Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita

dwell in the same body, the extent of the latter proportionate to
the measure of anarthas yet to be eradicated. It really depends
on an individual’s purity of purpose. Was the litigious disunity
within Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada’s Gaudiya
Matha, whereby his illustrious preaching mission became
markedly dysfunctional, not “sanctioned”? Would not the ability
or inability to learn important and perhaps rather costly lessons
from all such reprehensible ungodly stagecraft be absolutely
“sanctioned” in view of some far-reaching ultimate design or
purpose? Would history’s horrific recurrence be anything but
utterly “sanctioned”? Would not our continued ignorance of the
consequences of our own unthinkable self-aggrandizing affronts
to the dignity and integrity of our acarya’s mission be well
“sanctioned”? How long will we, claiming to be Vaishnavas, opt
to slight, disrespect, belittle, or mistreat others out of a risky,
false, condescending sense of ascendancy? If we won’t learn
anything from the “sanctioned” instant or eventual outcome of
our own “sanctioned” blatantly whitewashed folly, perhaps at
least someone will somewhere along the line. That alone would
make the whole “sanctioned” charade worth a little something.

In the final analysis, it may be admitted that any
pervertedly reflected illusory manifestation within this cosmos
may purposefully pose to prospectively either entangle,
liberate, or transcendentally enrapture one, consonant with the
degree of spiritual eligibility governing the way one sees and
responds to Maya’s multi-functional demeanor. For example,
with all due respect to Maya Devi’s empowered most-
recognizable expansion in the shape of a psychophysical
woman, a so-called man, bewildered by material absorption,
misidentifying himself as purusa or enjoyer and succumbing to
an entangling labyrinth of lusty obsessions, foolishly identifies
the womanly form as a most desirable and inspirational object
of gross or subtle selfish sense delectation. To a lusty man the
world appears as if filled with lusty women. He thus, by
harboring intensified attachments to vain, romanticized
objectives, degrades himself, running the risk of rebirth into an
illusory prison-suit body bearing the shapeliness of a mayic
psychophysical woman. Thus the materially conceived “he”


ironically gets “himself” reborn as a materially conceived “she.”
Such is Maya’s joke!

The somewhat knowledgeable, however, who has become
wary of Maya’s allurements, will wisely see the same womanly
form as “mother,” an expansion of the supreme form of material
motherhood, goddess Durga. In this material world, “mother”
means one who gives corporeal birth, and for one who is born,
death is certain. So, she who will give birth and concomitant
death within this material world shall be deftly esteemed by a
vigilant aspiring transcendentalist as “mother,” the
personification of repeated birth and death. Steering clear by
cautiously maintaining a respectful distance, the aspirant will
traverse the path of liberation, intelligently circumventing the
shackles of sex attraction, the binding force of this material
world.

Yet, an elevated Vaishnava acquainted with higher truths
concerning the spiritually substantial reality of which this
material world is merely a shadow will ably see everything in a
different light. He transcends the relatively mundane principles
of both pravritti (inclination) and nivritti (disinclination) that
refer to material connections. Clearly, he realizes that the
temporary, shadowy manifestations of this world, stemming
originally from the substantial spiritual names, forms, qualities,
and activities of the eternal realm of Goloka, can absolutely
serve in various ways to remind a pure devotee of the supreme
eternal reality of Radha-Krishna lila. He will therefore allow the
sight of the illusory womanly form within this world, which
faintly resembles the radiance of spiritual muliebrity, to prompt
within himself an internal recollection of the supreme root of all
minor expanded varieties of femininity. This original feature of
all transcendental womanhood is none other than Shri Radha,
who mothers not the material existence of repeated birth and
death but rather spiritual birth into eternal loving devotion.

A subordinate king’s attitude toward the emperor’s envoy
conspicuously reflects his general attitude toward the emperor.
As a well-wishing emissary coming on behalf of the emperor’s
government to examine the condition of a subordinate is to be
properly honored, so similarly any expanded form of femininity


should be honored as a representative of Radha. This entire
material world, Devi Dhama, is comprised of prakriti, the
expanded feminine energy of Radha. Such energy in any form is
meant primarily to remind one of Radha and is ultimately meant
to be engaged so as to serve Her purposes in the matter of
assisting to satisfy Her beloved Shyama. Herein lies the essence
of the yukta-vairagya principle. A thoughtful Vaishnava,
therefore, will recognize in any manifested feminine figure the
symbolic ambassadress, or messenger maidservant, of Shri
Radha, the supreme empress of irresistible supra-mundane
feminine attraction for the enchantment of Shri Krishna.
Externally maintaining a respectful distance from Radha’s
messenger (duti) so as not to commit offense, while humbly
considering himself to be unqualified to directly associate with
her as long as he remains in the sadhaka-deha, he will simply
pray from within that she mercifully inform her svamini (Radha)
about his pure devotional intents. Internally offering eternal
allegiance to Radha’s lotus feet, he will beg to remain ever
supportive and covetous of Her loving service. Then Maya Devi,
being very much satisfied, will mercifully serve in Her primary
feature as Yoga Maya to transcendentally connect the devotee
to the lilas of the Lord. Such externally prompted reflective
remembrance of Shri Radha and Her gopi friends and
maidservants thus elevates the devotee far beyond the
mundane influences of the physical field, unlocking a treasure
chest of blissful internal absorption in Krishna consciousness.

