What Do Hare Krishnas Believe? Part 7: The Nature of God (6)

By holding that bhakti (love and devotion for the Supreme) too is material, and is ultimately to be transcended like all other relationships, variety, visible phenomena, etc. that are the trappings of this temporary world of matter – and that the personal forms of the Lord (and in Christian terms, we're talking God the Father here, not His sons or servants!) are just made of matter in the material mode of goodness – the Mayavadis exhibit both a disbelief in God's omnipotence to appear in pure spiritual forms and enjoy pure spiritual relationships, and a woefully mundane idea of what we can refer to as “God” – because they don't believe in God after all, remember? They believe we're all God. Some of us may have attained enlightenment about the real situation and therefore be “transcendentally situated” and highly realized, and some may be more powerful than others due to yogic siddhis [miraculous powers achieved through intense discipline of mind and body], but since all of us have this potential, they say that the distinctions between these so-called incarnations of God and ourselves are temporary and that ultimately we're all God. So they have a pathetic and cheap, by Hare Krishna standards, idea of what passes as God. At best, this idea that God has a material body in the mode of goodness turns Him into a demigod [one of His deputies in the universal government], to whom such a description would apply. At worst, any human can spout “wisdom”, show off magic tricks, and be hailed as God in a Mayavadi-dominated culture.

And um... tell me WHO's affected by material consciousness again?! I've said this before, but to me it seems worth repeating: impersonalists patronize personalists for “anthropomorphizing God,” yet their own assumption that anything that has form, moves about and enjoys relationships is automatically something temporary and material just because that's all they've ever come in contact with here in this world seems to betray an awfully conditioned consciousness.

How can our concept of the Divine be considered complete without a personal aspect? Why should man's idea of the possibilities that exist include only a non-differentiated, non-variegated eternal reality – which implies that anything more complex would necessarily degrade with time? What a simplistic view! Why shouldn't God's Being include an eternal personal aspect as well? He wouldn't be the Complete Whole without that, nor would he be so complicated as to be inconceivable to our tiny human minds, and without being inconceivable – without containing every single permutation of possibility simultaneously and harmonizing all of them incomprehensibly into a single flawlessly beautiful and perfect whole, how could he merit the title of God?! A God that fits neatly into our small, limited minds that like everything to be simple and sensible is no God worth the name in my book! My idea of God is the source of endless wonders, more and more amazing the deeper you go!!!

The Mayavadis' idea of what the spiritual realm contains, and what life on that plane is like, is pretty blank. We (Hare Krishnas/Vaisnavas or other personalists) just fill that blank in. :D How much they miss by not being aware of the richness, the variety, the beauty, and the full depth of pleasure and satisfaction that are available within the purely transcendental spiritual realm! Their ideas are so dessicated, limited, deprived, and tragically unhealthy in comparison with the unlimited bliss-ocean of the Vaikuntha planets, where personal devotion to the Lord flourishes eternally in endless varieties and flavors.

To crown it all, in an intimate devotional relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, according to Vaisnava sources, the Lord is often more than happy to let His devotee boss Him around. One famous example is how Lord Krsna acted as His devotee Arjuna's chariot-driver, which is a very menial position. The Lord feels even more blissful around devotees who play the part of His parents, who fuss over Him, give Him instructions meant for His protection and well-being, and punish Him if they deem it necessary, than He does around those who adore Him with awe and reverence and are quick to carry out His orders. In romantic love, He enjoys being henpecked by bossy lovers who are huffy and particular (but who truly have nothing except His happiness cherished as the whole goal of their hearts). By enviously competing with God (“No, I don't believe in any Supreme Lord over me! I'd hate to be some underling, the 'eternal servant' of another – ugh! I prefer to believe that anyone who has ever been treated by others as 'God' in the past is really just an enlightened being on our own level, and that we've all got the potential to rise to that stage and 'be God' ourselves!”), Mayavadis deprive themselves of the delight of the most intimate relationship possible (which is what we're all longing for in our heart of hearts, whether we're in touch with that part of ourselves or not) – one of complete trust and vulnerability, one in which the Lord is our eternally loyal best friend, who knows us inside and out and would never let us down, who would fulfill all of our wildest dreams – the only one who is capable of making us happy to our maximum capacity and even beyond. And the irony is that if they would only soften their hearts and increase their respect towards Him, stop hurting Him by pretending that the version of “bhakti” they preach truly represents love or devotion to Him at all, or anything other than a tool or crutch they wish to make use of to leverage themselves up to the height at which they can take His place and then throw away their relationship with Him as “no longer needed”... if they would only become true lovers, friends, and supporters of our precious Lord... not only would their wildest dreams be fulfilled and their happiness assured, but also, since they'd earn His trust, eventually He'd be glad to let them boss Him around, because He really enjoys that in intimate relationships with those whom He trusts. Instead of depriving themselves of everything enjoyable in the name of their stubborn independence and competitive desire to become God, which at best they can achieve only on a level of equality with everyone else, if they surrender to the love of God and agree to trust and serve Him, far from accepting an eternally degraded or humiliating position, they will find themselves possessed of every delight, honored by all, and having the Omnipotent Lord, who can create and destroy worlds in the blink of an eye, wound around their little finger. How is that for power, good fortune, and enviable position?!

