When Saying "You Are Not Your Body" Is Not Enough

This is the first in a series of essays I am writing based on my thoughts and experience as a devotee of Krishna, associated with ISKCON, in the 21^st Century. These thoughts are mine and mine alone, resonant surely with other devotee's thoughts, but not representative of any community, temple president, or any other personality or spiritual master

I have submitted this piece to such websites as ISKCON News and Dandavats and so far it have not been published. While I hardly think the thoughts I have here are “radical” in any way, I have noticed a certain hesitancy to discuss some of the issues herein, like the place of LGBTQ people within our society of devotees, or to associate these issues in any kind of official capacity with the institution of ISKCON. This I find frustrating, because there are many devotees like myself who want to understand how our society can relate in a more honest and relevant way with our fellow brothers and sisters on this planet.

I hope that these words add to a fruitful and healthy dialogue as to the present and future shape of our devotional society. I intend no offense with these words, and if I cause offense by these words, I sincerely and humbly beg your forgiveness.

One of the most powerful spiritual experiences I have ever had in my life was when I had the chance to visit Srila Prabhupada's room at the Radha-Damodara Mandir in Vrndavana. It was, as you can imagine or may have experienced yourself, overwhelming to be so distinctly in the presence of Srila Prabhupada. His vibrations still filled the room so clearly, so mystically, if I may use that term with all sincerity, so long after his presence last filled that room physically. I immediately could sense my own place, who I was, who I wasn't, and what I was being asked to do, now that I had come this far, and committed as much as I could to becoming a servant of Prabhupada's mission.

All I could really do (all I can really do anyway) was pray, and beg. I begged to be given the chance to be a part, to be a servant, of carrying Prabhupada's mission forward into the 21^st Century. Contemplating this responsibility felt like a two-ton weight on my shoulders. Everything I had considered serious in a materialistic sense up to that point in my lfe had the buoyancy of a riven cloud compared to the weight of this calling for Prabhupada. It was a frightening feeling in one sense, because I had never considered anything so serious, but it was also a liberation, a clarity that burned away the angst I had felt as a confused American kid in my twenties trying to find sense and belonging in the isolating substance of the material world which surrounded me.

With as much love and humility as I could muster, I simply asked Prabhupada for the chance to serve his heart. I asked for the chance to share the gift he had given me, that he had given all of us. Rarely before or since have I been able to find such a prayerful state. I felt embraced by Prabhupada for my efforts, trusted even to do what he needed me to do, despite the primary fault of my existence in this world. I've always wanted to be a revolutionary, and here the chance was being given to me in a way I never could have imagined. Every step I would now take, even if it was sideways, even if it was backwards, was to be shaped by this calling. To have any hope, I would just have to hang on to Prabhupada's lotus feet and never let go.

**

I was recently approached by a new friend over Facebook, a gay man who wanted to share his story and his anguish in approaching the bhakti tradition, and in particular ISKCON temples. He was clearly and deeply attracted in his heart to Krishna, and he wanted to walk forward in that resonance of his heart. Yet he had encountered prejudice because of his sexual persuasion when he had gone to his local temple. He was deeply affected by this, and he asked if there was anything I could tell him to help with his spiritual anxiety. I told him about the Bhakti Center community in New York City, where I had lived for over three years and how it was generally more welcoming than most Hare Krishna temples, but other than this, I had no easy answer for this obstacle of prejudice that he was encountering.

It broke my own heart to hear this. I simply wondered, on the level of common sense, how those claiming to represent the tradition of bhakti, those who claimed to represent the exquisitely magnanimous heart of Prabhupada, who have the obligation, as best as they can, to represent the pure and perfect love of Krishna, could look at someone from the vision of their body, and turn them away from the gift they themselves had been given.

This exchange shook me to my core, and left me with some serious and probing questions. What were these devotees missing or misunderstanding in the way they had related to my friend? How does this reflect what we may be missing or misunderstanding in our communication as devotees to the world at large today? What could I be missing or misunderstanding in my own conception and perception of Krishna consciousness? If we are telling ourselves, and if we are telling others, that “you are not the body”, how can we can judge anyone by their body? “You are not the body” is a saying every devotee has as an essential tool in their arsenal of spiritual communication, but I often wonder, as many devotees do, if we really understand what this means? Do we really understand that this saying, as essentially true as it is, can have an alienating effect upon others if we do not also know how to respond, comprehend, and comfort the bodily prejudice so many people experience in this world?

**

I am now a student at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, which is one of the oldest and most prestigious independent and progressive Christian seminaries in America. It is a place where I have the great fortune of having my spirituality shaped through many different sophisticated, outrageous, and radical lenses. It is a place where I am able to see and experience the beauty, pain, and struggle of how so many others outside of the “traditional ISKCON” universe understand the nature of God and reality. It is a place where I can develop my identity as a progressive devotee. What does this mean to be a progressive devotee? For me, it is a conscious choice to live one's devotional calling by examining how the purport of Prabhupada's mission, and the culture and tradition of bhakti which comes from that mission, can communicate in the most relevant concert and concern with the contemporary time, place, and circumstances of the 21^st Century. To be a progressive devotee is not to abandon the fundamental principles that Prabhupada has given us, but it is to consider, as Prabhupada himself did, how to make these principles realistic and relevant for the people of this age.

