It's a Barnum and Bailey World

On Madness

“You say it's only a paper moon Sailing over a cardboard sea But it wouldn't be make believe if you believed in me...” Yip Harburg

A Paper Moon

A friend of mine recently asked me to write on madness. In this Barnum and Bailey world of canvas skies and cardboard seas, its hard to keep your sanity sometimes. It’s a mad, mad, mad mad world.

Madness and sanity are questions for philosophy. Who's crazy? It depends on the difference between what's real and what's absurd, what has meaning and what is meaningless. Knowing the difference is sanity. Philosophy helps us understand the difference between what's meaningful and what's irrational. If you can't tell the difference, why then, you're crazy.

The basic problem of philosophy is meaning. We search for meaning in the universe. French existentialist writer Albert Camus explored this question in his novels, plays, and essays and came to the conclusion that there is no meaning. Life is absurd. It’s a mad and random world, and whoever tries to find meaning is irrational. So, according to Camus, we're all crazy.

Albert Camus: Life is absurd.

It sounds crazy, but Camus and his followers thought that life had no meaning, and that the search for meaning itself is absurd: “There is only one really serious philosophical problem," Camus said, "and that is suicide.” Camus reached rather dark conclusions. He felt that a true philosopher must realize that life is absurd. If life is meaningless and has no value, the only rational response would be suicide. Camus explores this thesis in The Myth of Sisyphus, where he argues that a philosopher ought to have the courage to practice what he preaches.  So, according to Camus, if you decide that it's all crazy, you should say "goodbye cruel world." Pretty harsh.

 The confession that life is worthless can only lead to suicide, said this Nobel Prize winner. Now, while this philosophy got him a lot of girls, it's really pretty dark. Camus has always been popular with gothic teens. They love it when he says "life is crazy and whoever looks for meaning is also crazy." Students use this to tease their teachers into a fury. I know. I've heard it from generations of newly enlightened teens.  Every two or three years a new student walks into the classroom with a dog-eared copy of "The Stranger," and challenges me to debate the absurdity of my life. Sometimes they have a pretty good argument. Strangely, while the Nobel-prize winning author once commented, “"I know nothing more absurd than to die in an automobile accident," his life ended by car accident. God, according to Camus, is dead. But while He may have been an absurdity to Camus, I seriously doubt that God died in a car accident.

Camus felt that God would have to be either a psychopath or an imbecile to tolerate the cruelty of the universe. While humans can undoubtedly be cruel, I don’t see how cruelty is an aspect of universal law. To assign cruelty to the universe is a literary fault. The universe has no personality and can neither be cruel nor kind. To say that the universe is “cruel” is absurd and irrational.

Since God’s behavior is irrational according to the standard of Camus, he must not exist. I don’t see why irrationality negates existence. There is nothing rational about the teenage girls who read Camus’ books and smoke french cigarettes. But somehow, their irrationality makes them more charming. And while they seem irrational, no one would deny their existence.

Modern Irrationalist Follower of Camus

There is a bit of a paradox here. Camus says the universe is irrational and then critiques God for being irrational. If everything is absurd, shouldn’t God also reserve the right to be absurd?

My favorite work by Tennessee Williams is a play called “The Night of the Iguana.” A defrocked Episcopal clergyman leads a bus-load of middle-aged Baptist women on a tour of the Mexican coast and comes to terms with the failure haunting his life. John Huston filmed the movie in Mexico with Ava Gardner and Richard Burton. When Elizabeth Taylor joined Burton in the sleepy fishing village where the film was made, it put Puerto Vallarta on the map. Years later my mother brought us to Puerto Vallarta and now I live in Mexico. Life is absurd.

Richard Burton with "senile delinquent" John Huston on set of Night of the Iguana in Puerto Vallarta

There’s a great line from the movie. Richard Burton as the defrocked clergyman is drunk. They ask him why he left the church and he says, “God is a senile delinquent. All your Western theologies, the whole mythology of them, are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent.” 

