premasagar

The phrase "Lotus Feet of the Lord" is well-known and used frequently, but I've never understood exactly what that means. Apart from having an attitude of humility before the Lord, what do "feet" have to do with bhakti? I feel like there must be a lot of meaning to it because I probably heard it explained somewhere, but I forgot where and what was said.

The answer is going to depend on the level of realization. At the material level, fire has both material and spiritual aspects (with the material aspect being primarily manifest), as it is involved with the creation and dissolution of material substances. But at successive levels of consciousness, fire becomes less and less involved with phenomena (whether physical, mental or spiritual), becoming neither a substance composed of finer elements nor an element which composes grosser forms. At successive levels of consciousness, "spiritual element" becomes more and more of an oxymoron. The realization of each level depends on the Lord's grace, of course. Starting from the perspective of this world, the material aspect of fire is commonly seen in its power to burn. But the aspect of fire which is essentially spiritual and detached from involvement in creation and dissolution...this fire does not burn.

Don't accuse me of trying to scam anyone. Maybe I'm not a real Vaishnava, but I still have a lot of respect for Krishna and for his devotees. If you understand what I was saying, I never really said that Srila Prabhupada's teachings should be just casually re-interpreted in fictional form. I only made some observations about the relationship between spiritual teachings and the medium of fiction. Great spiritual teachers have made use of fiction in the past - that is a fact. And it's not going too far to say that it's possible for a disciple to be inspired by God to write a highly spiritual work of fiction. These are mundane observations, and I don't need to be an expert on anyone's books to say these basic things. Fiction is not falsehood. If fiction is well-written, it becomes a powerful way to communicate subtle truths that don't translate well into "fact". Fiction is really a deeper level of fact. Isn't it true that Srila Prabhupada himself can use a metaphor or fictional account to make a spiritual point? I can't believe that his disciples or even the master himself would think that everything he says should be taken as literally true. Anyway, I understand your point of view, but you probably know that devotees come in various temperaments. If you understand what I said in my previous post, there's nothing wrong with seeing aspects of a guru's teaching in all sorts of places - even in a fantasy like Harry Potter. Isn't that better than reading Harry Potter without remembering the guru? And for some types of devotees, there comes a point when everything somehow becomes a reminder of the guru's teaching. Devotion itself is a creative act. This is true whether one is reciting the maha-mantra or whether one is noticing that some part of a book or movie somehow reflects the master's teaching. Believe me, I know how valid your point is. If thinking that way helps you spiritually, then great - you're speaking out of loyalty and devotion. But a strictly exclusive viewpoint isn't necessarily appropriate for every type of devotee.

Whenever I watch a video or read a book from mainstream culture, I make it a point to see if any aspect of the story or presentation reminds me of something spiritual. I notice that wherever there's enthusiasm over a work of fiction, there must be a spiritual component that is activating the excitement and giving it life (however short-lived that life may be). I've only seen the first two Harry Potter movies and read the second book. Anyway, for example, the stark contrast between Harry's life with the Dursleys and his home at Hogwarts reminds me of the difference between people ("muggles") who willfully scorn any mention of spirituality and those (wizards like Harry) who have a natural attraction or aptitude for living life among subtler energies. A few years back in India, didn't a TV adaptation of the Ramayana cause somewhat of a stir? For a long time, I've been interested in the processes by which religious or spiritual themes cross over into popular media. In recent years, fiction based on Biblical (especially apocalyptic) themes have been pretty popular in America. In my opinion, if Srila Prabhupada's books have real spiritual value, then they have potential to become very popular fictional adaptations. The impact of good fiction is basically the product of the author's heart, and if (as I believe) the attraction of "worldly" themes in popular culture is a grosser manifestation of spiritual longing, then the pure longing of real spiritual teachings would not fail to touch many people's hearts if adapted into a well-written work of fiction. If a devotee's heart is full of God, and if it's God's will for the devotee to write a novel or screenplay, then that movie or a novel has the potential to be as authoritative as a traditional scripture. After all, today's novels and movies owe much of their appeal to the traditional storytelling modes from which they were descended. And those ancient storytelling modes were effective vehicles for communicating spiritual teachings. I think a big reason why fiction like Harry Potter is more popular than spiritual teachings is because most people generally don't like feeling as if they're being taught anything. In that sense, fiction has a way of communicating to people by flying under the radar. It seems like effectively adapting spirituality into the medium of fiction is not really an easy thing to do. If you want to sell a scary story about the wrath of God at the end of the world like some conservative Christian writers are doing, then that's not nearly so difficult as accurately mythologizing spiritual values such as love for God and single-minded devotion. But it's not unheard of. There are the many short spiritual parables that we all know. And The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery is a rare example of a popular book that is deeply spiritual and has a lot to say about devotion and purity of heart. But it's really hard to think of a full-length popular novel or movie that really succeeds as a true spiritual teaching.

I'm new here, so I don't know much about who Theist is. If you're asking about the practical method by which a devotee communicates with a guru through inner vision, then that really depends on the particular guru and also the guru's particular relationship to the individual devotee. I suppose you've heard about this kind of thing before, but there are cases where the fully enlightened guru gives the devotee various degrees of spiritual initiation or other teachings or blessings by appearing during meditation or through various other non-physical means. Actually, I wasn't clear on what exactly your question meant, but perhaps I've answered it already.

Chanting with love makes a difference, but the principal efficacy of any mantra comes from the incarnate guru's blessing on the words of the mantra - so the chanting of a particular holy name becomes a thousand or more times more powerful than chanting another holy name because of the guru's power alone. But the numbers can change, depending on which gurus are incarnate in this world at any particular time. Whatever mantra a fully enlightened guru* gives the devotee at any time becomes the most powerful and effective mantra. I only mention this because scriptures are records of teachings from various gurus at different periods of history, and it really depends on the wisdom and power of a guru living today to point out which aspects of those scriptures are applicable or not applicable for today. *This guru is usually incarnate in the life of the devotee, but may also be communicated with through inner vision. The important thing is, there has to be some direct contact and transfer of power between the guru and devotee - beyond just reading a guru's teaching from scriptures.

I don't exactly think of God as loving me. If I simply thought that he loved me, then I would automatically project onto God a lot of limited human ideas about how one person loves or fails to love another. And that would get into a lot of confusing duality about love and hate*, which is just an endless string of doubts. In my understanding, God is simply love itself. Any time I love someone or some thing, it is really God who flows through me as love, lover, and beloved. And because I have some direct experience of what that love is like, I can recognize that same God-substance in some degree whenever someone else sends love in my direction. Therefore, I have two ways to find out whether God loves me. Going the difficult way, I can speculate about my relationship to God and wrestle with evidence and doubts about whether his apparent actions indicate love. The easier and more direct way would be to love others and devote myself wholeheartedly to whatever I do and feel God's love flowing naturally through me. And I think that's the real difference between people who know God loves them and those who don't. The latter usually think of love as something that God gives or withholds, while the former give and devote themselves without thinking so much about getting love or blessings in return. *Actually, the God-substance which is love also forms the substance of hate, doubt, and every other phenomenon - so everything is an expression of love at a fundamental level. But that kind of non-dualistic realization is mainly experienced by the sages.