To be a progressive devotee is a precarious position. It brings upon the serious concern and even condemnation of those devotees who are deeply suspicious of anything labeled as such, who feel that to label oneself progressive is to commit the offense of abandoning Prabhupada's core teachings. It creates the opportunity to respond in a very offensive manner to the sincere concerns of these devotees. I know I myself must be careful to use this label, for the reality is that all sincere devotees of Krishna are truly the most progressive people on this planet. We have been given a revolutionary process which questions the very status quo of material existence itself. To label one set of devotees as progressive and another as conservative is a dangerous political game, yet for the nature of these essays, I want to highlight certain distinctions, perspectives, and proclivities that devotees share and don't share, as a way of highlighting serious issues and arguments which are shaping, and will shape, the future of Prabhupada's mission in the 21^st Century.

There is nothing I can do in preventing devotees who are concerned with my position from expressing their concern. This is their sacred and natural right to do so, and I welcome any conversation that does not come from or lead to offensive attitudes and expressions. My response to their concern and their criticism must stand on the solid ground of the wisdom that Prabhupada has given us. I write this essay in that spirit, standing on the bedrock of the gift of Prabhupada's wisdom as much as I can, and in that spirit, I hope to contribute to a fruitful and much needed dialogue in ISKCON. In that spirit, I hope that my own misconceptions can be corrected, that our mutual unhealthy assumptions can be confronted and transcended, and that the practice and art of our spiritual communication can be brought to a more profound and relevant level.

***

The heart of my concern as a progressive devotee is a question of the engagement, and the relevance of that engagement, of our movement to society at large. There are two levels of relevance to be considered here: the ultimate relevance of bhakti and of Krishna consciousness to the existential situation of being in the material world, a relevance that is beyond reproach and even the vagaries of human reason itself. Then there is the theological and sociological relevance of Prabhupada's movement to the concerns of our contemporary society, concerns which include social justice, civil rights, poverty, ecological collapse, amongst so many other connected issues. Here is where I, and many other devotees, feel that our movement suffers in its communication and in its relevance. I was particularly struck by something that Yogesvara Dasa (Joshua Greene), an esteemed and long-standing disciple of Srila Prabhupada, said in an interview with an academic publication on “Being a Krishna Devotee”

“The most candid comment I can give about public perception of Hare Krishna in North

America is that I don’t think there is one anymore. The worst possible thing has happened,

namely indifference. There was a time going back 20 years perhaps when there was a public

perception of the Hare Krishna movement in the sense that people felt accosted in airports or

read reports of abuses or saw devotees chanting in public. Devotees were a more visible part

of the landscape of American culture previously.

Maybe then one could say there was a public perception because Hare Krishna was in the news, it was on television, it was in the papers for good or for bad...I believe that Vaishnavism as it has been historically will not be the same in the future for the simple reason that the world it lives in is not the same. There is a compulsion within Vaishnava faith to move into the larger society and to become relevant, and the Vaishnava community has yet to demonstrate its relevance. For 99.99 percent of the world we don’t matter. Krishna Consciousness is irrelevant to most of the world.”

To be relevant, and to find relevance, is to always be considering how the prophetic voice of our movement is responding to the concerns of our fellow living entities on this planet. It is to be open to having a historicist approach to how we express our faith in the world. We are not raw historicists, in that we believe in an Absolute Truth that is beyond the relativism of history, yet our prophetic voice is best expressed with an intelligent application of our principles to the time, places, and circumstances which we are intimately connected to.

To find our relevance means to understand that we should not frame our communication to others in such a way that we ignore who they are and where they are coming from. We also have to prove our worth and pull our weight. We may not be of this world, but we are in this world. This we cannot ignore. We have to learn to give the gift that Prabhupada has given us in such a way that it makes sense in people's lives and to the concerns in their life. We may tell someone that they are not the body, and yet by doing so, we may completely ignore how we can relate our transcendental message to their particular situation of bodily marginalization, pain, and oppression. We may completely ignore the questions they have for us, as to how the heart of bhakti, of Krishna's love, speaks to the body they live in and the ground they stand on.

In our relation as devotees to the material world, to our own bodies, and the bodies of others, we must learn to be transcendent, and we must learn to acknowledge. To be transcendent is to truly understand that we are eternal spirit souls, lovers and friends of Krishna, whose true home is the spiritual world, and that our ultimate destiny is the liberation of pure devotional service. This is the goal and perfection of our existence, and all that we do should direct us and all others towards this goal. This is the gift that Prabhupada has given us.