God as Senile Delinquent

Western philosophers hate the idea of God as a senile delinquent, since He does not conform to the logic they learned from Kant and Wittgenstein. 

But what if God were a juvenile delinquent?

The Krishna conception of divinity acknowledges just such an idea. There’s nothing attractive about a senile delinquent. Senility is another form of madness. Who wants to see a toothless grandpa with a beard raging in the heavens? But a juvenile delinquent is always attractive. Think of James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, or Marlon Brando in The Wild One. The juvenile delinquent is the model of a movie star. Misunderstood and charismatic. Who is more misunderstood than Krishna?

Nietzsche said that if God exists, he must be dancing. The Krishna conception of Godhead satisfies the criterion not only of Tennessee Williams and Camus, but even Nietzsche. Krishna moves in a crooked way. We cannot understand his movements. But the absurdity is ours. We live in the world of misconception.

God lives in the sublime world of Goloka where all movement is dance, all speech is song. He dances on the heads of Kaliya. As a juvenile delinquent, Krishna steals yoghurt, and even worse, he dances with the gopis. But as the mad prince Hamlet once told his old schoolmate, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,  Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

But if even the mundane world is absurd, why should God’s behavior conform to mundane logic of the absurd world? Who’s crazy? God or the cigarette-smoking existentialist followers of Camus ? And again if God is all-powerful by definition, if he is “By Himself” and “For Himself,” then shouldn’t he reserve the right to be as absurd as we are? Who are we to question the ways of God? We must be crazy. The followers of Krishna have often been called crazy, especially by Western followers of the senile delinquent persuasion. 

"Who is Crazy?"

Srila Prabhupada once wrote an essay on madness, called Who is Crazy? I reproduce it in full below.

WHO IS CRAZY?

By His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

Founder-Ācārya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness

[Reproduced from

Back to Godhead magazine

Issue #66]

The whole world is divided into factions, and each accuses the others of being crazy. But if there are no criteria by which to judge sanity, then who can decide?

man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru
mām evaiṣyasi yuktvaivam ātmānaṁ mat-parāyaṇaḥ

“Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, engage your body in My service and surrender unto Me. Completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me.” (Bg. 9.34)

Here Krsna says that one should always think of Him, be His devotee and worship Him. This is the process of devotional service; it is not very difficult, and anyone can execute it by thinking of God, offering obeisances and rendering some service unto Him. Generally people identify with some party, either socially, politically, economically or religiously. In America there are the Republican and Democratic parties, and on the international scale there are the capitalists and the communists. Religiously, people identify with a party as Christian, Moslem, Hindu and so on. In India there are social parties also, like the brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas. In short, to avoid belonging to some party or other is not possible. Spiritualism, however, means that we should identify ourselves with God’s party.

On this platform also there is “party-ism” in that the spiritualists call the materialists crazy, and the materialists call the spiritualists crazy. We have formed a Society for Krishna Consciousness, and those who do not like it say that we are “crazy.” Similarly, a person in Kṛṣṇa consciousness sees a person who is acting in material consciousness as a crazy person. Who, then, is actually crazy? Who decides? How are the parties involved capable of deciding? Indeed, the whole world is divided into parties, each accusing the others of being crazy, but if there are no criteria by which to judge sanity, then who can decide? If we ask any man, any common man on the street, what he is, he will reply, “I am this body.” He may give some further explanation by saying that he is Christian, or Hindu, or Jewish, or that he is Mr. So-and-So, or whatever, but all these are simply designations he attaches to the body. In other words, they all arise from the body. When a person says that he is an American, he is referring to the body because by some accident or reason he is born into the land of America and so takes the title of an American. But that is also artificial because the land is neither American nor French, nor Chinese, nor Russian, nor anything—land is land. We have simply artificially created some boundaries and said, “This is America, this is Canada, this is Mexico, Europe, Asia, India.” These are our concoctions, for we do not find that these lands were originally divided in this way. Three or four hundred years ago this land was not even known as America, nor was it even inhabited by white men from Europe. Even a thousand years ago Europe was inhabited by different peoples and called different names. These are all designations that are constantly changing. From the Vedic literatures we can understand that this whole planet was known as Ilāvṛta-varṣa, and one king, MahārājaBharata, who ruled the entire planet, changed the name of the planet to Bhārata-varṣa. Gradually, however, the planet became divided again, and different continents and sectors became known by different names. Even recently India has been divided into a number of countries, whereas earlier in the century India had included Burma, Ceylon and East and West Pakistan. In actuality the land is neither Bhārata-varṣa, India, Europe, Asia or whatever—we simply give it these designations in accordance with time and influence.

