentators quote these Bhagavatam verses in this context of the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. The Bhagavata verses, in turn, never once use the word adhikari, though for some reason the word is used in the BBT translation.

Even so, are these two passages not in essence both about faith, thus justifying the use of the word adhikari for both? Yes and no. Yes, one could say that the larger vision of the uttama-bhagavatas is caused by their deeper faith, but no, that does not make them eligible (adhikari) for vaidhi-sadhana-bhakti—such devotees has already passed far beyond this kind of devotion, swimming as they are among the waves of prema-bhakti. The best example of the uttama-bhagavatas in the Bhagavatam is of course the gopis madly seeing Krishna everywhere in their anguished search for him before the rasa dance. Saying that they have now become supremely qualified for beginning their path of devotion would not only be ludicrous, it would be downright offensive.

Kurt Gödel, the preeminent mathematical logician of the twentieth century, is best known for his celebrated Incompleteness Theorems; yet he also had a profound rational theology worthy of serious consideration. “The world is rational,” (Wang, 1996: 316) asserted Gödel, evoking philosophical theism, “according to which the order of the world reflects the order of the supreme mind governing it” (Yourgrau, 2005: 104-105).

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems are an “extraordinary comment on the relationship between the mission of mathematics and the manner in which it formulates its deductions” (Mazur, 2006: 3-4). They have been interpreted as a limitation on rationality, since a possible semantics for the results is that, in any axiomatic and consistent system capable of doing arithmetic, there are truths that cannot be proved within the system. This has very profound philosophical implications that shattered the hopes of many a previous mathematician and philosopher, including thinkers of the stature of David Hilbert, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Frustration notwithstanding, “[Gödel’s] works on the limits of logic have inspired awe, respect, endless development and speculation among mathematicians, and indeed among all theoretical scientists” (Davis, 2002: 22).

Among the theoretical scientists influenced by Gödel was his friend Albert Einstein. Between the years 1940 and 1955 they developed an intimate relationship as colleagues at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. According to colleague Oskar Morgenstern, the co-founder of Game Theory, when Einstein had lost enthusiasm for his own work, he went to his office “just to have the privilege of walking home with Kurt Gödel” (Wang, 1996: 57). Indeed, according to Institute colleague and physicist Freeman Dyson (the discoverer of combinatorial proofs of Ramanujan’s famous partition identities), Gödel was “the only one who walked and talked on equal terms with Einstein” (Dyson, 1993: 161). However, I would argue that Gödel’s intellect was in many ways subtler than Einstein’s, in philosophy and perhaps even in physics.

God and Gödel

As his correspondence with Burke D. Grandjean attests, Gödel was a self-confessed theist, going as far as developing an ontological argument in an attempt to prove the existence of God. He chose the framework of modal logic, a useful formal language for proof theory, which also has important applications in computer science (Blackburn, de Rijke & Venema, 2001). This logic is the study of the deductive behavior of the expressions ‘it is necessary that’ and ‘it is possible that,’ which arise frequently in ordinary (philosophical) language. However, according to his biographer John Dawson, he never published his ontological argument for fear of ridicule by his peers.

An important aspect of Gödel’s theology – one that has been greatly overlooked by those studying his works – is that not only was he a theist but a personalist; not a pantheist as some apologetic thinkers may portray him. To be precise, he rejected the notion that God was impersonal, as God was for Einstein. Einstein believed in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men” (Einstein, 1929). Gödel in turn thought “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person” (Wang, 1996: 152). This is significant since a god who lacks the ability to “play the role of a person” would obviously lack the property of omnipotence and thus violate a defining property universally accepted as pertaining to God. Therefore if God existed, reasoned Gödel, then He must at least be able to play the role of a person. The question for Gödel was how to determine the truth value of the antecedent in the previous statement.