One of the most powerful and eternally relevant verses Krishna speaks in the Bhagavad-Gita is this:

The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste]. (5.18)

This verse calls all devotees, all living entities, to a spiritual vision and lifestyle which has no room for bodily discrimination. For me, this verse gives us the foundation of equality and justice which underlies all movements for the same within the material realm. The vision of the sage is the essential and pristine vision which must be at the core of all movements for equality and justice in the material world, from the fight for civil rights for those who are marginalized because of their race, gender, or sexuality, all the way to the consideration of the right to life, decency, and sustainable health for the wide diversity of plant and animal life that this planet holds. As Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport to this verse:

A Kṛṣṇa conscious person does not make any distinction between species or castes. The brāhmaṇa and the outcaste may be different from the social point of view, or a dog, a cow and an elephant may be different from the point of view of species, but these differences of body are meaningless from the viewpoint of a learned transcendentalist. This is due to their relationship to the Supreme, for the Supreme Lord, by His plenary portion as Paramātmā, is present in everyone’s heart. Such an understanding of the Supreme is real knowledge.

The vision of the sage sees reality as it actually is, but this doesn't mean that the sage ignores the reality that is right in front of him/her. When Prabhupada says that the “differences of body are meaningless”, he is not saying that those who claim to be a sage should treat everyone the same regardless of their bodily situation. The real sage does not discriminate according to the body. He/she gives the same grace of spiritual knowledge to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, the shape of their caste, or whatever their sexual preference is. The humble sage is able to use his/her intelligence to shape their message in such a way so that the mercy of Guru and Gauranga speaks specifically and intimately to each person's bodily/mental/existential situation.

The humble sage is able that to understand that to merely say “you are not the body” and not acknowledge the person's specific psycho-physical makeup is not enough. This acknowledgement is the supremely compassionate and intelligent awareness of the bodily, social, political, and sexual contexts that people come from, allowing the principles of bhakti to speak to them in such a way that it doesn't add to the injustice and oppression that they may face because of their body. To be able to acknowledge in this way is to give the gift Krishna consciousness so that it confronts this oppression and injustice and gives the ways, means, and inspiration to transcend it.

Frankly, in the general history of ISKCON, I feel that we not effectively learned how to transcend and how to acknowledge. I kneel and beg to be corrected, but I don't just base this statement on my own speculation, but on the experience and sincere feelings of many other devotees that I have encountered. Because we struggle so much to transcend and acknowledge our own bodies and our own standing in this world, we are left with a number of psychological and psychosocial hang-ups which have crippled much of our outreach. It has tended to harden our hearts, and with our hearts encased in the stone of our guilt, envy, and shame, how can we truly acknowledge and answer to those who approach us wanting to transcend their own pain and walk towards the loving embrace of Krishna?

As we try to mature in treating the subject of our transcendence with more compassion, patience, and common sense than has been the history of our movement, as we try not to “storm the gates of heaven”, as we understand that to purify our hearts is something that is the journey of a lifetime, or lifetimes, that must be done hand-in-hand and heart-to-heart with each other, we must learn to acknowledge our own bodies, our own material natures, and how these aspects of our existential situation can lead us further on to transcendence.

To be able to acknowledge means to not see our bodily and material situations as obstacles which should be smashed, but as aspects of our being which must be seen in the light of compassion and the wisdom of sastra, and also in the light of our common sense and natural experience of our lives in this world. We have to reach people at the point of how they live their own lives, in the reality of their social location, and not through any oppressive assumptions of meaning that we may have of what their lives and bodies represent. In the same way we have to meet our own experience as devotees in terms of who we actually are, and not through the frameworks of assumption others may place upon us.

In the next essay I hope to further develop these points, to acknowledge my own discomfort with identifying with ISKCON, and to ask a serious question of devotees: do we really understand how bad the Kali-Yuga is in the manifestations which presently surround us and which oppress so many of us.

Loving Ourselves, Part 1

 

One of the most wonderful aspects of our society of devotees in ISKCON is the tremendous level of diversity we all share. Within this diversity of race, nationality, and gender, there is a multiplicity of opinions as to how we should create and make enduring our culture of devotional service together. It is always my hope that within this diversity there is also the requisite respect towards the differences that do exist between us, but that is certainly not always the case, therefore I tread forward with what I am going to say carefully. I deeply pray that the sentiments and ideas I express here going forward does not offend the reader. If I do, I beg your forgiveness and understanding.

The foundation of what I want to say is that we need a deep cultural change within ISKCON. The substance of this change means moving from impersonalism towards personalism. This is not a philosophical issue, but rather an issue of relationship, of community. The history of our relationships, of our communities in ISKCON, have been marred by a deep-rooted impersonalism which has harmed many devotees' lives, and which has prevented ISKCON from being what it could truly be, from what Prabhupada wanted it to be. Many devotees of my generation, and many devotees of generations older and younger than mine, have also expressed this realization.

There is so much we have to do to insure that ISKCON thrives and grows as we move into the 21^st Century, but I do not think there is anything more important that in improving the health of our culture of relationships and communities within ISKCON. Without addressing the stones of this essential foundation of our society, all of our aspirations will trend towards an inadequate and disappointing outcome.

I want to frame this essay around a lecture a good friend of mine recently gave. He titled the lecture “Presenting Our Best Offering to Krishna” and he based his lecture around a very wonderful and thought-provoking essay by HH Sacinandana Swami. The name of this essay is “From My Heart: Beloved of God” and can be found online via the Saranagati Newsletter.¹

We must first understand that the purpose of our lives as devotees is to learn how to give the best offering of ourselves to Krishna. The very substance of this offering should be of love and affection towards Krishna, with intentionality and meaning in everything that we do.

