Jun 25, 2014 — WATFORD, ENGLAND (SUN) — Where does the good fortune come from that brings a person to Krsna? Does the person always have to earn his good fortune or can the devotees create his good fortune? According to Hridayananda Maharaja it must always be earned, otherwise justice would be breached and the Lord would be guilty of partiality.
But according to Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, mercy is not distributed equally, and this impartiality implies that the Lord, who is impartial, is not the cause of bhakti. Instead, the Lord gives His devotee the power to bestow His mercy.
While acknowledging his brilliance as a thinker, I disagree with the analysis of
Hridayananda Maharaja. Here are some points presented by Hridayananda Maharaja and
Vraja Kishor Prabhu. My comments are included in brackets:
Hridayananda das Goswami – Keep in mind that "somehow or other" in the first verse
translates "kona bhagye" which does not literally mean "by chance." Bhaga, or bhagya
is a fortune that one earns.
[[[ Madhurya Kadambini explains bhagya as the mercy of the devotee and not something
earned by material works: "There is a statement, yah kenapy atibhagyena jata sraddho
' sya sevane: a person attains faith in the service of the Lord by extreme good
fortune. The words atibhagyena, extreme good fortune, should be ultimately
understood to mean the attainment of the mercy of the devotee (bhakta karunya),
which surpasses (atikrama) the fortune that results from material pious activities
(shubha karma). Here, one should not consider that the devotee is dependent on the
will of Lord and therefore cannot initiate the bestowal of mercy. For the Lord
accepts subservience to His devotee (sva--bhaktavashyata) and gives preeminence to
the devotee's position by giving him the power to bestow the Lord's own mercy
(sva-kripa-shakti)." ]]]
Vraja Kishor das – I agree completely. If the ultimate cause is attributed to
something other than the individual's freewill, then the contradiction arises that
an entity receives a reward or punishment for an action initiated by a different
entity. One has to minutely understand words like "bhagya" and (especially)
"yadrcchayā" to understand the causeless yet reasonable origin of bhakti. It depends
upon freewill (which is causeless). Ultimately it depends upon the freewill of the
recipient (otherwise the principle of justice and impartiality is breached).
Chapter One of Madhurya Kadambini analyzes this in detail. The Vaishnava acts as
guru by giving the seed of shraddha, however, the individual must agree to accept
the seed and tend its growth. Therefore ultimately, the deciding power is in the
individual. The seed of shraddha is impartially available to all. The Vaishnava's
job as a preacher or guru is to encourage individuals to make the free choice to
open their hearts and minds to that shraddha. The madhyama Vaishnava chooses wisely
which individuals to encourage.
[[[ I don't agree that the seed is impartially available to all. Unless you receive
the mercy of a devotee then you won't get the seed. To get the seed you must build
up spiritual sukrti:
"bhaktis tu bhagavad bhakta sangena parijayate
sat-sangah prapyate pumbhir sukrtaih pürva sancitaih
"'Devotional sentiments are evoked by the purifying association of advanced
devotees. The jiva is able to come into close contact with a suddha-bhakta, pure
devotee, only by accruing sufficient sukrti from many previous births.'
"However, sukrti is of two kinds: nitya and naimittika. Sukrti, which leads to
sat-sanga and bhakti, is nitya-sukrti; and sukrti, which results in material
enjoyment and impersonal liberation, is naimittika-sukrti, otherwise known as
anitya-sukrti. Sukrti is differentiated on the basis of results—if the result is
eternal, sukrti is the eternal nitya-sukrti; and if the result is evanescent, sukrti
is the temporal naimittika-sukrti." Jaiva dharma chapter 6 ]]]
Hridayananda das Goswami – The principle of a just God does not at all require that
we grasp all that Krishna knows about the situation. We may see an apparently sinful
person receive mercy, and we know nothing of that person's merit. Still, the Gita
teaches us that the merit is there. God knows about it, even if we don't. The
principle, as taught in the Gita, is unchanged.
