Jagat

If you wish, Atma Didi, I will ask them not to post it. I personally believe that your story needs to be told, because as Jaya Radhe points out, it is one that has been repeated many times. It is a brave thing to tell your story publicly, because it touches others. Yes, it may cause controversy and of course we know that there is another side to the story. But your tale shows how we neglect personal values when we get overtaken by a "cause." We have far too much philosophy on these forums. It takes real-life stories to show us how we forget about the down-to-earth aspects of our movement. How the destruction of interpersonal relationships and duties to our families and friends destroys our society. My God, perhaps Arjuna was right in the first chapter of the Gita! As I said, your husband's behavior somewhat resembles what I did myself. I lived in Mayapur from 1975-1979. My wife did not follow me to India, as she had given birth to our daughter only a month or so before I left. When I remained in India, it was unplanned, because I received a new service there -- that of running the Gurukula. My poor wife went collecting in the streets of Dallas so that she could join me in India, but when she arrived that August, she found the situation very difficult for her. She got dysentery and in those days, the women lived above the kitchen and had to come down the stairs and outside to a rather unpleasant outhouse near the gate. My baby daughter was also bitten terribly by the mosquitos and this caused her mother great anxiety. No doubt the worst problem was me. I was almost totally indifferent to her: completely absorbed in my service and fired up with the spirit of renunciation. Our bonds were never close, as she and I were married by arrangement. Over the four years we had been married, we had had many ups and downs. Mostly we had lived in the temple as brahmachari and brahmacarini. In India, this lifestyle separated us even further because the segregation of sexes was so much more pronounced in Mayapur than it had been in America. My wife decided to leave Mayapur after three months when her return ticket had to be used. She spent the next three years in Canada, getting into trouble, it must be said. Jagadish was very displeased with me because he considered her something of a sexual loose cannon. I did very little to try to convince her that she should come back to me, though I felt strongly that she should accept the sacrifice and take her place in India with me. I figured that she should "take it like a man." Let us just say that my knowledge of applied psychology was not outstanding. The affectionate bond was too weak for me to make much of an effort. My wife came to Mayapur again in 1978, with our daughter. I think she wanted to see if we could get back together again, but I guess she did not like me that much. So it was easy to leave things as they were. We were officially divorced later that year and in 1979 I took sannyas. I was OK for about six years as a sannyasi, but then a clever woman burst in on me and found me in a weakened state of resistance. This blew open my whole vision of life and was probably the major reason I left India. When I came back to North America, my daughter was already ten. I wanted to see her. I was feeling great remorse for having left my wife after my "falldown" and I thought that I should try to make up with her. But she was justifiably suspicious and angry with me. She had gone through another marriage and breakup in those years and at the time wasn't very big on devotee men in general and me in particular. I made a few weak efforts at reconciliation, but I didn't really read her very well. Had I made a more determined effort, things may have turned out differently. As it happens, I met another woman, my present wife, and decided to get married again. The evening before our wedding, my ex-wife suddenly called and told me that she wanted to get together again! She reminded me of my responsibility to my daughter. But by then it was really too late. Right now I have been married to the same woman for 15 years and we have a ten-year-old son in whose upbringing I play a considerable part. But I have a deep-seated guilt about my past neglect of my daughter. We have been in touch, but our relationship is not close. You can imagine how she felt about me. I think that she has dealt with these issues to some extent -- she is living her life. She is married, works, has a daughter of her own, but she lives far away. We are practically speaking non-factors in each other's lives. My ex-wife is still a devotee in the movement. Despite her marital misadventures, she has remained faithful to Srila Prabhupada and considers me to be a great apostate. Your servant, Jagat

Part II In the above sentences, I have used the word “radical” and “extreme” deliberately. These terms are diametrically opposed to the concept of equilibrium that we used to begin this article. Fanaticism, as we have seen from Prabhupada’s dictum, is an extension of sentiment, or emotionalism. There are other kinds of radicalism – such as the radical attempts to rationalize society in Communism. So, in fact, there are masculine and female types of extremism and both the masculine and feminine seek to reestablish balance where extremes have gone too far. Indeed, the Taoist idea is that extremes precede the integration of the opposite. The Taoist wheel states what is an obvious truth, that there are constant cycles in which balance and extremism follow on one another. Rajo-guna conquers Tamo-guna. Sometimes, Sattva guna arises -- when we find equilibrium. Now, just as individuals can become imbalanced, or sick, there is no reason to believe that entire societies cannot also become “sick” in the same way. When they do, we usually find that forces arise to redress the balance. Since entire societies are conditioned in much the same way that individuals are, the idea of what constitutes balance will differ. Left and right wings, liberal and conservative forces, compete to establish their respective views of what constitutes a proper balance. In India in the 19th century, as alluded to above, Hindu society was identified as a dominated and thus effeminate people. This had gone on for a long time, and Hindus society implicitly accepted this vision in the Islamic period through the bhakti movement. This should also been viewed as an implicit criticism of Islamic culture. However, the British brought about a different reaction by successfully shaming Hindu society for its lack of cohesiveness and rationality. Hindu society began to accept the British critique of itself as a society in need of cajones, to use Bhutabhavana's expression. Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati form a part of the Hindu reform scene of the 19th century and its aftermath. We have to look at them in their historical context. Otherwise the very meaning of preaching according to time and place becomes lost. The question that I am asking here is, “What balance were they seeking to redress and how does that fit into the historical picture of bhakti?” Both these acharyas were very intellectual in their approach to Krishna consciousness. They were critical of both monism and Sahajiyaism, which they considered the manifestations of the two extremes. Certainly they thought (as everyone does) that they had found a balanced point of view. They were redressing the imbalances created in society, particularly those created by the presence of modernizing Europeans on the one hand and decadent Hindu society on the other. Not surprisingly, modernizing Hindus found the Gaudiya Math too mystical, while traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas found them too intellectual or "jnani". Now where does Krishna consciousness fit on the intellectual/emotional spectrum in Western society? Specifically, where did it fit into the American society in which it found the soil to sprout? A great deal of literature has grown up around the rise of new religious movements (NRM) in the 60’s and 70’s. American history seems to go through cycles of about 20 years between influxes of NRMs. At any rate, the NRMs of the 70s are not separable from the hippy movement. Just remember they chanted Hare Krishna in “Hair.” The hippy movement was a major statement against the “work ethic” that dominated American society. It was a reaction to war, which was seen as an extension of the same. It was also a statement against the excessive rationalism of modern society. The hippies rebelled against the “reality principle.” Clearly, it falls into the female/emotional side of the yin-yang spectrum. Though it took a much more austere path, the early Krishna consciousness was imbued with the rebellious spirit of hippydom. It was always suspicious of karmi society, the establishment. It never really knew what to do with sympathetic voices within the establishment, which recognized that there was a very real need for spirituality being answered by movements like Iskcon. This is another sign of irrationality. Preaching means the ability to encounter opposing opinions. If one cannot understand intuitively and emotionally the background of opposing ideas, then one cannot encounter them and “defeat” them. I put “defeat” in quotation marks because I think the term lacks dignity. <small><font color=#F7F7F7> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-03-2001).]