Just as we give the land designations, we also give our bodies designations, but no one can say what his designations were before birth. Who can say that he was American, Chinese, European or whatever? We are thinking that after leaving this body we will continue as American or Indian or Russian. But although we may live in America during this life, we may be in China in the next, for we are constantly changing our bodies. Who can say that he is not changing bodies? When we are born from the womb of our mother, our body is very small. Now, where is that body? Where is the body we had as a boy? We may have photographs that remind us what the body was like in past years, but we cannot say where that body has gone. The body may change, yet we have the feeling that we do not change. “I am the same man,” we think, “and in my childhood I looked like this or like that.” Where have those years gone? They have vanished along with the body and everything that came in contact with it. But although everything is changing at every moment, we are still sticking to our bodily identification so that when we are asked what we are, we give an answer that is somehow or other related to this body. Is this not crazy? If a person identifies with something he is not, he is considered crazy. The conclusion is that one who identifies with the body cannot really be considered sane. This, then, is a challenge to the world: Whoever claims God’s property or earth as belonging to his body, which is constantly changing, can only be considered a crazy man. Who can actually establish that this is his property or that this is his body? By the chances of nature a person is placed in a body and is dictated to by the laws of material nature. Yet in illusion we think we are controlling that nature. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā:

prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni
guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā
kartāham iti manyate

“The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by nature.” (Bg. 3.27)

Prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni: Material nature is pulling everyone by the ear, just as a stern teacher pulls a student. Every individual is under the dictations of material nature and is being put sometimes in this body and sometimes in that. We are now fortunate to have acquired a human body, but we can easily see that there are many other types of bodies (8,400,000 according to Padma Purāṇa) and by the laws of nature we can be put into any type of body according to our work. Thus we are completely in the grip of material nature. Although this lifetime we may be fortunate in acquiring a human body, there is no guarantee that the next time we will not have the body of a dog or some other animal. All this depends on our work. No one can say, “After my death, I will take my birth again in America.” Material nature will force us into this body or that. Since we are not authorities, Bhagavad-gītā informs us that everything is being conducted by the supreme laws of nature, and it is the foolish man who thinks, “I am something. I am independent.” Ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā: this is false reason. Although the living entity is different from the body, he thinks, “I am this body.” Therefore Śaṅkarācārya basically preached the same message over and over: ahaṁ brahmāsmi, “I am not this body; I am Brahman, spirit soul.”

Nonetheless, even when we have resolved to take to the path of self-realization, māyā or illusion persists. By self-realization a person may come to realize that he is not the body but a spiritual soul. What then is his position? Void? Impersonal? People think that after the demise of this body there is nothing but nirvāṇa or void. The impersonalists similarly say that as soon as the body is finished, one’s personal identity is finished also. In actuality, however, the body can never be identified with the living entity any more than a car can be identified with its driver. A person may direct a car wherever he wishes, but when he gets out of the car he does not think that his personality is gone. In Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa speaks of the living entity in this way:

īśvaraḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ
hṛd-deśe ’rjuna tiṣṭhati
bhrāmayan sarva-bhūtāni
yantrārūḍhāni māyayā

“The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone’s heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.” (Bg. 18.61)