The profundity of our offering can be so much greater if the love that is its substance is also directed towards our own self. HH Sacinandana Swami has us consider a line from “Prayer of a Lover of God” by Bhaktivinoda Thakur, in which the Thakur says "Let me also love myself who am inclined towards Krishna so that I may attain devotion to Him."² What does this mean? To my own heart, this is a very common sense statement. If we are parts and parcels of Krishna, who is the ultimate object of our love, then we are also worthy of love. This love must be directed towards our personal reality as spirit soul and servant of the Lord, and not towards our temporary identities as body and mind.

We are called to love all of Krishna's parts and parcels, and that includes our own selves. We are not excluded. Spiritual life, in this sense, comes full circle. We are trying to transcend our narcissistic tendencies, and we have the tendency to do this in a very impersonal and unhealthy way, at the expense of our self, and at the expense of our relationships and communities. We complete the circle when we learn to include ourself in the package of love.

The very meaning of the deepest surrender is rooted in a pure and selfless love towards Krishna and His devotees. In the history of ISKCON, the meaning of surrender, and its practical applications, has often been something different. Often it is translated as “work until you drop.” Who is asking for this kind of surrender? Is it Krishna? Yes, sometimes Krishna is asking from us a surrender which tests and pushes back our boundaries, but is Krishna taking pleasure from the pain that results?

When we have the maturity to understand the bigger picture of our spiritual journey, we understand why Krishna is putting us into such a situation. We experience His love for us as the reason why, and the difficulties that we experience take on a different and deeper meaning.

If this kind of intense surrender is instead based on our own self-imposed expectations, or on the unrealistic expectations of others, then the tendency we have seen is that we will burn out. This is based as well on the tendency that we place on ourselves, and which is placed on ourselves by others, to act as if we were a pure devotee, but we cannot be a pure devotee until we are a pure devotee. Acting in this kind of charade is a big source of the pain we experience in our life as a devotee.

Often this concept of surrender means to forget our humanity. The joke I've heard is that first you become a pure devotee, and then you become a human being. To transcend our identification as a material human being doesn't mean to become inhumane in our devotional lives. The human nature we carry with us features many tools, such as the ability to be selfless and compassionate, which can only enhance our devotional lives if we choose to engage with them.

In his article, HH Sacinandana Swami quotes from an article by HH Bir Krishna Goswami, entitled “Love Yourself.” HH Bir Krishna Goswami writes:

I am writing about this subject matter because many devotees have contacted or talked to me about this mental state. When I hear devotees talking like this it causes tears to come to my eyes because I know that all the devotees are very, very dear to Krishna.

Even though ontologically we may be small-we are important to Krishna. We are not small in Krishna’s eyes.

Take the story of Gopa Kumar in the Brhad Bhagavatamrta for example. Krishna was feeling so much love for Gopa Kumar and so much hankering for his association in the spiritual world, that Krishna personally became Gopa Kumar’s spiritual master.

You may say that Gopa Kumar is a special devotee, and that is true. But, it is a fact that Krishna personally is the Caitya Guru of all of us residing in our hearts and personally takes the trouble to direct us to our spiritual master.

Even before we take to Krishna consciousness, Krishna is residing in the heart waiting for us to realize that our real happiness is in relating to Him rather than this external energy.

So, Krishna considers us significant, important, etc.

When Gopa Kumar finally goes back to Krishnaloka, Krishna faints in ecstasy upon receiving him. Even Krishna’s associates can not understand what is going on.

Krishna feels the same way about us.

There is an interesting statement in the Isopanisad (Mantra 6):

“He who sees systematically everything in relation to the Supreme Lord, who sees all living entities as His parts and parcels, and who sees the Supreme Lord within everything never hates anything or any being.”

So we are parts and parcels of Krishna. Therefore we should not hate ourselves. On the other hand since we are supposed to love Krishna we should love all his parts and parcels and that includes ourselves too!

What does that mean, to love oneself?

It means to picture or visualize or imagine how you want to be. Forget about all the negativity; whether the negativity comes from yourself or from others.

If you think negatively that is what you are meditating on and those thoughts will impede your spiritual life.

Here are some things you can think about:

1. Radha and Krishna love me and want me to be with Them in the spiritual world!

2. Taking care of my spiritual needs will not impede my spiritual progress

3. Taking care of my material needs will not impede my spiritual progress

4. I am an eternal soul, full of bliss and knowledge!

5. I have an eternal relationship with Radha and Krishna and will realize this relationship.

And don’t remain in a situation where others are denigrating you. You owe it to yourself and to Krishna to reject situations that are unfavorable for Krishna consciousness and accept favorable situations. Have positive spiritual self-esteem!

It is not maya to take what we need in our Krishna conscious lives. It is not maya to find the proper situation in our Krishna conscious lives to make the best offering of ourselves. It is not maya to have a positive sense of self-esteem to ourselves in our Krishna conscious lives. Again, I feel very strongly that this is common sense, but sometimes it can be quite difficult to discern, either from our own perspective or within the expectations of our community, what we really need to be healthy and happy as a devotee.