Can you see how Vaisnava philosophy is healthier than Mayavada? How it's optimistic, sweet, trusting, open and loving rather than pessimistic, guarded, burned by past bad experience? Now, which one should serve as the template for the most ideal and healthy religious culture? If you've had bad experiences yourself with relationships, you may say that Mayavada is better because it doesn't set anybody up for any shocking, painful disappointments. It allows you to escape and have your precious peace and “independence,” at least for a little while until you get bored. Better eliminate all suffering even at the cost of some spectacular highs, you say. But there you go: You're expecting something bad to happen. Why do that? Why not expect good? Without being capable of trusting and expecting good, we'll never be able to be vulnerable enough to have deep and satisfying relationships. “Impersonal” doesn't say “healthy and happy” to me, because if you didn't notice, we're persons. As such, how can we ever be satisfied by something non-personal? No matter what the price to be paid, we will always, irresistibly, go back again and again to the personal relationship, hoping and trying over and over to find that one in which we can be fully vulnerable, open and trusting, because as persons, nothing else can possibly ever fully satisfy us.

Solutions: Start with scriptures that present a detailed, balanced and lovable picture of a Personality of Godhead; then reinforce the positive conception by training children with love so that they'll grow up resonating with these messages about a kind, loving and trustworthy Lord rather than with some concept of God as an abusive jerk.

All right, I've spent a long time now arguing in favor of so-called “anthropomorphic” religious ideas – making the case that they're actually a healthier and better form of religion than impersonalism and that they'll be more beneficial and congenial to human society. But I imagine that those of you who've seen dangers ensue when the personal-God concept is abused, who've perhaps even been burned yourselves by the more judgmental and harsh forms of it, will still be feeling hesitant to agree. Thus, I will close with a Wikipedia quote revealing that India of old, the motherland of my own brand of personalism, was famed for ages as a sanctuary for those of all religious persuasions.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion:

“Religious freedom and the right to worship freely were practices that had been appreciated and promoted by most ancient Indian dynasties. As a result, people fleeing religious persecution in other parts of the world including Christians, Jews, Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrians fled to India as a place of refuge to enjoy religious freedom.

“Ancient Jews fleeing from persecution in their homeland 2,500 years ago settled in India and never faced anti-Semitism. … Many scholars and intellectuals believe that India's predominant religion, Hinduism, has long been most tolerant religion.

“The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader in exile said that religious tolerance of 'Aryabhoomi,' a reference to India found in Mahabharata, has been in existence in this country from thousands of years. 'Not only Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism which are the native religions but also Christianity and Islam have flourished here. Religious tolerance is inherent in Indian tradition,' the Dalai Lama said.”

To be continued...

What Do Hare Krishnas Believe? Part 6: The Nature of God (5)

Plus, Mayavadis' idea of merging into the identity and self of God and becoming one with Him / Her / It would extinguish all opportunities for continuing with the sweet exchange of love with Him (or Her) that is bhakti. How can you have a relationship with yourself?! All you can do is exist. They try to say that that simple, eternal existence is blissful. But we say, just look at the nature of living beings. They are active. Rocks sit still because they are solid matter, with no soul inside. Trees and plants sit still because their consciousness is at an extremely low ebb, like they are sleeping. But look at any higher life-forms with more developed consciousness and what will you see? Activity. To be specific, service: all embodied living entities serve their own senses' demands, many serve their family members and friends and society, and in the highest consciousness of all within the material world, the individual will see the whole world and all the living creatures in it as his or her family and will try to be of service to everyone. Along with consciousness, the activity of service is symptomatic of life.