<h2>The Tao of Krishna Consciousness</h2> I was recently given a censure on the Dharma Mela list, which read in part as follows: “This is so very Western to have this fear of anger, and emotions in general, Jagat. … Maybe it's time you did shed some of that hard skull and get a bit thinner skinned. What do you think? I would love to see a softening in your heart, and see that shining devotee emerge. Enough dryness. Sorry if this offends anyone but why pussyfoot around it?” This got me thinking. We all know Prabhupada’s famous dictum, “Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation.” This statement indicates that the Krishna consciousness movement seeks a balance between the intellectual and emotional aspects of our being, to bring them into harmony. Let us call this the Tao of Krishna consciousness – finding the happy medium between the emotional yang and the intellectual yin. All organisms seek equilibrium or homeostasis. They do this automatically, as a part of our nature. If we are hungry, we eat. If we feel sex desire, we act to meet that need. Every creature acts according to this law, but human beings apparently feel more profound dislocation resulting from psychic imbalances not encountered in other living entities. These psychic imbalances can be the result of culture and family upbringing, or they may be extensions of our physical being. The understanding of what to do with the imbalances may become so disjointed that some persons may kill or rape in order to find equilibrium, even though this obviously does not result in the kind of spiritual felicity that unconsciously motivates his action. We must face many kinds of dualities. The principal one that we are familiar with is usually called mind/body in the West, or spirit/matter in the East. This duality is often expressed symbolically as a male/female dualism. This distinction is not altogether artificial, as members of both sexes will attest. “Men are from Mars and women from Venus.” There are general lines of strength and weakness in men and women that run roughly parallel to the intellect-emotion duality. Of course, as there is nothing pure in the world, there is no such thing as a “pure” male, nor a “pure” female, so we should be wary of judging men or women on the basis of what is, after all, a primarily symbolic identification. This language has been used historically in many relations where domination has played a role. The Hindus, for example, were considered effeminate by both their Muslim and British conquerors. The Hindus also became complicit in this. It is not here that a detailed history of the “effeminate Hindoo” can be summarized, but suffice it to say that the same kind of discourse was found in many other cultures where a conqueror established his own cultural and intellectual superiority by attributing masculine qualities to himself, and female attributes to the conquered people – emotional, colorful, people with quaint customs. One of the frequent attributes given to the effeminate people is excessive attachment to sexuality and domesticity. The dominated people usually respond with the claim of being more “spiritual” and “less materialistic” than their conquerors. Indeed, the identification of spirituality, especially mysticism, with femininity has also been made by strongly masculine cultures, especially in the 19th century, where religious practices that were not specifically this-worldly were seen as effeminate. Now my thesis here is that bhakti is basically a “female” spiritual practice. Jnana, karma and yoga are masculine practices, ones in which the spirit exercises domination over matter through pure intellect or force of character. Bhakti is feminine (it is the only practice that has a feminine noun). It is characterized by dependence on the supreme soul, and in its more advanced forms is emotional and in its extreme forms even asks us to take on female characteristics. To use a Christian example, Cardinal Newman is often quoted as having said, “If thy soul is to go on into higher spiritual blessedness, it must become a woman; yes, however manly thou may be among men.” In Hinduism, of course, the most radical form of bhakti is expressed in the idea that "Krishna is the only male, and all others are female." Taken to the extreme, this becomes manjari bhava.<small><font color=#dedfdf> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-02-2001).]

The last thing I want to see here is a Narayan Maharaj anti Narayan Maharaj debate.