A relevant issue in Gödel’s discussions on the Divine with Einstein is his mention of “Indian philosophy.” Gödel considers Spinoza’s concept of God and the “Indian” concept to be in the same category, which is not a correct understanding of these notions. Spinoza’s stance on God is impersonal, akin to Śankaracarya’s monism (c. 788-820 CE). Unfortunately, although familiar with such Indian theological view, Gödel was apparently unaware of the philosophical conclusions of Ramanujacarya (1017-1137 CE) and Madhavacarya (1238-1317 CE), who would also reject Spinoza’s god. The rejection comes not because they deny God’s presence in all that exists, but because such view is considered subservient to one in which a personal relationship with the Supreme can be established and nurtured. Taking omnipotence seriously, “playing the role of a person” is one of God’s unlimited potencies which these sages do not compromise in their theology.

Certainly, Gödel was also unaware of the philosophy of Caitanya Mahāprabhu (1486-1534 CE), who follows Ramanujācārya and Madhavācārya in the essential points. However, the detailed description and practice of divine love in service of puruṣottama – devotional service to the Supreme Person – given by Caitanya Mahāprabhu and his followers arguably make this a subtler and more revealing theology than those presented by his predecessors. In it Gödel would have found his theological conclusions realized in completion five centuries earlier.

Gödel’s Philosophy of Physics

In physics, Gödel’s contributions are well-known. However, physics was not a detour Gödel took to amuse himself, but rather an essential part of his philosophical fabric. In 1949 Gödel expressed his ideas in an essay that in Einstein’s own words, “constitutes […] an important contribution to the general theory of relativity, especially to the analysis of the concept of time” (Schilpp, 1949: 687). Unfortunately, even with Einstein’s high estimation of Gödel’s work, modern physicists have been wont to discard Gödel’s ideas, trying (without success) to find an error in his physics (Yourgrau, 2005: 7-8). Gödel’s unsuspected solutions to the field equations of general relativity, solutions in which time undergoes a peculiar transformation, made the discussion of time-travel respectable in scientific circles. In fact, Gödel concluded that time travel is indeed theoretically possible, rendering time, as we know it, meaningless. Time, “that mysterious and seemingly self-contradictory being,” as Gödel put it, “which, on the other hand, seems to form the basis of the world’s and our own existence,” turned out in the end to be the world’s greatest illusion (Yourgrau, 2005: 111). For Gödel, time was a crucial philosophical question, but I am unaware of any direct connection Gödel might have made between time and God. However, his belief in the afterlife might give some insight into how he understood the relationship between them.

Gödel expressed his belief in the hereafter in the following terms, “I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife” (Davis, 2002: 22). “His arguments were, as always, rationally based on the principle that the world and everything in it has meaning, or reasons. This is closely related to the causality principle that underlies all of science: Everything has a cause, and events don’t just ‘happen’” (Casti & DePauli, 2000: 87).

Mathematics, Science, and Faith

An ultra-rationalist like Gödel was a theist, a personalist and a believer in the afterlife, and appealed to reason as his witness. Atheists and agnostics usually portray their philosophy as rational, discarding the theist conclusion as a mere psychological refuge of the ignorant or self-deceiving. Nevertheless, ultra-rational thinkers like Gödel, Leibniz, and Descartes have reached the theist conclusion. Is there an apparent disconnect between rational thinkers and rational thought, or is it that the theists’ view is the rational conclusion, even if often embraced by fanatics in unimaginably irrational ways?

An objector may argue that science and mathematics are outside the realm of faith, where theology may belong. However, a closer look at the foundations of physics and mathematics, as well as to the history of these subjects, seems to yield a different conclusion. This closer look reveals a delicate membrane that conjoins these experiences: Faith. This is the greatest common denominator of science, mathematics, and theology.

Consider the nature of axioms in any formal system, including mathematical systems. Once the axioms have been chosen, the accepted rules of inference can potentially be entered into a computer to verify the validity of any argument, but the axioms themselves are arbitrary. For instance, the now-indispensable Axiom of Choice has troubled many mathematicians since it was formulated by Ernst Zermelo in 1904. In addition, the elimination of the parallel lines postulate in Euclid’s rendition of geometry has given rise to other geometries. One of these geometries, hyperbolic geometry, finds an important application in the theory of relativity.