Yes, the “enlightenment” that impersonalists tout, involving freedom from attachment to matter and material activities, is possible; I might call it “brahma-bhuta” blissfulness. It means the understanding that you yourself are an immortal spark of spirit, and unlike the temporary and vulnerable material body, you cannot be killed under any circumstances. In this consciousness you have the utter peace and contentment of knowing that nothing can ever harm you and you yourself will always continue to live no matter what happens to your body. The stress of ordinary day-to-day living in the material world, involving the effort to keep one's body (and those of the other persons to whom one is attached) fed, clothed, warm, and dry, and one's mind and senses pleased, disappears. It no longer matters whether you do these things or not. You can choose to do them to keep body and soul together, but it's optional. You no longer are under the impression that you have to do these things in order to continue to exist. Thus, you are free to take it easy – to relax and feel the joy of life itself. Your natural love and enthusiasm can express themselves. By removing your identification from your vulnerable, easily-destroyed material body and the connections with others that came about because of your body, and identifying instead with your eternal, indestructible spirit self, you enjoy ultimate peace, contentment and security. Another feature of this “enlightenment” is that you know the same is true for all the other souls suffering from attachment and fear in this world, and you may very well have the urge to help your brothers and sisters understand the same delightful thing you've understood, and be free of suffering just like you are. You recognize that your self and all other life that exists, regardless of the body that life is contained within, are of one and the same substance, and thus distinctions of relative and foreigner, friend and enemy, are abolished.

So far, so good. This is a sublime and highly developed consciousness, rarely to be found in this often nasty and selfish world. And there is opportunity here for the natural propensity of the conscious self, namely the activity of serving. One can adopt a mission of compassion to bring this enlightenment to the suffering and bewildered souls of the world. But after all the enlightened souls leave their bodies – then what do they do?

Hare Krishna philosophy contends that their natural attributes of enjoying relationships and the activity of service are an innate part of all living souls, and these souls will therefore not be able to give up their desire for these things after leaving behind their material bodies. They may luxuriate in the absence of suffering for a little while as they float with other souls in the shining spiritual sky, just existing, not interacting with anyone (because the meditation on the strength of which they got there was simply “I am Brahman; I am transcendental to the material world; I am one with God,” and as I pointed out, oneness leaves no opportunities for relationship or interaction). But in order to be content with nothing more than mindless existence for eternity – eternally alive and conscious but eternally doing nothing – we would have to change our fundamental nature to something different from what it is, because right now, to anyone in their right mind, that prospect sounds HELLISH. Why do you think children can be punished by being put in time-out? Because relationships and activities are necessary to the child's happiness. Similarly, the Mayavadi idea of liberation is really like eternal time-out. Who would want that?! It's an extreme, dramatic, pendulum-swing reaction to the suffering of this world: “Better be checked out, eternally uninvolved, than stay here and suffer.” But as the pendulum swings back, they end up coming back to the material world anyway (according to Hare Krishna knowledge; Mayavadis don't expect to come back after they're “liberated”!) because it is just too boring for them up there in the Brahman effulgence (the famous “white light” that you may have heard about).

Suppose a Mayavadi countered me by asserting, “Children, along with the rest of us, are like that [i.e., dreading “time-out” or “just existing in full consciousness without any activity”] because of material conditioning; it's not our innate nature to dread that which is our original and rightful state!”

Well, some religious traditions glorify childlike nature, and say things like “except ye become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The Mayavadi's claim would appear to criticize and devalue the spontaneous nature of children, to say it can all be chalked up to contamination, and to insist that we stubbornly and utterly erase all trace of our humanity in order to attain the goal! Can that be healthy, desirable, or even possible?! It sure sounds like an artificial attempt that's bound to either fail or end in misery!