Just thinking. Someone should get together and write a book of Iskcon women's stories. Bhaktivasya, Jaya Radhe, etc. Find ten women and get each of them to write an account, with the help of a professional writer like Nori Muster or someone. Jagat

Coulson is good. It is geared toward kavya literature like Kalidas. So anyone who reads it through would likely be well equipped for reading Rupa Goswami. Coulson has the added advantage of leaving everything in transliteration for a while. You have to learn the alphabet eventually, but certainly for learning sandhi, I find that transliteration seems more natural. If anybody wants to do this, I offer my help. I would suggest getting familiar with the sandhi grid on page 34-35 for starters. Ys, Jagat

Coulson is good. It is geared toward kavya literature like Kalidas. So anyone who reads it through would likely be well equipped for reading Rupa Goswami. Coulson has the added advantage of leaving everything in transliteration for a while. You have to learn the alphabet eventually, but certainly for learning sandhi, I find that transliteration seems more natural. If anybody wants to do this, I offer my help. I would suggest getting familiar with the sandhi grid on page 34-35 for starters. Ys, Jagat

Haribol Prabhu, How about inversing the order of posts, so that the last post shows first? This would mean that when there are multiple pages in a thread, one needn't click a second time to catch the last post. This was done on VNN Forums and seemed to work quite well. What do others think? Dandavats to you and your service, Jagat

You've got to be joking. Or just trying to get my goat. Anyway, if I ever, disobeyed Srila Prabhupada (which I have) it certainly was not done on these particular occasions, at least not consciously. That was my point -- none of us had ever heard about that prohibition.

Well, whatever happened on that day, it certainly didn't influence subsequent behavior at Mayapur. We used to do that kind of thing on a regular basis -- forming circles while one dancer did his version of a Tandava in the middle. It was great fun. I think that it was a Guru Kripa/Yasodanandan innovation.

Meanwhile, on another post on CHakra, Anuttama Das says, for public consumption, "The (Utah) temple opening signifies the tolerance of different types of religions. It just demonstrates that America is a religiously pluralistic society. That says a lot about the people of Utah in particular."

<h3>Los Angeles ISKCON Policy on Narayan Maharaja's Followers</h3> <h4>By ISKCON Authorities in L.A.</h4> N O T I C E Dear members of the Los Angeles ISKCON community, Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! On Thursday, May 7, Los Angeles ISKCON temple managers and some senior Srila Prabhupada disciples held a special committee meeting to decide the policy of Los Angeles ISKCON toward the Gaudiya Matha sannyasi Narayana Maharaja, his disciples, and his followers. Those attending the meeting were Arcita Dasa, Bhagavata-krpa Dasa, Drutakarma Dasa, Govinda Datta Dasa, Gunavati Devi Dasi, Kriya Sakti Devi Dasi, Mayapur Sasi Dasa, Nirantara Dasa, Rabindranatha Dasa, Svavasa Dasa, and Vedapravartaka Dasa. Those attending the meeting agreed that Narayana Maharaja's words and actions were actively hostile to ISKCON, its leaders, and its founder-acarya Srila Prabhupada. They agreed that his teachings contradict those of Srila Prabhupada in important areas. The committee noted that the temple has nevertheless tried for the past five years to maintain a policy of tolerance for persons who have some affiliation with Narayana Maharaja, so that they could at least visit the temple to see the Deities and take prasadam. But recent actions of Narayana Maharaja followers and disciples have made it necessary for us to take steps to protect our community and congregation. The objectionable actions by Narayana Maharaja followers include: (1) Coming into the temple community to pressure the temple congregation and membership to attend lectures by Narayana Maharaja, meet with Narayana Maharaja, and take initiation from Narayana Maharaja, knowing that this is against ISKCON policy. Those refusing to go along with them are badgered and accused of being offenders to a pure devotee. (2) Making plans to put "moles" within the temple community, for the purpose of subtly spreading their ideas. (3) Attempting to deceive temple authorities as to their real intentions, if it serves their purpose. (4) Enlisting Prabhupada disciples within the temple community to publish and distribute their literatures. (5) Putting forward Narayana Maharaja as a guru equal or superior to Srila Prabhupada for ISKCON members. The committee agreed that the above actions by many Narayana Maharaja disciples and followers show that as a group they (1) cannot be trusted, and (2) cannot refrain from using Los Angeles ISKCON temple properties as recruiting bases for Narayana Maharaja. For those reasons, those in attendance voted unanimously that anyone who has taken initiation from Narayana Maharaja can not live in the temple apartments or work in any of the temple departments. All except one member of the committee voted that anyone who has taken initiation from Narayana Maharaja cannot come onto Los Angeles ISKCON property. Specifically, they cannot come into the temple, the temple restaurant, or the temple gift shop. Those in attendance also voted to apply the same sanctions to disciples of Srila Prabhupada and other persons not initiated by Narayana Maharaja who associate with him and/or support him. In the case of initiated disciples of Narayana Maharaja, the above sanctions will be applied without exception, and in the case of followers of Narayana Maharaja not initiated by him, each case will be individually considered. But the intention of the committee is to be very strict in excluding any followers and supporters of Narayana Maharaja, whether initiated by him or not, from the Los Angeles temple community properties. These actions are being taken in connection with ISKCON laws, excerpts of which follow: 8. 2. 1. 4. The GBC reminds all ISKCON devotees of Srila Prabhupada's instruction that in general we should avoid the association of his Godbrothers and other spiritual groups unless one has permission from a GBC member for some specific purpose. Intimate siksa association is prohibited from non-ISKCON spiritual masters. 8. 2. 1. 5. Devotees who live and work within ISKCON must be initiated in ISKCON, except one previously initiated by a recognized sampradaya who later wants to join and serve in ISKCON under the approval and direction of the local GBC. 8. 2. 1. 7. In obedience to the instruction of Srila Prabhupada, the GBC directs that the members of ISKCON should respect all senior Gaudiya Vaisnavas outside ISKCON, but should not intimately associate with them, personally or through printed or recorded media, for guidance, teaching, instruction, or initiation as their presentation of Krishna consciousness often differs from that of Srila Prabhupada in emphasis, balance, and other aspects of both teaching and practice. 7. 2. 4. Devotees who live or serve in ISKCON may take initiation only from ISKCON approved gurus. 7. 2. 4. 1. ISKCON members who in violation of ISKCON law take initiation from gurus who have not been approved to initiate in ISKCON shall not be permitted to serve within ISKCON. If the non-approved guru has an institution or ashram outside ISKCON, then according to standard etiquette, his disciples should serve within the institution of their guru and should not serve within ISKCON. In addition to being in compliance with ISKCON law, the committee's policy decisions are also in line with a recent policy letter to the Los Angeles ISKCON community from Badrinarayan Dasa (GBC for Los Angeles ISKCON) and approved by Romapada Maharaja (North American GBC Chairman). The letter says to Narayana Maharaja disciples and followers: "At the local temple administration's discretion, you will no longer be able to attend ISKCON programs, events, and functions. " (Letter dated May 19, 2001). Disciples of Narayana Maharaja and others who come under the terms of the committee's policies, which will be carried out by the temple administration, will be asked to voluntarily comply with the policy decisions, and if they do not, they will be subject to legal action by the Los Angeles temple. In addition to the actions stated above, those in attendance at the June 7 meeting are asking the Governing Body Commission to enforce its laws, and censure or excommunicate members of ISKCON who are associating with and supporting Narayana Maharaja. Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada.

