Q. In you recent discussion, “Women and the Reality of Our Times,” you seem to be advocating modern ideas. Isn’t the ancient Vedic culture ideal and modern society bad?
A. Exactly what Vedic culture is or was is difficult to say. There are many theories. Even great spiritual teachers in our own tradition have different opinions on this. We are interested in spiritual life. We are against the idea that there is no God or soul, against the idea that life’s purpose is to gratify the senses. As much as Vedic society supported the idea that life’s goal was spiritual emancipation and love of God, it was ideal. Other details are not as important because they lack relevance to our times.
Not all modern insights are inherently bad. Furthermore, while we are not advocates of modern society, we are in many ways a product of it and inextricably entwined with it. Kali yuga is epitomized by hypocrisy. Should we refer to ancient Vedic culture with regard to one specific issue and condemn modern society, while at the same time eat the technological fruits of modern society? We are not for destroying the present and returning to what we think was the past. We are for the future drawn from whatever is valuable from any time and offered by anyone.
Q. In the same Q & A discussion, you wrote, “the cultural bias through which the absolute truth manifests.” Aren’t Vedic statements absolute truth?
A. Truth expresses itself in accordance with time and circumstances. We have to understand what the spirit of the truth is and know that it expresses itself differently at different times. For example, if I say women are less intelligent in a society where women are not educated, this may be true. But the same statement would not be true in a society where women are educated. Some parts of the sastra are spoken in accordance with time and circumstance. Other sections are true in all circumstances
Bhaktivinoda Thakura taught that there are two aspects to scripture, “artha-prada” and “paramartha-prada.” The former refers to scriptural subject matter that deals with the phenomenal world, medicine, logic, music, history, cosmology, cultural considerations, etc. The latter refers to transcendence, theology, mysticism, etc. Artha-prada is temporal knowledge, whereas paramartha-prada is eternal, spiritual knowledge. According to Bhaktivinoda Thakura, artha-prada subject matter is thus subject to human scrutiny and is not absolute. It is that which can be adjusted in accordance with time and circumstances. But that which is divine, on the other hand, is beyond human reasoning. It is the fundamental spiritual truth of sastra and not subject to human speculation.
The relationship between artha-prada sections of sastra and paramarth-prada sections is basically one of form and substance. The spiritual substance of the Bhagavatam is couched in a Puranic cultural and historic setting. The Puranic histories, cultural considerations, cosmology, etc., is the form which carries the substance of eternal spiritual knowledge—this substance is the truth about Krishna, his saktis, the soul, etc. One who can draw out the substance or essence of scripture, distinguishing between its artha-prada and paramartha-prada sections, is a saragrahi Vaisnava, a paramahamsa.
Q. Shouldn’t we be strict and orthodox in our preaching? Isn’t it better to follow the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition like they do in India than to accommodate the modern world?
A. I believe we need to create a revolution in the Gaudiya Vaisnava community so it gains the dignity it deserves in the modern world. I believe it is about getting the modern world to embrace Gaudiya Vaisnavism because it is vital and relevant, not to preach that the modern world is irrelevant. To do this is to ignore whatever facts have come to light in modern times because they don’t fit into the scriptural canon. One who merely follows the course of Indian-style strictness and orthodoxy will be viewed as irrelevant. Remember, scripture is only one of the three pramanas (types of evidence) accepted by Mahaprabhu. Logic and direct perception, although imperfect in terms of revealing the whole truth, can shed light on the truth to some extent.
What is Gaudiya Vaisnavism? What is Krishna consciousness? We need to understand this. It is not an institution of various rules and regulations. It is the spirit of divine love expressing itself with new light. We want new light, not a dredging up of the past in an attempt to do away with a present that we feel we cannot deal with.
If the past of the so-called Vedic culture is the thesis, and the present modern world is the antithesis, we are interested in a synthesis. We are not interested in tearing down the present, but rather in building the future, building a bridge to the future, which can carry all souls across the ocean of material existence.
Q. What is the relationship between soul, Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan? How do they relate, differ and interact? How do they together manifest as a whole?