What's more, how can you say it's better, purer, or more advanced to be like a vegetable?! Oh, sorry – a conscious vegetable! How is it not better to do glorious, noble, admirable, wonderful, and relishable actions in fully enlightened spiritual consciousness?! Why shouldn't that be held as the topmost state of being, the ideal goal for all?

To be continued...

What Do Hare Krishnas Believe? Part 5: The Nature of God (4)

Note: I've said this before, but I feel the need to say it again.  I recognize that it would be much better if my work cited more sources to prove my points.  I'd love to make this completely professional, but unfortunately, as the stay-at-home mommy of an active three-year-old boy, it's hard enough for me to get something posted once a month as it is.  I really hope that someday I'll be able to come back to these posts and add in the missing citations.  Thank you for your patience in the meantime.  :)

My younger brother recommended Karen Armstrong's A History of God to me a few months ago, so I checked it out from the library and read it. One point the author makes in her book is that anthropomorphic ideas about God are more dangerous than impersonal ideas. When you believe God is a person, you can say “He wants this, He doesn't want that, He hates such-and-such,” and without realizing it, you might be making a religion out of what are really your own (or your family's / society's / culture's) philosophies and phobias – often unfortunately leading to suffering for those who happen to be different from you. (Side note: atheists point to this very same fact to glorify atheism as seldom driving anyone to kill or persecute their neighbor for their beliefs. Doesn't this hint that impersonalism and atheism are nearly synonymous???)

Indeed, Srila Prabhupada has several times pointed out that what goes by the name of “religion” in this world is often nothing more than loyalty to the culture one was born into.

However, is it truly sound policy to throw something out entirely just because it's been misused? If we threw out everything that got misused, we'd be throwing out a heck of a lot of “babies” along with all that “bathwater.” Instead of just reacting to past bad experience by avoiding, rejecting, shunning and shutting out all hint of something that has the potential to be a good idea if done right, isn't it healthier and more balanced to first of all consider which is truly the most ideal option, and then support that?

In the exact same book by Karen Armstrong, the phenomenon of people not being satisfied with the impersonal conception of God and gravitating naturally / irresistibly toward the personal conception was also documented.

Page 83:

“In both Buddhism and Hinduism there had been a surge of devotion to exalted beings, such as the Buddha himself or Hindu gods which had appeared in human form. This kind of personal devotion, known as bhakti, expressed what seems to be a perennial human yearning for humanized religion.”

Page 86:

“The development of bhakti answered a deep-rooted popular need for some kind of personal relationship with the ultimate. Having established Brahman as utterly transcendent, there is a danger that it could become too rarefied and, like the ancient Sky God, fade from human consciousness. The evolution of the bodhisattva ideal in Buddhism and the avatars of Vishnu seem to represent another stage in religious development when people insist that the Absolute cannot be less than human.”

I love that phrase, “deep-rooted popular need.” I love that she chose the word “need.” When – as here acknowledged even by someone who seems strongly in favor of an impersonal conception of God – people in general take to bhakti like a fish to water, and find the need to add it in later whenever there's a religious tradition (like Buddhism) that doesn't originally feature it, how could the perfect religion – one that would both do no harm, only good, AND satisfy man's every positive / good / beneficial / healthy hankering, yearning or need – fail to include a conception of God as a lovable Person with whom we have the opportunity to enter into relationship? For many if not most people, I contend that religion would be missing something vital without that aspect.

In India, at least, impersonalists are aware of this point, and they actually respond to it by encouraging the popular devotion to personal forms of God; but, their philosophy is that this so-called “bhakti” is supposed to continue only up to the point at which it is no longer needed – namely, when the worshipper finally realizes that he and his beloved Lord are actually one and the same: that he himself, the soul who has been suffering in this miserable world and battered about by the laws of nature, is actually the Supreme Lord, and under the influence of illusion he had just been forgetting it.