Good post, Anangaji. "Not very Indian sounding." I don't know whether that needs to be a requirement. As a matter of fact, I think the opposite -- every religion has to take on the cultural attributes of its devotees. There is give and take, of course, but new age, R+B, jazz, even classical, influences can enrich kirtan and make it more glorious. I agree with your assessments. Bharadraj's rendering of the Damodarashtakam sounds very Indian, but it was completely original. And very influential, as everyone likes to sing it his way. Pretty glorious.

Dear Satyarajji, I reread your post and I think I see what you are getting at here. You really are a Gatling gun of a debater. One never knows from what position you will be arguing next. It seems that every time you read another book, you get all excited and take on the position of its author. This is probably why scripture advises against reading too many books. I, of course, don't advise you in that way. I am sure that you will find some steady "sthayi bhava" some day. I hope that it is not too laced with bitter flavors, as often seems to be the case in every one of your passing philosophical fads. Of course, for me, the Sruti is pretty irrelevant in this particular debate. Let us start from the premise that we all share some kind of religious experience that was mediated through the Holy Name. If someone on this forum has not had such an experience, then it is a mystery how he or she got here. This experience may then be interpreted in various ways -- according to the Advaita doctrine, according to the doctrines of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, according to Freudian psychoanalytical theory, or whatever else happens to be meaningful to you. It is not impossible that someone may change interpretations according to his sanga or in an effort to deepen his understanding. It is quite true that the philosophical position (or lack of one) we take will make a difference in how we understand a spiritual experience. I happen to take the theistic position as having more meaning for me. [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 06-27-2001).]

To be honest, Satyarajji, I don't really understand what you are saying. Nor do I understand what exactly has been "touché". We can juggle words, but for personalists, there is a definite difference between the theoretical god of philosophy and the God who enters and transforms our lives. The meaning of the Holy Name historically is that its chanting bestowed "prema" on everyone who chanted it. Now, we usually translate "prema" as "love of God," which is OK, but I don't think we can divorce it from a particular type of ecstatic experience. If you think of the Chaitanya Bhagavata where Mahaprabhu did not give "prema" to his mother because of her offences to Advaita Acharya. What was that "prema"? It obviously couldn't have been love for Mahaprabhu, because she already had that. What is clearly meant in that context is a particular type of ecstatic experience. If you look at the Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, you will see that Sattvikas are experienced when the mind is perfectly sattvika. The Holy Name has the power to arrest the distracting power of the senses and to invade the consciousness, which results in a transforming spiritual experience. When this happens, one becomes a devotee. Now God, as you know, doesn't die. It is not because of my experience or non-experience of God that He is called "the living God." Ultimately, what this expression means is that He is a personal being who participates in your life as your dearest friend. We become aware of Him as such through the chanting of the Holy Name. For me, the musical aspect of chanting is like the sugar that you put in the medicine. Of course, the Holy Name is already sweet, but if you put the Holy Name into an ugly container -- raucous, unpleasant sounding music accompanied by aggressive dancing and loud pounding on percussion instruments -- then you may succeed in destroying its appeal. What comes through then is not the living God, but the rajasik egos of the participants in the kirtan. Your servant, Jagadananda Das. <small><font color=#ffffff> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 06-27-2001).]

Your comments are interesting, Gauracandra. Here in Montreal, the Ritvik group seems to consist primarily of Quebeckers (French Canadians). Though Vishwambhar is French Canadian, the Iskcon temple's language is practically speaking English. On Sunday, they had four Gita classes -- English in the temple room, French, Tamil and Russian (there are about 25 Russian regulars). In general, I have found that Indians and Americans don't mix much. But the Indians who continue to support Iskcon are generally quite committed. There is a solid group of Bengalis at Montreal Iskcon who have consistently participated in temple activities and donated generously with their time and money, despite all the vicissitudes of the movement. They have been the most consistent thing about the temple. Anyway, I think that though you may be right in part, on the whole, you are wrong. The variety is a strength. It means that when one portion of the movement weakens, others can become strong. It gives the opportunity for different national expressions of Krishna consciousness, the chance for different cultural assimilations to develop. Look at how since KC has weakened in N.A., how it has spread in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Haribol. Jagat

By "the living God" I mean a God of experience not one of theory. It's a Christian expression. I guess it comes out of their critique of idolatry.