Axioms may be useful, but there is no inherent truth in them. Changing them alters the system and the true sentences produced by such a system. If we consider that at present all that mathematicians have are “axiom systems for which no one can give a convincing demonstration of consistency,” the situation turns even more discouraging (Nelson, 2002: 5). Certainly, this is not the way most mathematicians do mathematics, but the belief that one should at least be able to theoretically place any mathematical statement within the framework of a formal system is sacredly held by the majority of mathematicians.

Furthermore, many thinkers believe that mathematics is the most certain means of acquisition of knowledge, the consecrated pinnacle of intellectuality. “This misperception leads to such embarrassments as the pseudo-Euclidean form Spinoza gave to his Ethics. These writers are too pedestrian in their view of mathematics and yet they give us too much credit” (Nelson, 2002: 5). “Why do we mathematicians, makers like poets and musicians, describe what we do as discovery rather than invention? This is the Pythagorean religion” (Nelson, 1995: 3). According to Edward Nelson, most mathematicians are devout followers of this religion, although they attribute it to Plato, born over fifty years after Pythagoras’ death.

Moreover, faith plays a vital role in science as well. When considering the nature of energy and matter, the laws of physics are taken as axiomatic. Certainly, if we believe “the world is rational” and imbued with inherent order, as Gödel did, then taking the laws of physics as axiomatic might be acceptable; yet, as in theology, faith remains a preliminary step to understanding.

Many scientists would argue that even though they cannot completely (or partially) explain the origin of the universe – or the origin of life, or the nature of consciousness, or the nature of time – the answers would certainly not involve God. They have placed their faith in their cognitive processes and in their colleagues. They submit to those authorities; but faith they have, nonetheless.

If we define faith as “belief based on the authority of the information source,” be it Scripture, scientists, a friend, a teacher, a digital picture, a DNA test, our own cognition and experiences, or even politicians (for the really insane), we will realize that faith plays an essential role in the development (or destruction) of knowledge. Why is it acceptable in science and mathematics to have faith, not only in the axioms or laws of nature, but also in the peer-review process and the causality principle, while faith in the religious realm is viewed as superstitious at best? As Gödel states, “Religions are, for the most part, bad, but religion is not” (Wang, 1996: 316).

George Berkeley had already questioned this attitude in 1734. In The Analyst he wrote:

Whether Mathematicians, who are so delicate in religious Points, are strictly scrupulous in their own Science? Whether they do not submit to Authority, take things upon Trust, and believe Points inconceivable? Whether they have not their Mysteries, and what is more, their Repugnancies and Contradictions?

Perhaps, not being a mathematician himself, Berkeley was considered “too pedestrian” in his view of mathematics, which accounted for the dismissal of his ideas. To counter similar objections, rational theists have tried to justify their beliefs by submitting to the accepted rules of inference. However, one may argue that “[i]nferential arguments are employed in a case where the existence of the thing to be inferred is considered of doubtful character” (Sinha, 1999: 5). Yet, as remarked by Ludwig Wittgenstein, a philosophical antagonist of Gödel’s, those who want to provide an intellectual basis for theism furnish arguments in favor of the existence of God, although their actual belief is not based on the argument itself (Davis, 2002: 22). Besides, the experience of the divine might well be one of the limitations of rationality.

Gödel’s Ontological Argument

Gödel’s ontological argument, like most ontological arguments, is based on St. Anselm’s eleventh century work Proslogion. Anselm defines God as “that thing which nothing greater can be thought” (Small, 2006: 16).  He asserts that even the atheist would agree that God’s existence is possible, but that such existence is simply a contingent falsehood. (Small, 2006: 16). Just as Michelangelo must have envisioned his David before metamorphosing marble, the atheist might argue that he can conceive of a world in which God exists even if that world is not the true world.

In the seventeenth century, René Descartes, using an analogy with Euclidean geometry, followed in St. Anselm’s footsteps. In the Fifth Meditation, Descartes furthers the claim that “there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum up to 180 degrees. Hence, […] since we do not conceive a supremely perfect being – we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being – we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists” (Oppy, 2002). (Ironically, in non-Euclidian geometries the interior angles of triangles do not sum up to 180 degrees.)