Mmm-hmm. Ooookay. That's why we call them Mayavadis (maya = illusion, vadi = theorist): because their philosophy leads to the idea that material nature and illusion are stronger than God. What kind of God is that, who can be covered by illusion and forgetfulness, forced to take birth over and over in so many species of life, and made to suffer every sort of pain and indignity while in that condition, even to things like lying passed out in his own throw-up in a gutter as a drunken bum?!? “We are ALL God, we just don't know it! God is none other than us! We simply have to realize it!” Well, if there's no one higher or greater than us, and we've all got an equal chance of reaching the top, then how can you call that a belief in God at all?! “There is no God but ourselves.” Sounds like defiance to me. Can you see why we would say that their philosophy minimizes, belittles and offends the Supreme Lord? Sets up human beings as His (tiny, weak, and absurd) competitors, who want to deny His existence and become God in His place? Offensive upstarts!

To be continued...

What Do Hare Krishnas Believe? Part 4: The Nature of God (3)

If you think about it – which is truly the more limiting definition of God? The idea that He cannot or does not have any spiritual body or form, just because we (His tiny parts and parcels covered with limited mundane impressions) can't conceive of how such an idea as God's having a form could be compatible with His being transcendental to the concrete objects of this mundane realm or being possessed of unlimited extension? Or the idea that He is endowed with unlimited spiritual multi-forms, capable of appearing anywhere and everywhere all over Existence in any shape or size at all times simultaneously, and interacting with His devotees according to whichever mood/flavor of service to Him they are enriched with? Which is the more positive concept? I ask you! Which is the more free, unlimited, glorious, powerful, and compatible with the idea of His being omnipotent?

The former idea means that He would be unable to have something that we do have – and value. Most of us value our bodies and the opportunities for enjoyment they afford us. The opportunities to look deep into the eyes of a loved one, hug a friend, smile, lend our hands to a worthy cause – we'd be missing out on a lot of satisfying interaction if we were just composed of some eternal and all-pervading white light. (Yes, we'd be missing out on a lot of suffering too, but imagine if the relishable activities could be had without the suffering.) There's a reason parents put their kids in “time out” when they misbehave: having to sit still is torturous. Our very nature is to be active; we relish and yearn for positive and productive engagement. In fact, we Vaisnavas consider the radical impersonalists' desire to annihilate their own individuality and merge into the “white light” of the Brahman effulgence to be a symptom of deep unhappiness. Unless one found one's relationships and other experiences as an individual person deeply frustrating, why would one ever want to commit “spiritual suicide” by annihilating that individuality?

And why should the master ever be poorer than the servants, or unable to have something good that they enjoy, in any category? No, no. He can never be deprived of anything worth having! On the contrary, His standard of enjoyment should be (and is) better than ours, since His enjoyment takes place on the transcendental spiritual platform and is composed of the exchange of nothing but pure love with His eternal devotees, whereas ours, as long as we remain conditioned, takes place in this temporary material world which is full of unlimited miseries, and is stained by ugly, selfish varieties of sickness like lust, anger and greed.

Impersonalists are right to understand that the contamination of mundane qualities cannot touch the Supreme Lord. However, since they fail to clearly understand the nature of the spiritual world and the full range of positive alternatives that are available there (in the shape of flawless, eternally happy spiritual forms, relationships and variety), they end up concluding that the spiritual world must be more or less just like this one with all the concrete, gross physical stuff removed. Since they have no knowledge of any place full of forms and variety other than the one we live in now, and since their experience with this world includes a lot of painful, disgusting crap, the two concepts unfortunately have become associated in their minds and hence they throw the baby out with the bathwater and decide that the spiritual realm must be a place of pure, abstract reality and formlessness. (For example, they might proclaim such truths as that “God is love”, but since “love” in this world is an abstract idea rather than a person, they might conclude that the same applies to God – not realizing that when you're on the spiritual plane, abstract and subtle concepts appear as visible and tangible persons and conscious objects.) This means that, whether they realize it or not, impersonalists' ideas of what the spiritual plane must be like are based on, and limited by, their experiences of living in this world. The funny part is that that's exactly what they accuse us personalists of!