Mark Twain once said, "The devil has all the good tunes!" We Vaishnavas could ask, "Why should the Sahajiyas have all the good kirtans?" There are many good musicians who became devotees because of the kirtan. But somehow, their talents have never been fully utilized. There is a bias that kirtan always has to be participatory. I think that when there are good kirtaniyas, who can hold complex tunes and extract more from the holy sound of the Name, that the less musically endowed should participate by engaging in shravan, which, last I heard, was still number one on the bhakti marg. That is why I agree perfectly with the above comment about Prabhupada's kirtans. I don't think anything inspired me more as a new devotee than Prabhupada's version of Sikshashtakam, with that loopy harmonium sound. Certainly we could sing along when he chanted Hare Krishna, but his bhajans were very sophisticated and not meant as "singalongs." They were meant to be listened to. I think there are a number of factors involved in making a good kirtaniya. Musical talent is not negligeable. Everyone should serve Krishna according to his or her talents. Look at the Devadasis in Puri. They were trained from childhood to dance and sing Gita Govinda for Lord Jagannath, so that it would be done in expert fashion. As far as devotion is concerned, a lot of it comes "in the doing." A singer also reflects the devotional mood of the audience. Ask the professional Bengali kirtaniyas what they think of going to Vraj to do kirtan once a year. They will tell you that when there are exalted Vaishnavas in the sangha, then they themselves become more empowered to chant with genuine devotion. That is why they are constantly paying dandavats to the bhaktas in the audience. If I complained there were too many chilis in the sabji, there were rocks in the sweet rice and the dahl was burned, or if I had said that the temple deities were dressed sloppily and that the pujari was dirty and wearing the dhoti he had slept in, no one would think that my criticism was unjustified. And I say that in full knowledge of the babaji standard set by folks like Lokanath Goswami and Vamsi Das. Sure there are great exalted devotees who can't sing a note and others who carry their deities around in a dirty bag hanging around the neck, and they offer them madhukari. There's nothing wrong with that -- for a bhajananandi. A gosthyanandi operates by different standards. I am all for democracy, but when it comes to bringing delight to the Lord and His devotees, I believe that some discipline should be imposed. And that this applies to kirtan as much as to anything else. Jagat <small><font color=#FFFFFF> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 06-26-2001).]

MC, I was there. It was rigged! You KNEW it was going to be an Iskcon group that would win, right? It was Satsvarupa Prabhu who won, as I recall. No, basically Brahma Prabhu, you are right. It's a question of taste. And there are obviously many fans of the roaring kirtan out there. I used to be fairly enthusiastic too, in my testosterone days. I tend to appreciate a more contemplative mood nowadays. I like what Santosh does, with a pretty traditional Hindustani approach to kirtan. And Agnideva has done a nice job on his latest CD. New age influences on Kim Watters' "Darshan" (I don't know her spiritual name.) I also like Prahlad Das (Patrick Bernhardt)'s new age approach, though it might be going too far for many. I am sure there are many others out there. Anyone recommend anything? Jagat

Haribol Brahma Prabhu, Dandavats. Actually, I went to the temple on Sunday and had a very nice time. The same young devotee who gave the Gita class I was talking about in my rant led the kirtan. It was definitely an Iskcon kirtan, but it left me feeling warm and pleasant, which is good enough for me. Vishwambhar gave the Gita class and it was short and direct. He did not quote any Sanskrit verses, which was good for me, because I can't stand to hear Sanskrit butchered. There was a Bharata Natyam dance after the class, which went over very well. The prasad was good and the atmosphere in the prasad hall very convivial. Funnily enough, the usual crowd that attended the Montreal feasts seems to be gone. I guess they have all gone "ritvik." I haven't been to a Sunday feast at the ritvik temple, so I can't compare, but perhaps their departure from the scene here has taken away some of the tension that was in the air. Anyway, Vishwambhar seems to provide a kind of stability. He has been around the block a little in his KC life and he exudes a certain mellowness and simplicity that seems to have permeated the entire temple. I counted about 135 people, of which 40% were of Indian origin. It's basic Iskcon, nothing fancy, but seems at least to be back on track. Haribol again, Jagat