Similarly, the tertiary purpose of all varieties of mundane
political wrangling within or without the confines of any
religious institution would be to endlessly embroil and entangle
those who are externally oriented. The secondary purpose of
the trite, gracelessly perpetrated power-politics, diplomacy,
espionage, sabotage, back-stabbing, subterfuge, intrigue, and
managerial baboonery abounding amongst the neophytes would
naturally serve to dismay or disgust the disinterested
intermediate devotees. These apolitical madhyama-adhikari
Vaishnavas scrupulously avoid all such social vulgarities,
valuing each fleeting moment as if it were their last. Dissociating
themselves as far as possible from the prakrita-bhaktas, they


concertedly focus on their devotional services of hearing and
chanting, etc. and remain relatively freed from the time and
energy squandering perplexities of institutional strife.

No doubt the actual primary purpose of everything within
this cosmos, including all the petty little interpersonal,
interdepartmental, interinstitutional, international, and
interplanetary conflicts inevitable at practically every Kali-yuga
turn in life, is to someway or other remind the progressive
antaranga-bhaktas of Krishna and His various pastimes. Political
intrigue in its original supramundane feature certainly exists in
the highest spiritual realm, Goloka Vrindavana. As in this world,
only in a pure way, it dramatically serves to thicken the plot! So,
when circumstantially noticing the bogus claptrap, caballing,
and sheer tomfoolery of this plane, the resolute pure-hearted
sadhakas and rasika Vaishnavas may solace themselves to some
extent by reflectively remembering the likes of dina-keli- or
mukta-carita-kathamrita by recalling the alarming antics of Jatila
and Kutila or by musing upon the original, absolute, contentious
rivalry between the followers of Radharani and the followers of
Candravali. As they turn disadvantage into advantage, seeing
substance within shadow, they are transported to the plane of
transcendental bliss. Thus, they remain self-satisfied in all
circumstances. Let the calamities come again and again – and
again and again and again – te dvandva-moha-nirmukta bhajante
mam dridha-vratah!

Still, my heartfelt feelings are that we could hardly expect
to legislate or despotically enforce real love and trust by
injudiciously compelling the stringent orthodox letter of the law,
let alone wrongheaded, illiteral, or fictive fanatical contortions
thereof. It just ain’t polite. Rather, I would prefer to suggest that
by constant unbiased recourse to the law’s dynamics, essential
purpose, or inner spirit, in a facilitative temper we might hope
to more or less naturally engender the desirable fruit in
proportion to the purity of our perception of cogitable reality, as
relevant to individual time, space, heart, and circumstance.
That one would barbarously blunder to grandiloquently exhibit,
time and again ad nauseam, one’s unseemly, spiritually
perverted ishvara-bhava or inordinate appetite for peremptorily


governing everyone and everything (well . . . everything except,
of course, one’s own materially anchored domineering manner
of manipulatively controlling and controlling everyone and
everything and everything else) hardly says much for one’s
measure of devotional sobriety, theocratic fitness, or
accomplishment in Krishna consciousness.

Leadership or managerial positions dare not be exploited
as incumbencies from which to intimidate or brutishly lord it
over the Lord’s devotees on the pretext of “getting the job
done.” The pure devotional service attitude and that which is
vitiated by the hostile, egoistically grounded lording propensity
smack not of the same tenor. Guru is commander-in-chief – not
demander-in-chief. Guru-parampara is chain of command – not
chain of demand. Guru and subsequent representatives are not
to demand services on behalf of the Lord. Rather, on the basis
of visibly ideal character, they are to command or elicit such by
openly demonstrating the unalloyed selfless service attitude
toward the Lord and the world about. It is not the institution
that makes the man; it is the man that makes the institution.

To be real, earnestly shared sincerity of approach,
regardless of expressional form, is at the very wellspring of
trustworthiness, far above and beyond the indecorous,
stereotypical tactlessness of frequently resorted to blunt, oft-
times duplicitous managerial expediencies. Not all knavish
administrative prevarication or diplomatic cajolery constitutes
pious fraud. Moreover, love in the real sense, though certainly
subsuming the substantive principle of service to actual eternal
self-interest, in fact never seeks to interfere with, subvert, or
squelch the individual’s freely volitional application of personal
integrity in deciding one’s own suitable mode of devotional
reciprocation. Hence, mature mutual give-and-take on the
spiritual platform had better soberly respect a broader-
mindedness, accommodating the significance of unique
individual perspective or taste, perhaps even considerably
beyond one’s own prejudice or preset dogmatic viewpoint – so
help us God!

He Radhe-Shyama! The pursuit of lofty mundane academic
degrees very rarely if ever really lends itself to an expedited