These various bodies are like cars, and they are all moving. One person may have an expensive kind of car, and another person may have an inexpensive one; one person may have a new car, and another person may have an old one. Should we then think that when we are out of the car of the body the personality no longer exists? This is another kind of craziness. The void philosophy, which maintains that after death we become nothing, is also a craziness that has been contradicted. We are not void but spirit. When one attains spiritual realization, knowing himself as spirit outside the body, he can advance further by inquiring about his duty as spirit. “What is my spiritual work?” he should ask. Realizing one’s spiritual identity and asking about one’s spiritual duty is actual sanity. So much individuality and discrimination are displayed by the living entity even in the body. Should we think that at death one’s intelligence, discrimination and individuality no longer exist? Although we may make such great plans and work so hard within the body, are we to assume that when we leave the body we become void? There is no basis for this nonsense, and it is directly refuted by Kṛṣṇa at the very beginning of Bhagavad-gītā:

na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param

dehino ’smin yathā dehe
kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāptir
dhīras tatra na muhyati

“Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.” (Bg. 2.12–13)

Thus the spiritual identity of the individual soul continues after death, for Lord Kṛṣṇa assures Arjuna of the eternality of all the individual souls assembled on the battlefield. The spiritual spark or self is within the body from the moment the body begins to form within the womb of the mother, and it continues existing in the body as the body undergoes all of its changes through infancy, childhood, youth and old age. This means that the person who is within the body is present from the moment of conception. The measurement of this individual soul is so small that the Vedic scriptures approximate it to be no larger than one ten-thousandth part of the tip of a hair—in other words, as far as human vision is concerned, it is invisible. One cannot see the soul with material eyes, but the soul is there nonetheless, and the fact that the body grows from the shape of a pea to full-grown manhood is proof of its presence. There are six symptoms of the soul’s presence, and growth is one of them. If there is growth, or change, one should know that the soul is present within the body. When the body becomes useless, the soul leaves it, and the body simply decays. One cannot directly perceive the soul’s leaving the body, but one can perceive it symptomatically when the body loses consciousness and dies. In the Second Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa gives the following simile to illustrate this process:

vāsāṁsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya
navāni gṛhṇāti naro ’parāṇi
tathā śarīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇāny
anyāni saṁyāti navāni dehī

“As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.” (Bg. 2.22)

Although the soul takes on new bodies, the soul does not select the bodies himself, the selection is made by the law of nature. However, the mentality of the soul does affect the selection, as indicated by Kṛṣṇa in the following verse:

yaṁ yaṁ vāpi smaran bhāvaṁ
tyajaty ante kalevaram
taṁ tam evaiti kaunteya
sadā tad-bhāva-bhāvitaḥ

“In whatever condition one quits his present body, in his next life he will attain to that state of being without fail.” (Bg. 8.6)

As one’s thoughts develop, his future body also develops. The sane man understands that he is not the body, and he also understands what his duty is: to fix his mind on Kṛṣṇa so that at death he can attain Kṛṣṇa’s nature. This is the advice of Kṛṣṇa in the last verse of the Ninth Chapter:

man-manā bhava mad-bhakto
mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru
mām evaiṣyasi yuktvaivam
ātmānaṁ mat-parāyaṇaḥ

“Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, engage your body in My service and surrender unto Me. Completely absorbed in Me, surely will you come to Me.” (Bg. 9.34)

Every embodied soul is in the constant act of thinking. To refrain from thinking something is not possible for a moment. The duty of the individual, therefore, is to think of Kṛṣṇa. There should be no difficulty in this, nor any harm; Kṛṣṇa has pastimes and activities, He comes to earth and leaves His message in the form of Bhagavad-gītā, and there are so many literatures about Kṛṣṇa that thinking of Him is neither a difficult nor costly task. There are enough literatures on Kṛṣṇa to last one a lifetime, so there is no shortage of material. Thinking of Kṛṣṇa, however, should be favorable. If a man is employed, he may always be thinking of his employer: “I must get there on time. If he sees me late, he may deduct from my paycheck.” This kind of thinking will not do. It is necessary to think of Kṛṣṇa with love (bhava mad-bhaktaḥ). In the material world when the servant thinks of the master, there is no love; he is thinking only of pounds, shillings and pence. Because that kind of thinking will not save us, Kṛṣṇa requests that one just be His devotee.