A. The Absolute is joyful by nature, anadamoya’bhyasat. In order to be so, it must also exist and be conscious of its existence. While there can be an existence that is not conscious of itself, as well as a conscious existence that is not joyful, there cannot be a joyful reality that does not exist or is not conscious of its existence. When existence becomes conscious of the extent to which it exists, it has reason for celebration.
From the joyful Bhagavan who is absorbed in divine play an aura of pure undifferentiated consciousness emanates. This aura is Bhagavan appearing as Brahman. Paramatma is Bhagavan manifesting in relation to material existence, which consists of the individual souls and matter. Paramatma expands and oversees this existence. In this sense, Bhagavan represents the joy of the Absolute, Brahman consciousness, and Paramatma existence. While the joyful Bhagavan exists and is conscious of his existence, his joy is so pronounced that in his most complete manifestation as Krishna he appears unconscious of anything else, including his own supreme existence.
As Brahman, Bhagavan is primarily just conscious. The joy of Brahman is that of peace, and there is little if anything that resembles existence with all its variety and movement in this feature of Bhagavan. Paramatma is fully involved with material existence. Although he is conscious and joyful, these two are less apparent in this manifestation of Bhagavan. The play that expresses joy in the Paramatma is called srsti (creation). As Paramatma plays and thus manifests the material existence, he also enters it and becomes consciously absorbed in every aspect of this existence. The stillness of Brahman lies in between the movement that Bhagavan is concerned with in the world of consciousness, and the movement of the material world that Paramatma is concerned with.
Thus while all three, joy, consciousness, and existence are present in all three features of Godhead, each feature is distinguished from the other by the degree to which one of the three is present.
According to the above understanding, Bhagavan represents joy (ananda), Brahman represents consciousness (cit), and Paramatma represents existence (sat). Paramatma, Brahman, and Bhagavan do not represent sat, cit, or ananda exclusively. Rather, Bhagavan contains all three in fullness, Paramatma and Bhagavan the other two in different degrees.
However, the Paramatma can also be conceived of as existence characterized by consciousness of itself, and Brahman as existence in general. When viewed in this way, Paramatma represents cit rather than sat, and Brahman represents sat rather than cit. Brahman is almost always described in scripture as pure consciousness, so it would seem natural to associate it with cit. However, since consciousness normally requires an object of which one is conscious, it would seem more logical to describe Brahman as simple existence, whereas Paramatma implies variety and therefore fuller consciousness.
Thus from this angle of vision Paramatma is a more developed manifestation of Godhead primarily representing cit, whereas Brahman is the lowest of the three manifestations primarily representing sat. Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan can be further understood in terms of their being manifestations of Godhead that correspond with three approaches to him. The Godhead appears as Brahman to the jnani, as Paramatma to the yogi, and as Bhagavan to his devotee.
Regarding the individual soul, Bhagavan has three primary potencies or energies. The jivatma or individual soul is a manifestation of the intermediate potency of Bhagavan (jiva/tatastha sakti). His primary potency (svarupa sakti) represents his own nature, and his secondary potency represents the material nature consisting of the gunas. His intermediate potency consists of individual souls that bear the stamp of his own nature, and thus each soul is a unit of will. However, the will of the jiva is a qualified will. If it wills to associate with matter, its activity is determined by matter under the influence of material nature’s three gunas. This is the realm of karma.
If the jiva wills to associate itself with God, its activities are ultimately an expression of the internal will of Godhead who chooses to express his own joy through that individual soul. This is called lila, the divine play of the Absolute, in which the individual soul participates by aligning his will with the will of God. The jiva soul’s real life in lila with God is one in which all desire related to God’s secondary potency is replaced with God’s desire – God’s joy manifesting itself though the jiva soul. For the jiva, this experience is one in which it feels as though it has chosen such a life – as if it were its own – just as this is the case in material existence in which we feel we are doing our own thing, but in reality we are merely puppets of the gunas. In liberated life the jiva realizes its highest potential, its very purpose, in the expression of the joy of the Absolute under the influence of God’s primary sakti.
The liberated jiva wants what God wants it to want. In material life the jiva does not know itself, what to speak of its potential, and it wants what is not in its interest. Matter is dissimilar to the consciousness the jiva is constituted of, whereas God is consciousness. The jiva is a unit of consciousness. Thus God and soul have more in common than soul and matter.