<h3><center>PatitapAvanASTakam</h3></center> <center>sacinta iva lakSyase sapadi me caritraM smaran paraM kalita-sAhasaH patita-pAvana-tva-vratAt | na mAm agaNayaH purA na hi vicAra-kAlo’dhunA vrataM visRja vAthavA varada pAvayainaM janam ||1||</center> <blockquote>O Lord! Bestower of boons! I see You are concerned for my welfare when You contemplate the record of my past activities; even so, I have dared come before You because of your promise to purify the most fallen. Previously, You cared nothing for me, but now is not the time to make judgments: Either renege on Your promise or purify this most fallen soul. </blockquote> <center>na rAghava na vAyaso na khalu kRSNa caidyo’smy aham na khalv aham ajAmilo naraka-nAza nArAyaNa | pradhAnam aparAdhinAM parivRDhaM ca mAM pApinaM kSamAjalanidhe vidan sapadi sAvadhAno bhava ||2||</center> <blockquote>O Raghava! I am not Jatayu, the vulture king! O Krishna! I am not Sisupala, the king of Chedi! Nor, Narayan, destroyer of hell, am I the sinner Ajamila! O Ocean of Forgiveness! You should know that I am the most sinful leader of all offenders, so be on Your guard against me. </blockquote> <center>yady udyad-agha-lekhanA-kalana-jAgrad-agrAnguli- milat-prakhara-lekhanI-mukha-vighAta-vItodyamaH | alaM kila lalajjire sapadi citraguptAdayaH sa eSa patitAgraNI sadaya rakSa dakSo’si cet ||3||</center> <blockquote>Chitragupta and the other scribes of Yamaraj, when trying to make a tally of my sins, write and write until the nibs of their pens break, causing them much embarrassment. O most merciful one, if You are expert enough, then save me, who am foremost amongst the fallen. </blockquote> <center>vidann api hRd-antare pratipadaM yad aMhaH-kRte yate yadu-pate na te viphalatA vrate syAd iti | yato’si jagato guru smRti-niSedhatas te tato na nAma ca bhajAmi yady atha vRthA krudhaM mA kRthAH ||4||</center> <blockquote>Within my sinful heart, I know full well at every moment that Your vow to save the fallen will never fail to bear fruit. O Lord of the Yadus, You are the spiritual master of the universe; the scriptures say I am unworthy to worship You because of my sinfulness; so if I do not chant Your name, please do not be angry with me. </blockquote> <center>ananta yad aghAvalI-manana-sAvadhAnAtmakair nije durita-maNDale nikhila-sAkSibhir nekSite | janA jagati nirbhayA jaya jayeti jalpanty amuM prabho khala-dhurandharaM patita-pAvanaz ced ava ||5||</center> <blockquote>O unlimited one! All those who have witnessed my sins are so terrorized that they stop seeing their own flaws. and they fearlessly praise each other, O Lord. So if You are truly a purifier of the fallen, then save me, the worst of all miscreants. </blockquote> <center>aneka-patitAdhipAn avati cakravartI yathA nRpAn ayam asajjanaH patita-pAvanatvena nu | iti pratidizaM khalAH patita-pAvanaM mAM vidur na pAvayasi cet phalaM nanu bhaved idaM kevalam ||6||</center> <blockquote>An emperor can give protection to his tributary kings as a deliverer of the fallen and I too have myself acted in this way. All these rascals in every direction think of me as a deliverer of the fallen, but if You do not deliver me, O Lord, this reputation will be the only reward I get. </blockquote> <center>kadApi hi padAmRtaM tava mayApi nAsvAditaM vRthA bhavakathAbharairapi ca nAtha nItaM vayaH | tvayA yadapi helayA mayi na cedvidheyA dayA tavaiva mahatI kSatiH patitapAvanatvaM yataH ||7||</center> <blockquote>Never once have I tasted the nectar of your feet, my life has been wasted in mundane talk. If you should capriciously discard me now and refuse me Your mercy, then Your qualities as the savior of the fallen will be greatly damaged. </blockquote> <center>bhavAn parama-dhArmikaH prakaTitAtikAruNyakaH svatantra-carito yadi svayam ayaM ca kiM nedRzaH | alaM kim api cet svakaM patita-pAvanatvAdikaM pradarzayatu nAnyathA bhavatu te yazaH sarvathA ||8||</center> <blockquote>You are the most dutiful Lord; You have given ample evidence of Your compassion; You Yourself are completely independent, but if You are so, then am I not also? So now, if You are the deliverer of the most fallen, show it, or Your good name will everywhere be reversed. </blockquote> <center>vadanti yadi pAvitAH patita-pAvanatva-vrataM bhavantam adhikaM na tat parama-durvinIto’py aham | punAtu na punAtu vA bhuvi yathA tathaiva bruve gRhANa guNam eva me kuru kRpAM sadoSA na ke ||9||</center> <blockquote>If those who have been purified speak of your promise to purify the fallen, I do not do so to any great extent, even though I am the most ill-mannered of all. Whether you purify me or not, whether I Ypeak with propriety or not, please take me only for my virtues, for who in this world is without fault?</blockquote> <small><font color=#ffffff> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 06-24-2001).]

<h3>Jagannath’s relation with untouchables</h3> Furthermore, there are many examples in the Gaudiya Vaishnava literature where Krishna deprives His own devotees of His association in order to increase the intensity of their feelings for Him, such as when He left the Rasa lila. Similarly, Jagannath has created a very intense contrast in Puri that churns the ocean of feelings in the hearts of His devotees. On the one hand, He is very opulent and inaccessible -- so much so that He does not even allow many of His devotees entrance into the temple. This invariably increases the devotees’ feelings of separation, humility and longing for Him. Then the Lord comes out for His public festivals and gives His darshan to all in a much more accessible way than other deities in India. Having the Lord's darshan at that time melts His devotees’ hearts. Moreover, it also melts the heart of the Lord. There are many examples of devotees such as Sal Beg and Balaram Das who were not granted admittance to the temple (or on the cart in the case of Balaram Das), yet the same opulent and inaccessible Jagannath was so much under the control of these devotees that He would not allow His rath to move until they arrived. No other temple tradition in India where the prohibition against lower class persons entering played such a dramatic role in the Lord's pastimes. In one Puranic account, even Lakshmi Devi was denied entrance. There is also the account of the demigoddess Charchika who was forbidden entry into the temple and had to perform menial service to the head Panda before she was again allowed entry. In view of the current situation, those who fall into the outcaste category but have firm faith in the Lord may look at His Patita Pavan form in all humility and beg Him for His mercy. Sincere humility is the principal proof of faith, whereas trying to enter the temple by force or making the claims to have a right to enter the temple are sure signs of the desire for control and mastery or simply of atheism. In order to teach this particular characteristic of the pure devotee, Lord Brahma, the original spiritual master of the universe, appeared as the Muslim devotee Hari Das Thakur in Gauranga Mahaprabhu’s pastimes. Both he and the most worshipable Rupa and Sanatana Goswamis, who were born in a very high caste Brahmin family from Karnataka, considered themselves to be untouchable and never tried to walk through the Singha Dwar. These devotees had attained the highest limits of divine love, yet they never made an attempt to break the rules established by the temple tradition. Instead, they set the example of paying their obeisance to the Lord by prostrating themselves on seeing the temple spire, the Nila Chakra, and the flags fluttering on the pinnacle. After some years of relationships with Western Vaishnavas and seeing their humility and sincerity, the current Gajapati, Divyasingh Deva, has shown himself to be favorable to them going into the temple. It seems that this kind of humble approach will be more likely, over the long term, to produce change, than aggressive attempts to force such change.