I can totally see where they're coming from when they say that, because at first glance, it does appear as if personalists are the more childlike ones, claiming that the spiritual world is just more of the same stuff like what we see around us in this world, and they (impersonalists) are the ones who can look beyond and envision something different. But if you really get to know the Vaisnava tradition and explore it in depth, you'll see that we acknowledge the truth of the impersonalists' claims, then say “But there's more – go deeper!” We're aware of various layers and levels of truth within spiritual reality, which impersonalists cannot fathom until they become more childlike, humble and open-minded about what God might be, and what He might be capable of. We haven't invented or dreamed up these deeper spiritual truths; to propagate a work of imagination as the truth would be a despicable form of cheating. On the contrary, we take our information from trustworthy persons who have seen with their own eyes the truth of the descriptions in scriptures like the Srimad-Bhagavatam and Brahma-samhita. Humanity can't attain truly perfect knowledge in any way except through humbly receiving it from God Himself or from those pure souls who are in constant touch with Him.

Positive and definite force or presence is always more powerful than vague conceptions or negative lack thereof. The positive always wins out in the end. And the Vedic understanding of God is the most positive one ever. There is nothing vague or negative about Him. Aspects that are inconceivable to us, yes, there certainly may be – how could we expect otherwise? Our brains are pretty darn tiny within the endless entirety of Existence, and since the totality of Everything is contained within Him, He has to be a Personality in whom all kinds of opposites are resolved! But vague, illogical, or negative – no. Endless varieties of scriptures describe His personal qualities in minute detail and analyze them scientifically with examples to help us understand. The Vedic theological version holds up under deep and thorough scrutiny. And since we are His own parts and parcels, He naturally wishes for us nothing other than perfect health and happiness, so we experience His activities as greatly merciful. He'll conquer the world with His love, because our very nature is drawn to His sweetness, power, beauty, mercy and kindness, His unlimited pastimes and glorious qualities. 

To be continued... 

What Do Hare Krishnas Believe? Part 3: The Nature of God (2)

The most immediate objection to Hare Krishnas' theological personalism from those influenced by impersonalism comes from their impression that when we say “God has a body,” we have to mean a material body like yours or mine. Some impersonalists or semi-impersonalists might verbally object; others might react with benign patronization of us – wishing us well on our path, no matter how weird or silly it might seem to them. Some might even respond (externally or internally) with “WHAT? HOW BLASPHEMOUS! GET OUT OF HERE! How dare you speak of the Supreme Almighty God in such a way?! How can anyone be so ignorant??” And this reaction of theirs would be absolutely appropriate, if anyone did say such a stupid thing as that God has a material body.  

But there are big differences between our bodies and God's. Ours are perceivable by our present material senses; His isn't – unless, that is, He chooses to make Himself visible and tangible to us, which He seldom wants to do except for those devotees who are 100% pure in heart, with no faults whatever. Ours are full of ignorance where His is full of all knowledge. Ours can give us pain whereas His is full of nothing but bliss. Ours are temporary – able to be killed, and certain to die in the end – whereas His is invincible and eternal.

When these points have been clarified, the next objection is “Well, how can anyone believe that the Unlimited has some kind of body – even a spiritual one? Doesn't a body necessarily impose limits on His extension – doesn't a form automatically make Him measurable and therefore finite?”

The answer is that this type of thinking, too, is based on our material conditioning (i.e., our having lived in this material world for so long and being accustomed to the way stuff works here). Here in this world, with material forms all around us, the idea that “form means something limited” is very correct, logical and reasonable. However, things work differently on the spiritual plane, and God's (Krsna's) body is pure spirit. The Vedic scriptures describe many wonderful things that He's able to do with His spiritual body, which would be completely impossible with a material body. For one thing, He can separate endless “portions” out of Himself (living personalities who are endowed with different percentages of His nature and qualities), or even multiply Himself into many equally powerful forms / copies of Himself, and yet His original form remains full and complete. A material form, if something is removed from it or if it's divided into many, becomes diminished – as Srila Prabhupada says, in the material world, 1 - 1 = 0; but the spiritual realm is the absolute plane, where 1 - 1 = 1. So this is one way of explaining how God's / Krsna's form can be unlimited: you can take from Him endlessly yet He remains as full and complete as before.