Thinking of Kṛṣṇa with love, or devotion to Kṛṣṇa, actually means service. The spiritual master prescribes various duties to enable the neophyte devotee to think of Kṛṣṇa. In the Society for Krishna Consciousness, for instance, there are so many duties assigned: printing, writing, typing, dispatching, cooking, and so on. In so many ways the students are thinking of Krsna because they are engaged in the service of Krsna.

What is the duty indicated by Kṛṣṇa? Mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru. Even if we are not inclined to obedience, we must obey and offer respects (namaskuru). Bhakti, or devotion, minus respect is not bhakti. One should engage in Kṛṣṇa consciousness with love and respect and should thus fulfill his designated duties. Then life will be successful. One can never be happy by identifying himself with the material body and engaging in all kinds of nonsensical activities. For happiness, there must be consciousness of Kṛṣṇa; that is the difference between spiritualism and materialism. The same typewriter, dictation machine, tape recorder, mimeograph machine, paper, ink, the same hand—on the surface, everything is the same, but everything becomes spiritualized when it is used in the service of Kṛṣṇa. This, then, is spiritual. We should not think that something has to be uncommon to be spiritual. The entire material world can be transformed into spirit if we simply become Kṛṣṇa conscious. By ardently following the instructions of Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad-gītā and following in the footsteps of the great ācāryas, teachers of Bhagavad-gītā in the line of disciplic succession, we can spiritualize the earth and restore its inhabitants to sanity.

Are you living a lie?

As I approach one thousand blogs posted, a few observations:

In the last two years a lot has changed. Repressive regimes around the world are doing their best to stop any ideas they consider "dangerous." Electronic and social media were once considered as innovative ways to change the world. Now they are used as means of control.

In Russia, friends of mine had to fight in court after being arrested for talking about Yoga. In Mexico, journalists are regularly killed for writing about violence. In China, this blog and many other internet sites are banned for presenting ideas considered “subersive.” In the United States, religious groups are “extremely vetted.” Yogis, Vegetarians, and Vegans are simply considered "crazy," and not worthy of any serious discussion. 

Repression of ideas is easy when people are unable to ask questions. Around the world in Mexico, Ukraine, Thailand, and other developing countries, educative models encourage young people to learn how to continue running the system. No one is allowed to seriously question the system. Even if they were allowed to ask questions, often young people don’t know how. They have not been educated to ask questions, but to follow protocols.

Addicted to their cell phones, unable to maintain a five minute conversation, young people have lost their ability to think creatively. Schooling ensures nothing more than that they can be useful cogs in the machine. They can be creative at running the machine. Never mind that the machine is a violent failure.

I won’t waste your time with examples. Take a look around. You know what I’m talking about. The Iron Age, Kali-yuga, is upon us all. It’s in the milk we drink. 

We live in a time of lies. We can study how we got to this place; but what amazes me is that so few voices are allowed to criticize. But thinking and dissent have been quashed and quarantined to spaces like this blog.

It surprises me that the voices that question the machine are from groups who want a piece of the action. Developing countries want economic growth without questioning its effect. Globalization destroys ecology, economy, and culture. But as long as the smart people at the top are getting rich, who cares? The best critical minds who rage against the machine only want to use the machine themselves.

Oil companies need us to burn more gasoline. Car companies need us to buy more cars. Their executives don’t care about the consequences. Why should they? They’re laughing all the way to the bank. Does anyone question the need for oil or cars? Not really. What if we proclaimed a week without petroleum? Who would survive? Where does it end?