We may fear that by taking what we need, we may take too much, and cross that fine line into selfishness based on sense gratification. What is essential for us, and which strikes at the heart of the need for healthy community, is having guides who we can trust, who are very attentive, introspective, and progressive, and who can help us to strike the balance between need and sacrifice in our lives.

Ultimately we have to, as the saying goes, “fly our own planes.” This is not to say that we become bereft or aloof of relationships to authorities in our lives, but that we must also develop a sufficient sense of self-discernment. We have to know, in the fiber of our being, in the shape of our consciousness on a everyday level, when a mood of indulgence may be taking us away from our sadhana and service. This may be a mood of indulgence in our bad habits and illusions. It may also be a mood of indulgence in trying to fulfill the unrealistic and impersonal demands of the devotees in our community.

We have to learn to give ourselves the time of day. If we are just jumping all over the place, trying to be selfless, we may become resentful, because we have deprived ourselves of our needs. If we don't fulfill our real needs, then we set up ourselves to fall back into these patterns of indulgence again and again.

If we can just see the good we have in ourselves, and addressing our relevant needs both material and spiritual will help us do that, then we will be more willing, and be more able, to make sacrifices and to enter into that mysterious realm of surrender. As HH Sacinandana Swami often quotes, from the mind of famed French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery: "If you want to build a boat, don't just drum up people together to collect wood and assign tasks. Teach people to long for the endless immensity of the sea."

1http://saranagati.net/index.php?S=3&Article=270

2commentary on Bhajanamrtam, quoted in Bhaktivinoda Vani Vaibhava, volumes 2 and 3, p. 408.

Guides, Gurus and Grounding In Our Spiritual Journey

 My latest from The Huffington Post Religion

Today is Guru Purnima, and this spiritual festival takes on a very special resonance for me this year. Just a few weeks ago, I was formally initiated into the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition at a ceremony at our Radha-Krishna temple in Towaco, New Jersey. To be initiated in this way means to formally accept a teacher (in my case the wonderful Radhanath Swami) by offering vows of sobriety, chastity and commitment (which you can read more about here), as well as accepting a new spiritual name. (I am now Krishna Kishore Dasa, which means the servant of Krishna in his kishore or youthful age.)

During the whole ceremony, I was thinking how incredibly fortunate I am to be formally linked to such an ancient, timeless tradition. My guru or teacher is himself a representative of all of the tremendous and transcendental teachers in our line, which goes all the way back to the original teachings of Krishna Himself.

Each teacher in this line (parampara) earns his stripes, so to speak, by honestly sharing what he has been given by his/her teacher without altering or changing the essence of Krishna's original teachings. Therefore I knew my formal commitment was to a fountainhead of knowledge that was absolutely time-tested and sturdy, and beyond the vagaries of over-imagined speculations, self-serving interests or political games.

Of course, this is not to say that my tradition doesn't value the intellect or the individual expression of the practitioner. We are encouraged to understand the essence of our tradition yet apply it appropriately to the time, place and circumstances which surround us. The example of my guru's guru, A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and his historic transplanting of the Vaisnava tradition to the West in the 1960s, is an incredible example of a teacher in our line who shared the essence without corruption yet with a deft adaptation to the needs of the seekers around him.

These souls who are genuinely seeking spiritual truth and meaning are some of the most sincere, open-hearted, and open-minded individuals you can find on this lonely planet. In my experiences sharing my tradition with many of these seekers, I have had many exchanges of mutual enlightenment and enlivenment, but I have also found a certain frustration.

Many people seeking the realm of the spirit come at their quest with a sense of not being beholden to any tradition, teacher, or even a sense of the Absolute. Their journey is intensely their own, yet very much relativistic. For some this comes from innocence, and for others this is ironically a construct of reality they are firmly adhered to. In the course of our conversations they may appreciate my fidelity to my tradition, yet they remain convinced that their own spirituality can remain untethered, or at best lightly connected, to any one path, and that their imagination and intuition will be enough.

This leaves me deeply conflicted, for while indeed our spirituality is the most intimate thing we have and hold, and no one can force us to choose our proper path, I remain convinced that without accepting a distinct path and teacher who resonates with our body, mind, heart, and soul, we won't actually find the truth we are seeking.

In terms of this relativistic approach to spirituality, I am left with a number of questions. I wonder why some of us must deny the examples of great souls that have come before us? Why must some of us deny the wisdom that is there for us already, from traditions that have been part of our humanity for thousands and thousands of years? We can't really say this wisdom is not true or relevant for us and our times now, and saying so without having researched or experienced this wisdom is intellectually quite weak. You also can't deny these wisdom traditions simply because some of those who have tried to follow them have failed and often exploited others in the process. Bad seeds don't define or deny the essence of the wisdom that is there.