In the eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz, co-creator along with Isaac Newton of the Calculus, attempted to improve Descartes’ argument. He asserted that Descartes’ argument fails unless one first shows that it is possible for a supremely perfect being to exist. Leibniz argued that, since perfections cannot be analyzed objectively, it is impossible to demonstrate that perfections are incompatible – and he concluded that all perfections can co-exist in a single entity, namely, God (Oppy, 2002).

This is the intellectual and historical framework Gödel used to devise his ideas. He admired Leibniz and attempted to improve on his ontological argument. Some have questioned the validity of the underlying modal logic, while others have objected to his set of axioms and definitions. That is all they can do to the Gödelian argument since they cannot find fault with his flawless reasoning. Some objectors adhere to Immanuel Kant’s position, who in the eighteenth century argued against ontological arguments in general stating that existence is not a predicate. That is, existence is not a property of individuals in the same way being blue or strong is; hence, existence cannot be proved (Small, 2006: 18). Perhaps the argument holds in propositional logic – the underlying logic of mathematics – but the argument certainly fails in modal logic.

Gödel’s argument, even if sound, does not settle the question of a personal God, which was part of Gödel’s ethos. Neither does it address the question of uniqueness, at least up to isomorphism. Nonetheless, even if his argument is not accepted as a proof because of the questionability of the axioms chosen, it still suggests a via positiva to understanding the idea of God rationally (Small, 2006: 28).

Conclusion

“However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them” (Oppy, 2002). Yet, “[t]hose who find the assumptions of the ontological argument suspicious should ask themselves whether their suspicion is based […] on an unwillingness to accept the conclusion of the argument” (Small, 2003: 25). Likewise, those in favor of the argument should ponder whether they have been lenient in their philosophical rigor. Ultimately, however, existence is independent of belief. We may argue for eternity whether God exists or not and it will not affect God’s existence. However, it may affect ours.

We should not be naïve and think we can convince any purportedly rational being to accept theism. In spite of all our efforts in attempting to rationally prove the existence of God, we must agree that we may fail to convince even a single obstinate atheist shrouding his arguments with scientific or philosophical jargon. What is remarkable about Gödel’s theological inclinations is that whereas “ninety percent of philosophers these days consider it the business of philosophy to knock religion out of people’s heads,” said Gödel (Wang, 1996: 152), “he exploited the machinery of modern logic to reconstruct Leibniz’s ontological argument” (Yourgrau, 2005: 13).

Blaise Pascal, fundamental in the development of probability theory, might induce them to reconsider their position with his famed wager published in 1670:

God is or He is not. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in selecting ‘God is.’ If you win, you win all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Therefore, bet unhesitatingly that He is. (Pensées)

Hence, as an exponent of theism, Gödel is sempiternally victorious.

References

P. Blackburn, M. de Rijke & Y. Venema, “Modal Logic”, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Theretical Traces in Computer Science, 2001.

John L. Casti & Werner DePauli, “Gödel: A Life of Logic”, New York, Basic Books, 2000.

Philip J. Davis, “A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology”, Humanistic Mathematics Journal 26, 19-24, June 2002. Quotes follow the paging of the online version available at http://www2.hmc.edu/www_common/hmnj/davis2brieflook1and2.pdf

Freeman Dyson, “From Eros to Gaia”, New York, Penguin Books, 1993.

Albert Einstein, Telegram to New York’s Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, April 24, 1929.

Barry Mazur, “When is One Thing Equal to Another Thing?” http://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/, 2006.

Edward Nelson, “Confessions of an Apostate Mathematician”, http://www.math.princeton.edu/%7Enelson/, 1995.

Edward Nelson, “Mathematics and Faith”, http://www.math.princeton.edu/%7Enelson/, 2002.

Graham Oppy, “Ontological Arguments”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/, 2002.

Paul A. Schilpp, “Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist”, La Salle, IL, Open Court, 1949.

Bhaswati Sinha, “Nyāyakusumāñjali: Hindu Rational Enquiry into the Existence of God”, New Delhi, Aryan Books International, 1999.

Christopher G. Small, “Kurt Gödel’s Ontological Argument” http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html/, 2006.

