Q. The Gaudiya tradition advises not to chant or perform puja to Ganesa, Durga, and Siva, the greatest Vaisnava. How can this be?
A. For progress in Gaudiya Vaisnavism the puja of Sri Guru and Vaisnava are more spiritually potent and pertinent than the worship of Siva, Ganesa, Katyayani, etc. Although these gods and goddesses may also be Vaisnavas, the gurus in out lineage are worshipable by them. About the acarya Krishna says, sarva-deva-mayo gurum: “The acarya represents all of the gods.” About the Vaisnava, Prahlada Maharaja says, sarvair gunais tatra samasate surah: “He possesses all of the qualities of the gods.” In our lineage the acaryas hold a higher position than the gods and goddesses.
Although Siva is called the greatest Vaisnava, this is merely the propaganda of the Bhagavatam to encourage his followers. Otherwise, why do we find him attempting to enter the rasa-sthali unsuccessfully? Those who have access there, Sri Rupa and Raghunatha, are more important to us. We may find here and there that Sanatana Goswami worshipped Yogamaya or Mahadeva, and Mahaprabhu entered the temples of Siva with a worshipable attitude, etc. but we are to worship the Goswamis and Mahaprabhu themselves, as do the gods and goddesses. As for worshipping Durga, Sakti devi, we do puja to svayam sakti, Sri Radha. This is the lesson of Brhat-bhagavatamrta.
Q. But I lack all qualification for worship of Sri Guru or Mahaprabhu or Sri Sri Radha-Syamasundara.
A. If you are initiated into the Gaudiya sampradaya, you are qualified to worship Guru, Mahaprabhu, and Radha Govinda. If you are not qualified to worship your guru, you will not make any progress by worshipping anyone else.
Q. But in the Nectar of Devotion Srila Prabhupada states, “Therefore, all devotees should worship Ganapati (Ganesa).”
A. You have taken a statement from Srila Prabhupada’s books without understanding it in context. Although Prabhupada said this, he himself did not worship Ganesa, nor did he establish Ganesa puja in any of his temples. We have to take all of this into consideration if we are to follow him properly. Indeed, when personally asked about worshipping Ganesa he repeatedly instructed that this was not necessary. Here are some examples of these instructions.
Bombay, 21 November, 1974, ACBS/bs
“The Ganesa puja may not be performed. No, it is not to be done. No need of it.”
London, 25 August, 1971, ACBS/adb
“So far worshipping Ganesa is concerned, that is not necessary. Not that it should be done on a regular basis. If you like you can pray to Ganapati for removing all impediments on the path of Krishna Consciousness. That you can do if you like.”
Evanston, 28 December, 1974, ACBS/bs
“I do not encourage you to worship this demigod, Ganesa. It is not required, it is not necessary. Simply worship Krishna. Of course if one has got some sentiment for achieving the blessings of Ganesa for accumulating large sums of money to serve Krishna, then he may perform this Ganesa worship, privately, not making a public show.”
Bombay, 31 December, 1974, ACBS/bs
“Regarding Ganesa Puja, I have received some letters from persons requesting to also perform it. I have explained to them that ultimately it is not required, but if you have some sentiment to get the blessings of Ganesa in order to get huge sums of money for service of Krishna, then it can be done, but privately. I have instructed them that if they want to do it, they must send me at least $100,000 monthly—not less.”
These instructions seem consistent with my advice. At the same time, worship of Ganesa and other gods and goddesses is recommended by Krishna himself in the Bhagavatam, durgam vinayakam vyasam visvaksenam gurun suran sve sve sthane tv abhimukhan pujayet proksanadibhih. However, Jiva Goswami has commented that the deities mentioned here are not demigods of the material world, but members of Vaikuntha. They are to be worshipped in conjunction with the worship of Visnu, if one desires to attain Vaikuntha. This, however, has nothing to do with raganuga-bhakti.
Q. Does one gain sukrti from worshipping the devas? Since the demigods, such as Hanuman, are param Vaisnavas, wouldn’t glorifying them please Krishna?
A. Worship of the devas bears the fruit of material piety. This kind of piety does not beget bhakti. Although we find siddhas in Krishna-lila worshipping gods and goddesses, this is part of Krishna-lila, and is not part of the sadhana to enter that lila. If in the consciousness of love for Krishna, one worships a god or goddess, this is different from worshipping them for material benefit. There is no sense in worshipping the devas with a view to attaining love of Krishna. One cannot give what one does not have. Hanuman, by the way, is not a deva. He is a parsada of Rama and can give Rama-bhakti, love of God.
Q. Are the Lord’s lilas the same in each universe or are they only important for humans on Earth?
A. The worldly manifestation of Krishna-lila is basically the same wherever it manifests. At the same time, it is always a fresh experience for those who have feeling for it.
Q. Why is the world population increasing if, as the Bhagavad-gita says, the atma never dies or ages but just shifts from one body to another?
A. There are unlimited jivatmas. Their appearance in this world in human form is a good sign, as human birth is rare. There are many more jivatmas in microbe bodies, etc. So, if there is an increase in the human population this does not contradict Gaudiya Vedanta (note I am referring to devotional Vedanta and not advaita Vedanta.)