I should make clear that not every person who falls into this relativistic paradigm simply does their damnedest to deny all the wisdom that has come before us, but too often the tendency is to skip around this wisdom without a sense of commitment or discipline. By taking vows and being formally accepted into my own tradition, I can approach the deepest freedom of love of God by working within the structure of my tradition. I have been given shape, sense, and seriousness to my spiritual life that I wouldn't otherwise find from my own imagination or intellect.

I try to make this call as humbly as I can, and if I come across as being above your own journey, please forgive me. Generally I am quite liberal-minded when it comes to spirituality, but in this case some of my conservative colors shine. In any case, I really can't feel strongly enough that we need structure in our spiritual life, and we need a path and teachers who can guide us on our walk across the desert of our heart to our spiritual destiny with God. They have walked this path before us and they can help us to make our walk by avoiding the scorpions and snakes of our own lower nature. Without the merciful guidance of this structure, we will be inevitably lost.

The last vow I took at my initiation was to always strive to be the servant of the servants of the Vaisnavas, which means to always honor and serve all the teachers and great souls who are here before me now, and who have come before us to pass down the essence that has been given to them. To be under the shelter of all of these great souls is the solace of my spirit, for I know that the path that I walk on will take me to the goal.

 

Follow Chris Fici on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisFici

The Barking Dog of The False Ego

 My latest essay at The Huffington Post Religion

Our ego is one of the most intimidating and inscrutable realities we face in our lives. Countless philosophers, spiritualists, seekers and armchair prognosticators have tried to define its parameters and its meaning to our existence. We even have wonderful teachers -- like my friends at Gita Sutras -- attempting to actualize and excavate the nature of our ego for our most positive spiritual benefit.

Some would also rather do away with the whole idea of the ego altogether, but according to the teachings of the bhakti-yoga tradition, that is not possible. The Bhagavad-gita and countless other wisdom teachings of the bhakti tradition teach us that we are eternally individual spirit souls, currently going through a materialistic bodily experience. We always have an ego, or existence as a unique, individual being, but what we have to watch out for is our "false ego."

One of my teachers has explained the concept like this: We have two dogs in our heart. One is our actual ego, our reality as spirit soul, and one is the false ego, or our false identification with our temporary material body. Both dogs are barking to get our attention, and whichever one we pay attention to the most, or feed the most, becomes dominant in our consciousness. Or, as the Cherokee proverb says:

There is a battle of two wolves inside us all.
One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, lies, inferiority, and ego.
The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness, empathy, and truth.
The wolf that wins? The one you feed.

Our false ego disguises itself as our best friend, when it is actually our greatest adversary in our spiritual journey. It is the voice in our consciousness which makes us think we must be the center of the universe, the repose of all prestige, and when we don't get these accolades we react with all the violence of our envious, prideful, and greedy outbursts, ruining our relationships, communities, and hopes in our own search for the Divine.
At its essence, the false ego creates for us suffering, and according to the wisdom of the bhakti tradition, that is completely antithetical to our natural sense of being. As spirit souls, our substance is made of eternality (sat), knowledge (cit), and bliss (ananda), which is also the very same substance as God. Perhaps the greatest form of ananda we can experience is our direct loving relationship with God through His grace and mercy. How we gain access to this is defined by our practical understanding of our own ego-nature.

As Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita:

If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of conditioned life by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such consciousness but act through false ego, not hearing Me, you will be lost. (Chapter 18, Verse 58)

Vedic scholar Bhurijana Dasa also explains the concept of the false ego very clearly in Surrender Unto Me, his commentary on the Gita:

The false ego ... which is like a reflection of our true consciousness within matter, is the covering over the soul first supplied by material nature and is the juncture between our spiritual identity and our material existence. Any ego-identity in which we imagine ourselves the central figure is acceptable to our perverse consciousness.

Thus the soul, constitutionally Krsna's eternal servant -- full of bliss, knowledge, and eternity -- becomes attracted to the material atmosphere and conditioned by it. He is then strictly controlled by the modes of material nature and experiences the self as if it were made of temporary matter.

The juncture between our false ego and real ego is the juncture between how selfish and selfless we are in our everyday lives, both materially and spiritually. One way to see this is in relation to how we react to people's suffering. When someone suffers, do we feed the dog of our false ego by taking pleasure at their suffering, especially if it is relation to some competitive aspect of our lives, like our career, or do we feed the dog of our true ego by taking their suffering into our own heart, and feeling it as if we were the one suffering. Do we respond with compassion or contempt? Do we step on them further or do we do what we humbly can to uplift them?

Gaining access to our real sense of ego means doing all we can to develop our selfless spiritual character. This is actually our natural self, yet to be selfless in this dog-eat-dog world seems so unnatural, because we choose to absorb ourselves in the schemes of our false ego. This is why spiritual life is such a serious endeavor. We must have an everyday practice, whether it is the chanting of God's names, reading of holy scriptures, and service to our community and the less-fortunate, to help us excavate what is most dear and intimate to us, our real spiritual self.

Every moment of every day we are making a choice which dog to feed. Our spirituality begins and ends with our consciousness, so let us try to become more conscious of the very sense of self and identity we are developing in our lives together.