Christopher G. Small, “Reflections on Gödel’s Ontological Argument”, Klarheit in Religionsdingen, edited by Wolfgang Deppert and Michael Rahnfeld, Grundlagen unserer Zeit Band III, Leipziger Universitatsverlag, Leipzig, 109-144, 2003. Available online at http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/Godel.final.revision.PDF/. My quotes follow the numbering of the pages in this version.

Hao Wang, “A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy”, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 1996.

Palle Yourgrau, “A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein”, New York, Basic Books, 2005.

_______________________________

This article originally appeared on metanexus.net.

Although it would be nice to show up for a morning meeting with tilak on, conduct bhoga-arati at one’s desk, and circumambulate the office cubicles during an afternoon japa walk, the reality is that outward displays of religiosity are not welcomed in most work environments.

Indeed, speaking overtly about yuga-dharma, berating the boss’s egg-filled birthday cake, or recording the maha-mantra on the company’s answering machine are but a few things that could prompt a quick demotion or firing.  While these examples may be a bit far-fetched, devotees who work full time know that even more subtle expressions of spiritual life in the workplace can raise eyebrows. However, whether an eyebrow is raised suspiciously or, by contrast, inquisitively and favorably, is largely in control of the devotee.

Of course, “being a devotee” does not necessitate exhibiting the full-fledged external forms of devotional culture in every circumstance. Indeed, there is wide scope for making adjustments based on necessity, as well as practicality. A devotee who pursues traditional employment may have to use this latitude to avoid running afoul of professional expectations. The challenge then is how to remain preoccupied with the inner culture of bhakti, while externally “fitting in” to the culture of a particular workplace.

Thus while one might be tempted to slyly replace a co-worker’s telephone directory with a copy of Bhagavad-Gita, or to fill the receptionist’s candy jar with maha laddus, a more toned-down approach to creating a maximally favorable work environment is probably advisable, if not required. An understated approach to maintaining Vaishnava standards, however, may pique curiosity and draw favorable attention in ways, and to a degree, that overt outreach might not. In particular, those who exhibit one or more of the twenty-six qualities of a Vaishnava (as given in Caitanya-caritamrta) are likely to be regarded very warmly, as those qualities are ones that all people (even those who lack them) consider becoming, desirable, and worth cultivating (even if they don’t actively do so).

Thus, while the exhibiton of truthfulness, magnanimity, gravity, and so forth is a more subtle way of “being a devotee” at work than blasting a “Jaya Radha Madhava” ringtone from your Blackberry, such character attributes may prompt a co-worker to ask, “What’s your secret?” or “How did you become like that?” In that vein, I am often asked why I appear peaceful during times of workplace chaos. I typically respond by saying, “Well, believe it or not, I meditate everyday.”  Invariably my response raises eyebrows, but almost always in an approving way, and depending upon the precise circumstances, the conversation tends to deepen from there.

Frankly, even among the most progressive and educated segments of society, followers of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are not held in high esteem. In the face of entrenched negative sentiments, it is no wonder that many devotees feel they must be exceptionally discreet about their internal preoccupation with bhakti while on the job. It can be difficult to talk about one’s practice with any specificity, lest deep suspicion (however unwarranted) suddenly arise. Thus apart from fielding an occasional question about neck-beads, homemade lunches, or the reasons why he or she forgoes the standard coffee break, a devotee who works full-time may be reticent to voluntarily say much more.

Given that a devotee may spend in excess of half of his or her waking hours “associating” with co-workers, clients, or customers, the task of making external adjustments while avoiding compromise of the essential principles of bhakti may not be a trivial undertaking. The manner in which this is accomplished may vary as widely as circumstances of employment. Probably common to most situations, however, are occasional openings for the kinds of discussions that build bridges to more in-depth exchange, and serve as stepping stones towards a future in which the essential spirituality that is bhakti-yoga is well understood. Until then, it is likely that many devotees who work will have to vigorously apply themselves, such that the resulting qualities attract sympathetic (rather than wary) attention from others in the workplace—and possibly prompt the question, “How can I become more like you?”