<h3>Dasia Bauri</h3> It is very interesting to analyze the mood of Jagannath. There are many important deities of Krishna in India such as Sri Nathji, Dwarkadish, Balaji, Radha Raman, Udupi Krishna, etc. Each one has a particular mood and all of them are certainly merciful. However none of them is as famous for being “Patita Pavan” as Lord Jagannath. Nor are any of them generally addressed as Jagannath, Lord of the Universe. Yet although they are not known as Lord of the Universe (who should therefore be accessible to all) or “saviors of the most fallen” still everyone can have entrance into their temples. So why is there so much restriction with the temple of Patita-pavan Jagannath here in Puri? If we further examine the exchanges that Jagannath has with His “fallen devotees” we see that He often shows them more favor than He does to His “high-class servitors” such as the king or Pandas. There are many examples, such as the story of Dasia Bauri from DARhyatA Bhakti. Dasia Bauri was a great devotee of Lord Jagannath, but was not allowed in the temple because he came from the untouchable Bauri or sweeper caste. The Pandas would have to take a bath if they even saw anyone from his caste, what to speak of touching him. Dasia Bauri was a great devotee of Lord Jagannath, even though he belonged to the untouchable Bauri caste and was thus not allowed entrance into the temple. He lived in Baligaon, a short distance to the north of Puri. Eventually, he became so surrendered to Lord Jagannath that he gave up his activities as a laborer and passed his days in prayer and bhajan. This indifference to normal life not only caused great concern among his family members, but amongst the higher caste people of the village. Once, some of the upper caste villagers decided to go to Sri Kshetra to have darshan of Lord Jagannath. When Dasia heard this, he picked a green coconut from his garden and asked a young Brahmin to offer it to the Lord on his behalf. He further said, “Do not give the coconut to Jagannath unless he takes it directly from your hand. Just say, ‘Dasia Bauri from our village of Baligaon has sent You this coconut. Kindly accept it.’ If He doesn’t, then bring it back and return it to me.” The young Brahmin was surprised by the request, as it is customary to hand gifts to the temple priest, who then makes a ritual offering to the Lord. Furthermore, he was doubtful that the Lord would accept the offerings of an untouchable like Dasia Bauri. Nevertheless, he agreed to try. When the group of pilgrims came to the temple, they took darshan of Jagannath from the Jaga Mohan. The young Brahmin silently stood behind the Garuda pillar and repeated the words of Dasia Bauri. While he murmured the prayer to Lord Jagannath to accept the offering, a gigantic hand that looked like the trunk of Indra’s elephant, Airavata, extended from the Ratna Vedi and disappeared with the coconut. All the devotees present were astonished by the supernatural event. The amazing event convinced the villagers of Dasia’s great devotion to Lord Jagannath. They ceased to trouble him for neglecting his labors. Dasia Bauri, on the other hand, felt such intense joy at the blessings of the Lord that he forgot all the miseries of material existence.