We live in an age of lies. We accept on faith paradoxes that defy common sense. Carbon is black as coal, but now, thanks to the magic of Hollywood, coal is “clean.” Ignorance is Knowledge. Homosexuals want marriage rights, but what about gay divorce rights? Feminists want equality with men. Films like Wonder Woman are hailed as a great achievement for women. Now, women can star in blockbuster movies filled with gratuitous violence and promote the values of war and exploitation just as men have done for generations. We need war to keep the peace. War is Peace. What progress!

Everyone wants a piece of the pie, but the pie has been shrinking. A million dollars isn’t what it used to be. Ask the President. Globalism promises an equal piece of the pie to countries all over the world. But as everyone fights over the shrinking pie, cultures and traditions everywhere are destroyed. Values like purity, family, and spiritual truth are disappearing, replaced by the values of sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

It’s said that of the four pillars of religion, cleanliness, austerity, chastity, and truthfulness, truth is the last to go. We live in an age of lies.

I don’t know if I have the courage to tell the truth. I’ve tried to hold to my convictions as far as I have any. As I approach a thousand blog posts, I wonder if honest speech still has any value. Most of what passes for honesty is mere rage. I’ve tried to tell the truth as I see it, based on my own journey to surrender.

I’ve done my best to raise a few points. I thank you for your patience.

Ram vs. Ravana

Inclusion vs. Exclusion. Vaikuntha vritti

Inclusive vs. Exclusive Mission

Vaikuntha vritti

by Michael Dolan, B.V. Mahayogi

Sometimes I lose heart when I see so many devotees of Krishna fighting over the quotidian application of dharma.  It is wise to remember that in the  End of Mahabharata Duryodhana and company went to heaven while the Pandavas went to hell.  Duryodhana followed all the rules very carefully, and he and his brothers went to the heavenly planets. 

The Pandavas bended the rules and ended in hell. The purport of the Mahābharata is that Krishna-bhakti transcends the ordinary rules of dharma. Western devotees especially should be careful about absolute insistence on the rules. Mercy, after all, is above justice. We do not aspire to divine love through rule-following, but by the mercy of Krishna and the devotees, even if it means going to hell.

I enjoy seeing the photos of devotees around the world on facebook. But I am sometimes surprised by what I see as a petty attitude. When I look to my friends on facebook for inspiration, I see recrimination by one group of devotees against another. These discussions descend into "debates" and often become offensive.

"Be humble as a blade of grass"

It is important, I think, to remember the simple instructions on humility and tolerance, not only with saintly persons, but  in our every day dealings.

"Be Tolerant as a tree"

While promoting "love of God," some followers overlook the importance of affectionate dealings with other human beings.  We claim that it is important to be kind to the animals, but become so absorbed in ideologies that we shame and insult other devotees for their dietary habits.  Diet is important; taking prasādam is paramount in devotional service, as is following ekadaśi.  But instead of shaming others for their short-comings, we should be careful to avoid offenses, especially offenses to Vaishnavas. 

By going to great lengths to exclude others from our creed, we run the risk of extremism. Extremism is dangerous and leads to a cult mentality. We should not spend all our energy figuring out how to exclude others; rather as preachers our task is to include others in the dance of sankirtan, the celebration of the holy name.

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati wanted an inclusive mission.

Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati Ṭhakura liked the idea of Vaikuṇṭha vṛtti, where everyone may be included in this celebration.

I was personally present when Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja spoke on Vaikuntha Vritti,  but I quote Goswāmī Mahārāja's version here as a more authentic remembrance than my own.  

Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja was surprised by the idea of "vaikuntha-vritti"

"Once Srila Saraswati Thakur said in Bombay, "I am thinking, if the Western people have some objection to coming to the Math for Hari-katha, and it is based on the restriction of the diet, we can arrange from a hotel nearby some non-vegetarian food for them."

Srila Guru Maharaj, who is a high class Brahman Bhattacharyya was really shocked to hear this, and said, "I think the end result will be contamination in our Ashram, from this policy. We will be contaminated by implementing this."