 

Follow Chris Fici on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@ChrisFici

FOLLOW RELIGION

Homosexuality And Scripture

Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari

“Times change and with new information new opinions form, and if they are spiritually reasonable, the task for devotees is to support them with scriptural logic—sastra-yukti—or the logic that supports the essential conclusions of revelation.”

Q. Is being gay a sin?

A. I don't think that any reasonable person would consider “being gay” sinful in as much as the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior is understood. Sometimes people refer to biblical passages that they say condemn homosexuality but even Christian theologians have offered plausible interpretations to the contrary. For example, regarding the often-quoted verse (Romans 1:26-27) where the apostle Paul denounced homosexual behavior as unnatural, one distinguished Christian theologian comments, “No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. 

Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.” (Rev. Dr. Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological Seminary)

Hindu texts, on the other hand, are relatively silent on the issue, and when they do discuss homosexuality, it is in relation to heterosexual brahmanas, or priests, indulging in homosexual liaisons. The Hindu dharma sastra describes such behavior as a minor sin; however, it is hardly possible to make a determination as to the religious status of homosexuality in today's world on the basis of a few isolated statements from the dharma sastra. Nor will mere reference to Srimad Bhagavatam's statements concerning spiritually correct “celibate householder sexuality” or the Bhagavad-gita's identification of divinity with dharmic sexuality, serve conclusively in condemning homosexuality. 

Indeed, wholesale condemnation of homosexuality on the basis of Hindu scripture is quite difficult, and given the amount of information on the subject that we have today, which was not available even fifty years ago, such condemnation would not in my opinion be spiritually correct or compassionate.

Therefore, my conviction is that monogamous homosexual relationships are as viable a position from which to cultivate spiritual life as are monogamous heterosexual relationships, and I believe that despite what my guru said decades ago, he would hold the same opinion were he with us today. Since he was with us, a wealth of insight into the nature of homosexuality has come to light, so much that any devotee would do well to carefully consider it when forming his or her opinion on the subject. 

Times change and with new information new opinions form, and if they are spiritually reasonable, the task for devotees is to support them with scriptural logic—sastra-yukti—or the logic that supports the essential conclusions of revelation.

Q. What really bothers me about today's homosexuals is how they wave their gay flag and require everybody to approve of their sexuality. Why should the world appreciate their parade of wrongly directed lust?

A. You might think differently if you were born gay and had to undergo the kind of discrimination that homosexuals have been experiencing for centuries, what to speak of the psychological trauma of “coming out” in our largely homophobic society. The fact is that homosexuality would still be a criminal offence in the United States if it were not for the courage of gay activists. Their flag waving is a cry to be allowed to be what they are without being attacked, jailed, or discriminated against, which was the norm here in America for so long. What's more, in some countries people are still being executed for homosexuality. Sexuality is a huge part of a person's life. To be forced to live in a society where one is routinely mistreated because of his or her natural occurring sexuality is something I would not would wish on anyone.

Q. I am a Hindu and I believe that homosexuals should seek reformation because scripture (the Bible) states that God is not pleased with homosexual relations. The Kama sutra states that the goal of kama, or lust, is procreation. Heterosexual relations serve this purpose but homosexual relations serve only personal sense gratification. Dharma means to accept one's duty in relation to society and God, so how could homosexuality, which has nothing to do with procreation, be considered in any way dharmic?

A. In the Hindu canon there is no condemnation of homosexuality that I am aware of. You profess to be Hindu but are unable to cite any of our scriptures to support your position, not one. Kama sutra is not scripture but it does address homosexuality without condemning it as you have done.

Ultimately everyone agrees that the sexual urge should be harnessed, and different acaryas have tried to help their students do so in different ways. In the mission of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, sexual activity was supposed to be restricted to married life, but our Srila Prabhupada tried to establish a stricter standard, one that permitted sex only for the purpose of procreation. However, the vast majority of his disciples could not follow this standard. Thus in some individual cases he sanctioned sex outside of procreation for married couples. The point is that establishing a standard that students can follow and that helps them to progressively harness this desire constitutes sex that is dharmic and is thus arguably blessed—kamo 'smi. Realistically, whether one is gay or straight this would be limiting sexual activity to within a committed long-term relationship, doing so for the purpose of making advancement in spiritual life.

Furthermore, we are not concerned with trying to please God by following the complex rules of dharma because Krsna is not concerned with this. He says, sarva-dharman parityajya: “Forgo all concerns of dharma and take exclusive refuge in me. I will protect you from all reactions. Do not fear.” Spontaneous love brought about by devotion (bhakti) is the way to please Krsna, and homosexuality being a naturally occurring minority phenomenon is no more an obstacle to bhakti than is heterosexuality. Therefore, I encourage everyone regardless of their sexual orientation to become devotees of Krsna and follow in the footsteps of the residents of Vrindavana. This is the highest dharma—prema dharma.

Regarding your proposal that homosexuals seek reformation. As far back as 1948 sex researcher Alfred Kinsey attempted to document patients who had been converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality during therapy and could not find one whose sexual orientation had been changed. Later, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association officially ceased classifying homosexuality as a disease, and today's psychiatrists and psychologists almost never attempt to change a person's sexual orientation. All this means that your notion of converting homosexuals into heterosexuals will certainly be a failure.