Then there are the many accounts of how Krsna's devotees failed in attempts to accurately measure His body, and found out instead that He was truly infinite, although He appeared before their eyes in what looked like a measurable form. Mother Yasoda (the foremost devotee who eternally serves Him in the mood of a mother) saw the entire universe within His mouth, including herself holding Him on her lap, which conjures up images of infinity. (Was there another, smaller universe in the mouth of that small form of the Lord that she saw inside His mouth? And were she and her divine son, and the universe they were enacting their pastimes in, also within the mouth of some unimaginably gigantic form of the Lord??? And so on and so forth.) Another time, Mother Yasoda kept trying and trying to tie Krsna up with ropes as a way of putting Him in “time out” for being naughty, but no matter how many long ropes she tied together, when she attempted to encircle His waist with them, they always came up two inches too short. How could any number of ropes be successful in encircling the unlimited Lord – even if He had taken the form of a small boy in order to give pleasure to His beloved Mother Yasoda? And I have heard a couple different versions of pastimes in which the Lord is put on one side of a balance scale, but no matter how many heavy material goods are piled on the other side, He can't be lifted off the ground; not until something else of incalculable spiritual value is placed on the other side can He finally be lifted. So in spite of having a form that looks like ours in many ways, and looks like it could be measurable, the fact is that the Absolute Lord and Sum Total of All can never actually be measured.

To be continued...

What Do Hare Krishnas Believe? Part 2: The Nature of God (1)

All the theological beliefs in the world can be divided into two camps: the personalist, i.e. those that describe God as the Supreme Person (our loving Father, etc.), and the impersonalist, i.e. those that describe the ultimate Absolute Truth as formless, faceless, and impersonal.  Throughout the history of the world, it is the former who has introduced Himself to us over and over again through revelation, and it is the latter concept that has over and over again been arrived at through human intellect, reasoning and philosophy.  The idea that the Supreme Infinite Absolute Truth could be a Person with feelings, eager to awaken a relationship with us, and even more radical -- that He could have a transcendental BODY, is difficult for the rational human intellect to grasp.  Such an idea is generally dismissed, to one degree or another, by humans with a strong aptitude for rational thinking as being due to the anthropomorphic imagination of the simple, childlike masses.  Each time God has revealed Himself to mankind as a personal God, after the first blush of excitement and devotional service to Him that springs up, it's only been a matter of time before philosophers begin questioning the revealed tradition that describes Him in personal terms, saying it couldn't possibly be meant literally, and editing it (or at least footnoting and explaining it) to their own satisfaction, which basically changes that religious tradition's concept of Him to a far more impersonal one.  Time after time, this scenario has played out.  I'm afraid that the majority of faithful in the world are very much influenced by these skeptical, rationalist, human-generated, impersonal ideas about God.

The problem is that the farther you go down that road, the harder it is to feel any love for God, which is the whole thing that makes religion worthwhile.  Being saved is not the most important idea -- which some people have noticed, as evidenced by the sort of fun, flippant comments they'll make sometimes about how boring Heaven sounds and how they might almost prefer Hell if there's better company down there.  Wanting to be saved from Hell is a very negative reason to want to go to Heaven.  The positive reason -- what we're REALLY looking for -- is what we in the Vaisnava tradition call rasa, or "juice": anything that makes life sweet, interesting, delightful and worthwhile.  A lovable God whom you're actually inspired to spend your time serving is what makes religion fulfilling!  And the fewer glorious, exciting, wonderful qualities you're able to attribute to Him and praise Him for, the fewer stories you're able to tell of personal dealings He had with you or others you respect and care about (ways that He offered His protection and/or the possibility of sweet relationships with Him), the more He tends to fade into the background, becoming simply something you believe in (e.g., an eternal force underlying, permeating and sustaining the world) rather than someone you can actively serve in loving relationship.  It begins to make less difference whether you believe in Him/It or not, and you get closer to out-and-out atheism.

Hare Krishnas acknowledge that God does have an impersonal aspect, which it is possible for intelligent human beings (like Socrates and others) to realize the truth of through their own powers of reasoning, even without having met or heard from any representative of God.  However, the human intellect is not able to penetrate any farther than that on its own into understanding God; and there is so much more to know about Him, which we can only understand through His merciful revelations.  We are infinitesimal, and He is infinite: how could we possibly expect to be able to understand everything about the unlimited Lord with our small, limited minds?  So although both conceptions of God are correct, the personal aspect (called Bhagavan) is the deepest and most complete realization of Him; that transcendental form of the Lord is the energetic source of the impersonal Brahman energy, just as the sun is the source of the sunlight.  Therefore, we Hare Krishnas are situated in the personalist camp.

