Q. My boyfriend says he’ll never become a vegetarian. What sort of karmic influence can that have on me? Should I continue trying to influence him spiritually?
A. It would be best if you could say less and do more in your efforts to influence your friend regarding your spiritual values—less dogma and more personal change for the better. Change speaks louder than dogma. It is not wrong to be friends with anyone. Krishna is everyone’s friend. You should befriend others in general and inspire them by your example. They cannot hurt you but you may be able to help them by Krishna’s grace. At the same time you should avoid the association of those who are opposed to your spiritual values.
Q. Re: the law of karma. If you do not know the actual cause of your suffering, how can that suffering help you?
A. While it is true that we may not be aware of our past that appears as our present suffering, human life gives us the opportunity to become aware of the dynamics of this karmic reality. Scripture speaks to human society. If in human life we choose to ignore scripture, we suffer as a consequence of pursuing ignorance over knowledge. Even without the help of scripture, it should be apparent to any thoughtful person that there are consequences from our actions.
Either this truth is not absolute, or not all of the consequences of our actions are immediately experienced or visible. Scripture confirms the latter. What is the value of suffering without knowing why one is suffering? In answer one can ask what value there is in saying one does not know why he is suffering after ignoring the one (scripture) who explains the reason to him.
The law of karma does not directly involve God. He is not responsible for its response to our thoughts and actions. A moral God has not superimposed the law of karma on the world. Material nature exists for the jiva souls and they in turn give life to material nature. The moral nature of the law of karma, its determination of good and bad expressed as punishment and reward, is stern, honest, and austere. It is not particularly merciful or compassionate. Nature will respond to any thought or action we indulge in by creating circumstances that balance them out. Nature facilitates the fruition of all of the jiva souls’ tendencies (samskaras), allowing them to work out their destiny.
This is simply the nature of the world, one activated by ourselves since time immemorial. Human life is meant for self-realization and God realization. If one demonstrates that he is not interested in this, nature facilitates that which he is interested in appropriately, which often involves providing a body other than a human one that is better suited for the pursuit one one’s interest. We can learn about this from scripture. Now you know, so you cannot plead ignorance in the future.
Q. Why do some people say it is wrong to publicly talk about the rasa-lila like you do in your book Aesthetic Vedanta?
A. I am not sure why they say that. It is not really possible to teach Gaudiya Vaisnavism without discussing this subject, as it is central to the theology. However, for the general public it should be discussed in terms of its theological ramifications, which is what I have done in my book Aesthetic Vedanta and which is what my gurus expect from me.
Q. Some critics say your book, Aesthetic Vedanta: The Sacred Path of Passionate Love, runs counter to the advice of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura who cautioned against reading about rasa-lila until one is free from lust.
A. Have these critics read the numerous articles published by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura in his Harmonist magazine discussing the theology of transcendental erotica? Have they read A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s Krishna Book, or the Tenth Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam? All of these works are concerned with this subject. So it appears that there is room for discussing rasa-lila publicly.
I have been a follower of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura for 30 years and my service has always been to present his teachings for our times. My Gurus have only encouraged me in this, even while others have sometimes criticized me for it. My book ‘Aesthetic Vedanta’ explains the theology and philosophy behind the rasa lila, its implications for the sadhaka and the siddha, as well as the path recommended by our acaryas for attaining perfection. I believe any unbiased reader will appreciate the book, as have many people thus far.
I would like to take these critics more seriously, but they have to give me something more specific to consider. If they have actually read Aesthetic Vedanta and have a more specific criticism, please send it along.
Q. I recently came across a book about Erotic Mysticism in the Vaisnava-Sahajiya Cult of Bengal by Professor Dimock. What kind of erotic mysticism is this, and how does it differ from Aesthetic Vedanta?
A. I have never read the late Professor Dimock’s book. However, I am aware that he considered the Vaisnava Sahajiya cult to be closely related with what Sri Caitanya represented and that Ramanada Ray in particular was from the Sahajiya sect. This opinion is not accepted by the Gaudiya Vaisnava orthodoxy. The sahajiya sect differs in many ways from the siddhanta and practice of the orthodox Gaudiya tradition.
Perhaps one of the principal differences is the incorporation of sexual practice into the sadhana of the sahajiyas that is forbidden in the orthodox Gaudiya tradition. The sahajiya sect is also concerned more with liberation than the ideal of prema that is the goal of the Gaudiyas. In short the two sects are very different.
My book, Aesthetic Vedanta, presents the orthodox Gaudiya Vaisnava understanding of the amorous pastimes of Godhead. It is also written by a practitioner, rather than a scholar like Professor Dimock. There are many differences. I suggest you read it and see for yourself.
Q. Could you please explain the four stages of sound mentioned in the Eleventh Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam; vaikarika, madhyama, pasyanti, and para. These stages are only briefly mentioned in one of the purports. Where are these stages described in the sastras?
A. These stages of language comprehension have been explained by Bhartrhari in his work Vakya-Padiya (6th-7th century). They refer to a progressive unity of word and object in transcendental consciousness. Vaikhari is the state of ordinary perception whereby a word (sabda) and its referent (artha) are separate entities. They come together on the mental platform in Madhyama, and then are realized as part of the Sabda-Brahman in Pasyanti. Para is a still higher state of union between word and object. My Godbrother, Santosa dasa (Prof. Guy Beck), has written an excellent book Sonic Theology, where you can find more information on this subject.
Q. Why is the divinity of Sriman Mahaprabhu not accepted by other Vaisnava schools despite clear evidence from various scriptures?
A. The divinity of Mahaprabhu Sri Caitanya is accepted by many devotees from various sampradayas. However, most do not accept him as svayam bhagavan, nor do they accept Krishna himself to be the source of Narayana as the term svayam bhagavan in the Bhagavata’s krishnas tu bhagavan svayam indicates. These devotees have their own angle of vision, and scripture says one thing to one group and something else to another group. Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami has said that while it may not be wrong to consider Sri Caitanya to be an incarnation of Maha Visnu, it is not a very flattering thing to say about him.
Mahaprabhu was called to the world by Advaita (Maha Visnu) for the purpose of delivering the yuga dharma of nama sankirtana. In this sense he descended from Advaita, but Advaita himself could not tolerate the idea that Mahaprabhu was subordinate to himself. Furthermore, in tattva Mahaprabhu and Visnu are one, but when we deliberate on the two in terms of rasa, we find greater potential for rasa in Gaurasundara than we do in Narayana. The Gaudiyas have understood rasa to be the ultimate analysis, while others have not considered this.
Some people respect only certain Upanisads. That is their misfortune. Still we can support our position from those Upanisads, although they will not accept our interpretation of the various verses we cite. However, they cannot deny spirituality when it stares them in the face and still be considered credible.
So, set the proper example. Serve Mahaprabhu and develop love of Krishna and they will not be able to defeat your example.