Finally, just try to imagine growing up and finding that when your young friends began to develop an attraction to the opposite sex you found yourself developing a sexual attraction to the same sex and had learned that you were a queer who could be justifiably beaten up and that there would be no shoulder to cry on at home. Employers (if you could get hired) would fire you if they detected your sexual attraction, which is not something that one can easily hide or that heterosexuals hide (indeed they are encouraged to celebrate it!). Then imagine that you had to pursue your sexuality in the back alley or at an illegal bar and thus ended up being the shady person that society accused you of being and gave you little opportunity of avoiding. The world is still just understanding that they did this to millions of children. Think about it.

Q. Swami, from your writing on the issue of homosexuality it appears that you want to encourage gay people to become devotees. I think that sounds broadminded but I think that the way you are doing it flies in the face of the words of your guru Srila Prabhupada, who was a great and wise man. I like to quote Prabhupada's words on the topic verbatim, and I don't think doing so is narrow-minded. What can possibly be wrong with just repeating what he said? And what he said does not jive with your approach. 

A. The difference between you and Srila Prabhupada is very great. You may repeat what he said (kind of) but you have no ability to change when new information is presented; information that is much more readily available to you than it was to him. What new information? That one born with a homosexual orientation has no choice in the matter, a fact that has come to light only in recent decades. Srila Prabhupada's views on this subject were informed by the prevailing misinformation of his time. He similarly wrote that women were less intelligent because their brain size was almost half that of men which is another piece of misinformation that he attributed to Dr. Urquhart, a professor at the institution he attended in Calcutta. However, unlike you, Srila Prabhupada was able to significantly change his position when new information was presented to him. Being incorrect at times is normal, but what's egregiously incorrect is when a person simply ignores new information and holds fast to outdated ideas despite of it.

Abraham Lincoln was also a great and wise man. He brought about the abolition of slavery in America but he also felt that black people should not be allowed to hold public office. Although once nationally accepted, this idea has in our time been internationally rejected. Still, history does not condemn Lincoln for his latter position but rather lauds him for the former—freeing the slaves. By our standards Srila Prabhupada was an even greater person; not because he held some dated views on various social issues but because he was an empowered pure devotee who was able to free sincere souls from the bondage of material existence. This is what he should and ultimately will be remembered and appreciated for, not for the few dated statements he made about homosexuality.

Q. You say that you know of no passages in the Hindu scriptures that condemn homosexuality, but in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam verse 3.20.26 Srila Prabhupada writes: “It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahma. In other words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life.” How do you explain this?

A. The verse says that when Lord Brahma created the demons they approached him for sex but were ultimately lured away by the twilight, which appeared to them as a beautiful young woman. The text goes on to elaborate on the alluring qualities of youthful women and how attraction to them clouds the mind of the unintelligent. In that section of the Bhagavatam, only one verse mentions the demons' sexual attraction to a male, while the ten following verses elaborate on their sexual attraction to a female. Overall, the demons being discussed were obviously more sexually attracted to a woman than they were to a man (Brahma) which indicates that they were not “gay” as we understand the term today.

It is also worth mentioning that Prabhupada never backed up his stance on homosexuality with any references from scripture. Even in the purport cited, he does not say that the verse he is commenting on says that homosexuality is demoniac. Instead, using the word “appears,” which indicates a degree of uncertainty, he merely offers his own opinion. Elsewhere when discussing the subject he also only cites reasoning that demonstrates that his opinion was based on misinformation. For example, in one place he says that homosexuality is not even found in the animal world; a notion that we now know is incorrect. In this case Srila Prabhupada made an inaccurate statement in support of his position, one that he must have learned from someone else. If we are to take his words as absolute in all respects, as some devotees claim that we must, then we are forced to deny the proven fact that homosexuality is found in the animal species. If not, we must face the fact that the example given by Srila Prabhupada was mistaken. 

If the example used in support of one's reasoning is proven wrong, then one's position on the issue itself is brought into question, especially if that position is not clearly supported by scripture. So to disagree with Srila Prabhupada's opinion on homosexuality is not to pick and choose whimsically, but to do so in the very way that he taught us to do, which is to consider the issue according to sastra. In one discussion of the subject Srila Prabhupada even said, “One should take as it is enjoined in the sastras.” This is what I have done, and as I have already stated, Hindu texts are relatively silent on the issue, so it is very difficult to condemn homosexuality on the basis of sastra.

In conclusion, you have made it clear that you feel homosexual relationships established with a view to progress in spiritual life are not to be accepted in the same way that similar heterosexual relationships are. Your arguments on the subject are basically Bible-based religious fundamentalism, as you could not present any verses from Hindu scripture in support of them. As for Srila Prabhupada, if it were possible I would welcome a discussion with him on this topic and I feel confidant that in light of present times and information available he would be willing to alter his position in agreement with mine. After all, in regards to his gay disciple Upendra he did exactly that: he sanctioned a committed homosexual relationship with a view to help his disciple progress in spiritual life.

See also:

The Essence of Varnasrama Dharma