Adults Only

Śrīdhara Mahārāja has given us a tremendous gift in his short explanation, for he hands us the tools by which many things can be understood and interpreted.

In the 1960s the creed of personal transcendental dedication known as bhakti-yoga was brought to the west by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmi Prabhupāda. I had the good fortune to accompany him on morning walks to the beach at Santa Monica, California in 1976, to hear him lecture on the Vyāsasana at 3764 Watseka Avenue in Culver City. Later I became his disciple, having accepting initiation into the holy name from him. What originally attracted me to his teachings was his commentary on Bhāgavad-gita, called Bhagavad-gita As It Is. His commentary was based on a simple premise: There was no need for an elaborate interpretation of Krishna’s words. They speak for themselves. Krishna’s words should be taken As It Is, or literally. Given that the original Sanskrit verses had been twisted out of shape by commentators his premise made good sense. According to the principal known as Ockham’s razor, after all, the simplest explanation is usually the best. Therefore, when Krishna says “me” He means “me.”

Sarva-dharman parityajya, mam ekam sharanam vraja means “Leave all dharma and surrender to me.” Here, Krishna means “me.” Prabhupāda’s direct approach cut through the word jugglery of those who would put something different into Krishna’s mouth. The beauty of Prabhupāda’s “literal” interpretation was that it brought us directly into contact with the truth as expressed by Śrī Kṛṣṇa 5,000 years ago on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra.

And yet...

And yet, sometimes interpretation becomes necessary, especially when faced with two or more contradictory statements.

This is why Bhagavad-gita has commentaries. And even among commentaries written by Vaiṣṇavas or the followers of Śrī Kṛṣṇa there are distinctions, grades of meaning, varying points of view. In fact, the commentaries of Śrīdhara Swāmī, Baladeva Vidyabhuṣana, and Viśvanātha Carkravarti Ṭhākura are well-represented in Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is which runs to some 700 pages in English translation. So one might ask, “If the original Sanskrit is all in all, why do we need 700 pages of commentary in translation?”

The answer is interpretation. While it might appear at first glance that Prabhupāda’s translation is absolutely literal and word for word, in fact his commentary follows the line of Gaudiya Vaiṣṇavism, whose interpretation is based on the teachings of Vyāsa, Madhva, Śrī Caitanya, and Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura as exemplified by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati Ṭhakura

Of course, it is never the business of neophytes and kanishta adhikaris to interpret the meanings of the scriptures. For this reason, Śrīla Prabhupāda did his best to protect the original fundamental meaning of the śāstras whenever possible.

Still, Śrīla Prabhupāda himself left this planet 14 November, 1977, almost 39 years ago as of this writing.

In his great body of writings which must be in the millions of words he left an incredible wealth of instruction. But as in any written record, sometimes words appear to contradict each other. How are we to interpret his teachings?

We may take it that personal instruction trumps written instruction. We might say, for example, that where something is written in a book, a personal letter to a disciple might take precedence. A word in private might be even more important. So that, for example if fasting on ekadashi is mentioned as favorable in the Caitanya Caritamrita, but a letter exists exempting a disciple from this practice, we might give more importance to the instruction in the letter. Someone will point out that Prabhupāda once posted a poster in an ashrama saying, “Health is number one, then chanting, then service. After service is reading. Practice yoga like that.” This will be taken to settle all arguments, since it is a specific application of the rules. And yet others will point out there are thousands of such “Prabhupāda says,” that belong to what is called “Apocrypha” or outside the canon of published works. If this is true for Prabhupāda and his teachings, what does it say for the previous acharyas as for example Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati and Bhaktivinoda Thakura?

While it is valuable and important to follow instructions and to take seriously the letter of the law, it is not also valuable and important to understand the spirit of the law?

A truly great judge is gifted with the power of seeing beyond the letter of the law and understanding its spirit. He has the capacity to interpret the constitution in light of modern language and practice. He may even teach the practice of interpretation to those among his students who have the capacity to understand.

Sadly, many of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s students have fallen into the trap of taken his words as the final authority on everything. As a consequence they are paralyzed by doubt when it comes to interpeting any statement that falls outside the parameter of his teachings; these unfortunate neophytes have even turned obscure and apocryphal statements of that great acharya into articles of faith. For example, soon after Prabhupāda’s disappearance, the newly “appointed” acharyas began preaching that the end of the world would soon come. According to this version, Prabhupāda had predicted World War III. It would come about as the conflict between India and Pakistan mushroomed into a nuclear war by proxy between the USSR and the United States. This was, of course, a cogent political analysis, given the tensions of 1976. In another statement,of course, Prabhupāda tells his students that it would be impossible for nuclear weapons to destroy the world. I remember the atmosphere of fear in the Los Angeles temple when devotees began stockpiling “survival rations,” “radiation suits,” and supplies of this nature, even buying land in remote areas where they would wait out the end of the world. Of course, such millenialist philosophy never formed any core value in the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda who put great emphasis on his books as the final word in settling disputes of this sort. But since devotees lacked proper evaluative tools or any hermeneutics, we accepted the literal “instructions” of Prabhupāda as they were filtered to us by his prominent followers. Now we hear such things as “the world is flat,” or “the sun goes round the earth,” promoted as “Prabhupādisms.” The Śrīla Prabhupāda I saw in Los Angeles in 1976 was a close student of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and its conclusions, and the conclusion he stressed again and again was devotion to Kṛṣṇa. If he spoke of war or astronomy it was with the same view in mind, to promote Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He poked fun at the hubris of the scientists who believed that they knew everything when they couldn’t solve such simple problems as the origin of life.