Whenever we recite the standard prayers to Srila Prabhupada, the founder-acarya of our movement, part of the praise we offer him therein is that he came to deliver the Western countries from impersonalism and voidism.  Oh, yes -- belief in God the Person, our eternal loving Friend, Sri Krsna, whose body is imperishable, transcendental, spiritual, and full of bliss and knowledge, who is the reservoir of all beauty and pleasure and power -- is central indeed to everything we are and everything we do.

As I alluded to above, both in the East and in the West, personalists encounter plenty of condescension from impersonalists, who patronize our "anthropomorphism" and consider the idea of a God with a personal form to be childish, suitable only for simple-minded beginners.  However, considering that God loves the humble, simple and childlike devotee and has said "Except ye become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven", I really wonder how those who consider themselves Christian, at least, can hold that against us!

Now, let's see whose view actually makes more sense.

To be continued...

What Do Hare Krishnas Believe? Part 1: Energies

There are many ways I could introduce the ABCs of the Hare Krishnas' understanding of reality.  Here is one approach.  There is SO much more to tell; I didn't even get into the chanting of the Hare Krsna mantra here, what it is and why we do it, which is so basic to our identity!  I'll have to get to that in a future blog post.  Also, sorry that I didn't include any scriptural citations to back up the points I made here.  Maybe I'll be able to find those and add them in sometime later -- although I'm not going to promise that!  :)

1. God (Krsna) is the eternally-existing fountainhead or source of everything that be. Everything emanates from him, just like sunlight from the sun.

2. As the sunlight is the energy of the sun, so everything emanating from Krsna is technically called His energy.

3. Krsna's energies, though unlimited in variety, can be divided into three main categories: interior, marginal, and exterior. His interior and marginal energies are both composed of living spiritual beings, who all have three properties, namely eternal existence (sat); consciousness, awareness, or knowledge (cit); and bliss (ananda). His external energy, on the other hand, takes the shape of various material elements, some of which are termed "subtle" and some "gross," but all of which are simply inert matter until activated by the Lord and the living spiritual entities. The subtlest (most difficult to detect) of all material elements is the false ego that makes those of us who are covered by it identify with our temporary material bodies and feel like we're independent islands, unconnected to God, who in reality is the very source of our existence and our eternally loyal, patient, and caring best friend and parent. The next-subtlest material element is the rational intellect, which analyzes information in search of understanding or assesses options in search of the best course of action. The third is the subjective mind or emotional psyche, which is in charge of deciding what we do and don't like/enjoy/appreciate (we Hare Krishnas call it the mind). Then there are the gross elements: ether, air, fire, water, and earth. I like how Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu, in "The Nature of the Self: A Gaudiya Vaisnava Understanding", "translated" these traditional terms into ones more intelligible to modern scientific minds by proposing that earth = solids, water = liquids, air = gases, fire = radiant energy and ether = space.

4. What is the difference between the interior and marginal energies of Krsna, which are both made up of living spirit? His interior energy is His eternally great saktis or powers, who can never become covered by the material elements or influenced by the illusory world-view caused by such a covering, whereas the marginal energy is made up of multitudes of infinitesimally tiny spiritual sparks (jivas), who are capable of becoming so covered. Those of us who live here in the realm of matter belong to this category of covered jivas.

5. Each and every one of the innumerable jivas in existence has a unique and eternally individual spiritual personality, and a similarly individual innate relationship with God that is based on his or her unique nature.

6. The best purpose for which we can use our human life is to uncover and reawaken our memory of this special relationship that we are supposed to be enjoying with God, because forgetting about it and looking elsewhere for happiness is the source of all the futility and suffering that is to be found within this world.

Why is that so? What are the processes by which this emancipating and fulfilling self-realization can be attained? And how did we come to be covered in the first place? Why are we here in the material world -- and why does it often seem to be such a nasty place? Why doesn't God make it perfect here? Who is God -- what is He like? Where, how and with whom does He live? What are the different kinds of relationships we can have with Him? These are just a few of the questions I'd like to address in future blog posts. Stay tuned! I'm trying to make sure I post something here at least once a month. :)