And he said Saraswati Thakur's words struck his heart like a thunder bolt when he turned around and said: "Oh you don't know? I decided this ten thousand years ago. We have to employ Vaikuntha-vritti, if we are going to entice the Western world." And Vaikuntha-vritti means no limitation on extending; there won't be any disqualification or any limitation that will obstruct this flow, this current." Parikrama Lecture

Creation

The Creation of the Universe

Kṛṣṇa says: 

मम योनिर् महद्-ब्रह्म

तस्मिन् गर्भं दधाम्य् अहम्

सम्भवः सर्व-भूतानां

ततो भवति भारत

mama yonir mahad-brahma

tasmin garbhaṃ dadhāmy aham

sambhavaḥ sarva-bhūtānāṃ

 tato bhavati bhārata

BG 14.3

Here Krishna explains the metaphysical creation. The primordial egg is called mahat-brahma, or mahat-tattva,  and consists of primordial cosmic reality combining of undifferentiated spiritual energy with an egoistic tendency with unmanifest space and time. 

The womb of unmanifested cosmic energy or “trimodal material nature in its entirety undivided by space and time” is impregnated by God with the seeds of consciousness, unborn souls bent on exploitation. In that region all beings headed by the creator Himself are generated.”




Cosmic Seeds




Kṛṣṇa uses the metaphor of seeds. The creation story here is much different from the concept of a special creation in six days.  Here, the Supreme Absolute disseminates the seeds of consciousness into this world. Living beings gradually evolve into different situations according to their particular levels of consciousness. They grow and adapt, surviving in different living conditions, species, and biological frameworks according to their individual levels of consciousness.As consciousness evolves or “devolves” it develops adequate apparatus in the form of the variety of living species over milennia.

Living consciousness is compared here to a seed. The Supreme Consciousness impregnates the universe with living energy. Just as seeds grow and flourish, the living entities within a universe activate the  genetic structures necessary for development and exploitation within the perceived world. The idea is that all souls are emanations from the Supreme Reality, just as light is an emanation from the sun. Through the agency of the three qualities of material nature each individual soul is held in a hypnotic state in which she is convinced that she is the subject.




-->

And so it is that we feel that we are the subjects, the center of the universe; we feel that everything else is merely an object meant for our exploitation. The qualities of material nature enforce the illusion that we are exploiters and that the entire environment is for our exploitation. This is the foundation of misconception.

Charity

On Giving in Charity

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta (Saraswati Thakur) Prabhupada was traveling through Orissa with his disciples. One day as he was coming back from Saksi Gopal's temple, some people on the way asked for alms from the married men who accompanied Srila Prabhupada, but none of them gave anything. Srila Prabhupada, in seeing this, stopped, sat down and started to talk about the duties of married men. During his chat he said:

"If married men think: 'I must not give any of my money, which I consider reserved for Krishna, to the poor and deprived', then they are really showing symptoms of wretchedness, cruelty and lack of compassion for others. They should not consider that giving charity to the poor is a fruitful activity.

"This kind of mentality shall make their hearts hard and they will suffer of greed. As a result of this they shall not want to spend their money, not even on the devotional service to the Supreme Lord, which is the ultimate goal in life. This will invite offenses in the service.

"To save ourselves of this kind of deceit and sinful concept, Sri Gaurasundara used to give money and things like that to the poor people during His pastimes as a married man.

"The money we have, we have only gotten by the Lord's grace, if we give some of it to the mendicant poor people, then it is not a waste of money, rather it is its correct use. Serving prasadam to others is the necessary duty of every married Vaishnava. Even if these people have turned to poor by karma or their destiny, even so, they are still a part of the Lord's family. Therefore it is definitively the solemn duty of every honest married man to help them".
_____________________
[This is a reproduction of a conversation with Major Rana N. J. Bahadur at Armadale, Darjeeling on June 14th, 1935. It was originally published in The Harmonist (Vol. XXXI, No.21) on the 27th of June, 1935. This reproduction is not edited, except for a few ortographical changes.]