But when it came to representing the Vedic view of the planets, he asked the designers, architects, and GBC leaders to follow the vision of his Godbrother, His Divine Grace Bhakti Rakshaka Shridhar Dev Goswami. And while it is possible to find some “Prabhupad Says” to the contrary, the conversation held by Śrīla Prabhupāda with Śridhara Mahārāja at the Caitanya Saraswat Math in 1977 is revealing.

Here’s the transcription of that conversation, made by Bhakti Caru Swami of Calcutta. (Taped Conversation transcript, Nabadwip 1977)

Srila Prabhupada: I do not know for how long I will be able to carry on. So, I came to see Sridhara Maharaja.

Devotee: If you all go away, then the world will become dark.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: [to Prabhupada] It is so wonderful that the will of the Lord becomes manifest through someone.

Srila Prabhupada: I want very much, Maharaja, that you come and stay at Mayapur. Because Prabhupada [Bhaktisiddhanta] always desired that you preach. He told me quite a few times, "Why don't you pull him out?" [They both laugh.] You know, I also tried to some extent before, but somehow or other it did not work out. Now, why don't you come and stay at Mayapur? Srila Prabhupada told me also, "Sridhara Maharaja is one of the finest preachers." I want to take you everywhere. At least at the place we have in Mayapur, people are coming from all over the world. If you just agree, then whatever kind of building you want, I will arrange it for you. They are trying to build a house for me. So both of us will stay there. And whenever you want, you can come here to your matha.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Yes, as long as I am alive to fulfill [Bhaktisiddhanta] Prabhupada's desire.

Srila Prabhupada: This is my earnest desire. Since you could not go around the world and preach, at least stay there and people will come to you. I shall make that arrangement. If you stay, then it will be helpful to me also. Sometimes I need to consult with someone and there is no one. There is no one that I can consult with. I feel this deficiency very greatly.

Devotee: If he [Srila Sridhara Maharaja] stays in Mayapur, all kinds of people will get to hear from him.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that's right.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Yes, people from all kinds of cultural backgrounds will come there.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, and they are already coming. And in that house I will make arrangements for an elevator so that you won't have to go through the difficulty of walking up and down the stairs. You won't even have to move a step yourself. I'll make arrangements for a car and an elevator. My disciples are telling me that they will build a house for me. So, both of us will stay in that house. Most of the time I am traveling around, so if you are there, they can get some guidance. So, Maharaja, please, give me the order and I will make all the arrangements for you.

That planetarium [The Temple of Understanding] also will be built under your direction. My idea is to combine the Indian culture and the American money-the lame man and the blind man policy. I tell them also that this will be very beneficial for the world.

Temple of Understanding

Srila Prabhupada refers to "that planetarium." Srila Sridhara Maharaja was very fond of Sanatana Goswami's most famous work, the Brhad-bhagavatamrta, in which devotees, devotional service, and Krsna are described very scientifically. On the basis of this transcendental literature, Sridhara Maharaja had contemplated an elaborate preaching exhibition, using dioramas to depict the varieties of spiritual planetary systems and showing that the ultimate spiritual destination is Krsna's own abode, Goloka Vrndavana. Due to insufficient funds, Sridhara Maharaja humbly submitted his idea to Srila Prabhupāda, who concurred, saying, "It will be built under your direction."

The idea of the planetarium was to demonstrate different transcendental levels of spiritual experience from the point of view of Sanātana Goswāmi’s Bṛhad-Bhāgavatamṛta.

Given that in his final days, Śrīla Prabhupāda was directing his disciples to take guidance from Śrīdhara Mahārāja in the matter of the correct interpretation of Vedic cosmology, it is amazing to see that years later the followers of these disciples are trying to apply a fundamentalist approach to such things as the “shadow planet” Rahu.

The Vedic planetarium was never meant to defend the idea of a Ptolemaic universe or a flat earth planet with Mount Meru as the center. But without the proper tools for interpreting the arcane and occult meanings of geographical indications given in the scriptures such naive followers of Hinduism have no other recourse but to try to illustrate mythological ideas as practical cosmology. Such attempts lack all subtlety. But such twisted views of reality are the consequence of a lack of interpretive skills.

On the other hand, the genius of Śrīdhar Mahārāja’s argument was not only appreciated by A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmī who accepted him as his sikṣa-guru, or as one capable of giving advice. Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati Ṭhākura himself confirmed that he was happy that, when he left the planet “At least one man remains who can represent my conception.” Saraswati Ṭhākura respected Śrīdhara Mahārāja’s deep ability to rescue spiritual truths from esoteric passages in the Bhāgavatam, indeed his english publications were often reviewed not only by Professor Sannyal of Ravenshaw College but also by Śrīdhara Mahārāja.

In his explanation of the shadow planet Rahu as a personification of “shadow consciousness,” or cidābhāsa, we have an example of this genius.

What of the other planetary systems? What is the appropriate interpretation of Vedic cosmology to describe the planetary systems known as bhur, bhuvah, and svah?