<font color=#2f4f2>In response to a request for more information about entry into the Jagannath temple, here are my preliminary notes for the chapter on Patita Pavan. I will probably end up having to shorten bits. There is more to be said, and I would appreciate comments. I just reread this and am rather sorry that I didn't do a more careful editing job before posting. It still needs quite a bit of editing. Sorry about that.<hr></font> <h2>Patita Pavan</h2> Patita Pavan is a solitary deity of Jagannath who is visible to all pilgrims from the Singha Dwar entrance to the Boro Deul. The name patita-pAvana means “savior of the most fallen.” Since everyone but those of legitimate Hindu birth are allowed inside the temple, the Lord mercifully manifests in this form at the gate where He can be seen by even those who are disqualified by sin or birth from entering the temple. <h3>History</h3> Some people say that the Lord took the form of Patita Pavan for the sake of Sal Beg, Jagannath’s celebrated Muslim devotee, but a rather more accepted version is that this deity was consecrated during the reign of the second Ramachandra Deva (1732-1743). Ramachandra Deva was king of Khurda during a period of unrest, when the Muslim governor, Taqui Khan decided to plunder the Jagannath temple. Jagannath’s priests saved the deities by concealing them on an island in the Chilka lake and the frustrated Taqui Khan proceeded to Khurda where he defeated and imprisoned Ramachandra Deva. He forcibly converted him to Islam, after which he was renamed Hafiz Qadar Muhammad. Taqui Khan died in 1734 and was replaced by Murshid Quli Khan II, who became the Naib Nazim or governor of Orissa. Murshid Quli Khan was a sympathetic ruler who allowed the images of Jagannath to be reinstalled and their worship to be restored. He also gave his daughter to Hafiz Qadar (Ramachandra Deva) in marriage in 1738. Ramachandra Deva, however, was ousted from Hindu society and even deserted by his own family because of his change of religion and marriage to a Muslim. Ramachandra Deva never truly converted to Islam, however, and wished to be reinstated as a Hindu. He came to Puri to take darshan of Jagannath but was not allowed to do so. In sympathy for his genuine penitence, however, the priests of the temple came to a compromise and installed the Patita Pavan deity near the Singha Dwar entrance so that the king could take darshan of the Lord. <h3>Temple Entry Prohibition </h3> Traditionally, the following groups of people are not admitted into the Jagannath temple: fishers, leather workers, those who burn the dead, sweepers, distillers, brewers and wine sellers, potters, fallen women and prostitutes, members of non-Hindu tribes, foreigners and those belonging to other religions like Muslims or Christians. Besides these, other non-believers or atheists are not knowingly permitted to cross the temple threshold. Some say that during British rule, a European tried to enter the temple disguised as a Hindu, but was detected before he could get as far as the Nat Mandir. Even so, because he had entered as far as he did, the priests considered the temple to have been desecrated and performed an elaborate bathing ritual (the Maha Snana) for Lord Jagannath to restore the temple’s purity. It was thus confirmed that faithless people of other religions are completely forbidden entry into the temple just to satisfy their curiosity. In 1958, the Mukti Mandap Sabha handled a case that required an interpretation of the admissions policy for the Jagannath Temple. It involved four American women who had been converted to Hinduism at a Ramakrishna Vedanta Society in the United States and wished to enter the Temple while visiting Puri. To gain permission they approached the Raja, who in turn placed the decision before the Mukti Mandap Sabha. The president of the Sabha, Saccidananda Saraswati, said that in order to decide the case he would have to talk to the Americans. He was profoundly impressed by the American women, who wore Indian dress and who expressed a familiarity with Hindu manners and customs. Saccidananda's “test of a true Hindu” is worth quoting: <blockquote>“The American ladies had put on saris and veils and they bowed their heads before their superiors just as Indian ladies do. They were reserved and respected their husbands as embodiments of the deity. They were not short tempered. They did not eat fish, mutton, beef, or any other meat. They were fully knowledgeable of Hindu principles of life. They took a morning and evening bath and prayed for the welfare of humanity. They were honest and very sympathetic towards the poor and the sick... They had become truly Hindu.”</blockquote> Saccidananda Saraswati decided that the Americans should be allowed entrance into the temple and a majority of the other members of the Mukti Mandap Sabha backed his decision. This was the first time that the Mukti Mandap Sabha had ever granted foreign converts permission to enter the Jagannath Temple. This attempt at social reform, however, ended in 1964 when the Mukti Mandap Sabha reversed its previous decision and denied temple entrance to several other American members of the Ramakrishna Vedanta Society. Since then, a large number of Americans and Europeans have turned to Vaishnavism and have made several attempts to negotiate entry into the temple. In particular, the celebrated founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, visited Jagannath Puri on January 26, 1977 in order to request the Puri Brahmins to allow his Western disciples to enter the temple. A part of the speech he gave to them was as follows: <blockquote>This stumbling block should be dissolved. You want to pack Jagannath Swami up inside your home, and do not want to expand His mercy. He is Jagannath, the lord of the universe, not only the lord of Puri, or the lord of Orissa. He is Jagannath. Krishna declares in the Bhagavad-gétä, bhoktäraà yajïa-tapasäà sarva-loka-maheçvaram. That is the definition of Jagannath, sarva-loka-maheçvaram. So why you should deny the inhabitants of all the world (sarva-loka) the darshan of Jagannath? Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never approved such thing. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said,</blockquote> <center>prithivite ache jata nagaradi gram sarvatra prachara hoibe mora nam</center> <blockquote>“My name will be spread throughout every town and village in the world.” Now this is being done and people from all over the world are eager to come here, so why do you restrict them? Of course, if you do not allow these foreigners to enter the temple, there is no loss for them, because Jagannath has already come to them and they are worshiping Him. But it is the proper etiquette to show respect to the Vaishnavas. They are strictly observing the four principles of sinful life by negation: no illicit sex, no meat-eating, no fish-eating, no egg-eating, no intoxication, no gambling. They are purified. Mahaprabhu has condemned Vaishnava aparadh. These European and American Vaishnavas are hankering after Jagannath’s darshan -- jagannätha svämé nayana-patha-gämé bhavatu me. Through your intervention they may be able to see Jagannath Swami. Since these Vaishnavas are so eager to come to Jagannath Puri and to see Jagannath, you should welcome them. You should receive them well, because Narottam Das Thakur says, chäåiyä vaiñëava sevä, nistära päyeche kebä – ‘Who can be liberated without serving the Vaishnavas?” And the scripture also says, </blockquote> <center>ArAdhanAnAM sarveSAM viSNor ArAdhanaM param tasmAt parataraM devi tadIyAnAM samarcanam </center> <blockquote> “Of all kinds of worship, that of Vishnu is supreme. However, superior to the worship of Vishnu is the worship of His devotees.” (Padma-puräëa 6.253.176) I have thus come to specially request you to remove this restriction and be friendly to the foreign devotees. </blockquote> Westerners were previously not allowed entrance into the Ananta Vasudeva in Bhubaneswar, but some of them approached the local MLA who agreed to push for it. After some difficulties, entrance was granted in April 1977. The former chief minister of Orissa, Hare Krushna Mahatab was very favorable to ISKCON and tried very hard for many years to help the western devotees gain entrance into the Jagannath temple but was unsuccessful. The Mukti Mandap has remained intransigeant in its conservatism. As recently as June, 2000, the Shankaracharya of Govardhan Pith in Puri, who converted a number of Indian Christians and Muslims back to Hinduism said that those whose ancestors had been forcibly converted to another religion should be welcomed back into the Hindu fold and allowed to enter the temple. Organisations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad also advocated that converts be treated like all Hindus. In response, however, Lingaraj Mishra, secretary of the Mukti Mandap Pandit Sabha, affirmed the traditional position: “The lower caste people, mainly from the Pana community, who had been converted into Christianity are known as Mlechha (untouchables) and they eat the flesh of cows. We cannot allow Mlechha people to enter the lord Jagannath temple at Puri, whether they are Hindus or Christians. The temple is not open to people who eat beef because cows are worshipped in Hindu religion.” He also added, “People who are coming back to the Hindu religion may go back to any other religion again. Those whose entry in the temple is prohibited can have darshan of the Lord when He is taken out in a procession during the Rathayatra.” <small><font color=#f9f9f9> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 06-24-2001).]