Q. You said the living entities in the material world are the sakti of Maha Visnu. I have also heard that they are part of the pleasure potency of the Lord, the sakti of Radharani.
A. There are different kinds of souls. Some of them are constituted of the svarupa-sakti, while other are constituted of the tatastha-sakti. Some souls emanate from the jyoti of Sri Radha or Subala, etc. for participation in Krishna-lila. The baddha-jivas, however, are all manifestations of tatastha-sakti emanating from Maha Visnu in his srsti-lila.
Q. In a recent Sanga there was mention of prostitutes in the spiritual world. How can that be? Isn’t everyone in Vaikuntha completely satisfied with Krishna?
A. Your conception of lila is static, not dynamic. To understand Vaikuntha we require vaikuntha-vrtti, where all things are possible without the ramifications we experience here because all activity is God-centered. In the spiritual world everyone is satisfied with their relationship with God. This does not mean that they have no relationship with others. One could ask the same question with regard to married couples in Vaikuntha. Furthermore, there are different standards of liberation and selflessness in Vaikuntha . For example, there are many devotees in Vaikuntha who are just satisfied to live on the same planet as God (salokya).
Q. Some say Ramananda Raya was a sahajiya practicing a tantric process since he was serving young girls in a secluded place, washing and massaging them, and so on. Is this true?
A. This line of reasoning is not very sensible. Given the difference between the Sahajiya/tantric doctrine and that of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, it is difficult to imagine that one of the most prominent followers of Sri Caitanya could be a Sahajiya/tantric and thus differ so considerably on fundamental religious doctrine. The Sahajiya doctrine holds that Radha and Krishna are the macrocosmic representation of the microcosmic union of man and woman and through sexual encounter imitates the “myth” of Radha-Krishna (man thinking himself to be Krishna and his unwedded partner to be Radha). Through this, one can realize himself to be the spiritual essence arising out of the combination of the male and female principles. Gaudiya Vaisnavism on the other hand does not admit to this macrocosmic/microcosmic notion, nor does it culminate in an impersonal spiritual essence in which man and woman are thought to have become one through sexual union.
Historically, the Sahajiya and Vaisnava groups do not mix. Although Sahajiyas sometimes call themselves Vaisnava sahajiyas, this is more a case of the Sahajiyas seeking greater recognition by way of connecting with a much more prominent religious movement. They have done this not only in connection with Gaudiya Vaisnavism, but with Buddhism, and Sufism as well.
Sahajiyas are not concerned with standards of morality. Historically their congregation has consisted largely of persons from the lower classes. At the time of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and even today in India there is not much mixing of classes. Although the Gaudiya Vaisnavas did then and continue now to draw into their fold many lower class persons, their admittance into the sampradaya implied a concern for their moral integrity and upliftment. Ramananda himself was an intellectual giant, and there is no justification for assuming that he was not morally upright. Indeed, he intimately associated with Sri Caitanya himself, who was morally strict to the extreme.
Ramananda’s sadhana, which involved associating intimately with two female temple dancers, does at a glance seem to correspond with left-handed tantric practices common to Sahajiyas. However, under scrutiny it becomes clear that his practices were in fact diametrically opposed to those of the Sahajiyas.
His purpose for associating intimately with these women so was to teach them how to perform his drama, “Jagannatha-vallabha-nataka,” a drama for the pleasure of Jagannatha. The “dasis” learned from Ramananda how to express the various sancari-bhavas, anubhavas, etc. through the movements of their eyes and bodily gestures which are essential elements of bhakti-rasa. Caitanya-caritamrta explains that he taught them these things in the mood of a manjari assisting elder gopis (sakhis) in the art of loving Krishna.
At no time did his practice involve thinking of himself as Krishna or the women as Radha, or having sexual union with them, and aspiring to an impersonal form of liberation—all of which are integral to sahajiya-sadhana. By contrast, his sadhana, at least conceptually, is overtly raganuga-bhakti, the very sadhana that Sri Caitanya came to distribute. The somewhat unconventional form that Ramananda’s sadhana took, serves to illustrate his spiritual advancement in which his bhava manifested in his external practices and guided them.
This is no doubt extraordinary and not to be imitated, but it is not an example of left-handed sahajiya tantric practice. After all, Ramananda Raya was the first person to understand Sri Caitanya to be Radha and Krishna combined. He had deep, penetrating spiritual vision and was an eternal associate of Mahaprabhu. Sri Caitanya singled him out and praised him for his spiritual penetration that involved this practice, while advising others not to imitate him.
Kavikarnapura has described Ramananda through the mouth of Sarvabhauma in his drama “Caitanya-candrodaya-nataka” as a sahajya-vaisnava. However, when Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami relates this same historical instance in his Caitanya-caritamrta, he has Sarvabhauma call Ramananda a rasika-bhakta. Generically and in terms of the consistent use of the term throughout the Goswami literature, sahajiya means spontaneous, accomplished, natural, innate. Thus in the Goswami granthas, sahajiya-vaisnava and rasika-bhakta are synonymous. Furthermore, during the time of Mahaprabhu the Sahajiya cult was not referred to by that name. That was a later development.