[[[ But this merit can only be spiritual sukrti (nitya sukrti) as material sukrti
has no power to give bhakti. But chapter six of Jaiva dharma says that spiritual
sukrti happens by chance:
"....In the Puranas, we find the story of the sinful hunter who unknowingly, by
force of circumstance, fasted and stayed up the night of siva-ratri, thus performing
a siva-vrata. He attained bhakti to Sri Hari as a result of this nitya-sukrti,
because Lord Siva is a very elevated Vaisnava. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam, 12.13.16,
it is stated:
vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh
"'Amongst all Vaisnavas, Lord Siva is the best.'
"Thus, even accidentally observing a vow in his honour enables one to attain
hari-bhakti. This is substantiated by all the scriptures."
Cüdamani, "Are you claiming that nitya-sukrti can happen by chance, under force of
circumstance?"
Vaisnava dasa Babaji, "Everything may be said to occur by force of circumstance;
this is true even on the path of karma. When the jiva was first entangled in the
cycle of karma, it happened suddenly, by sheer force of circumstances, did it
not?..." ]]]
Hridayananda das Goswami – ....It is important, as you say, that the Acaryas, at
least as far back as BVT, do use the term ahaituki krpa, "causeless mercy." This
fact led me to dig a little deeper into the term 'ahaituki', which as we know is an
adjective meaning having no hetu or cause......Conclusion: When a devotee offers
pure ahaituki bhakti to Krishna, Krishna, who is the Supreme Pure, [Bg 9.7, 10.12]
then reciprocates with spiritual blessings, which also have no material motive. Thus
Krsna bestows causeless mercy.
[[[ Madhurya Kadambini gives another meaning of ahaituki that is not mentioned by
Hridayananda Maharaja: "by its (bhakti's) own independent sweet will". It doesn't
only mean "without motive":
"The word ahaituki, causeless, in this statement, indicates that devotional service
appears without any material cause (hetu). In such statements as yadrcchaya
mat-kathadau, "if somehow or other a person becomes attached to hearing about Me"
(SB 11.20.8), mad bhaktim ca yadrcchaya, "somehow he attains My devotional service"
(SB 11.20.11), and yadrccha-yaivopacita, the word yadrichaya must mean by its own
independent sweet will. " ]]]
Hridayananda das Goswami – Thus "causeless mercy" does not indicate that Krishna
treats souls unfairly, rewarding one and punish another for no reason. As we know,
He explicit rejects this notion in the Gita. The Bhagavatam also emphatically
rejects this idea of divine partiality, often in the context of battles between the
Devas and Asuras. Krishna often intervenes on the side of the Devas, and the
Bhagavatam repeatedly reminds us not to misunderstand such divine interventions as a
sign of partiality in God. Krishna always has good reasons for what He does.
[[[ To give a different angle, Madhurya Kadambani accepts divine partiality:
"Someone may question that the Lord punishes the demonic and protects His
devotees--is this not partiality? But this type of partiality the Lord shows towards
His devotees does not imply a fault (dushanam) in the Lord, rather, it is an
ornament (bhushanam) which enhances His nature. " ]]]
Most quotations came from the first chapter of Madhurya Kadambini, which establishes
that bhakti is the cause of bhakti. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura says:
1. Bhagyavan means the mercy of the devotee, not something earned by material pious acts.
2. Ahaituki means by the own sweet will of bhakti.
3. To say material sukrti causes bhakti contradicts the independence of bhakti.
4. We can say that spiritual sukrti leads to bhakti, but that type of sukrti happens
by chance, and is performed unknowingly.
5. Mercy is seen to not fall equally so justice is breached.
6. This inequality does not contradict the impartiality of the Lord because he is
not the cause of mercy. Instead he has given bhakti the indpendence to distribute
mercy.
A devotee sent these comments to Hridayananda Maharaja. He responded to some of my
points in an istagosthi email, acknowledging that Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's presentation conflicts with his understanding of sastra. I have included my own responses in brackets:
Istagosthi Digest 1270
Question: How are we to understand statements that Bhakti is "independent" or that
portray Bhakti as an entity, with a personal form? How are we to understand such
comments in which Bhakti can choose to grant any soul with bhakti or not as it
pleases?
Answer by Srila Acharyadeva:
Nowhere does Shastra describe "bhakti" as an independent personal entity, as an
independent entity that subverts and destroys the spirit and the letter of Krishna's
own teachings. All the important Shastras constantly quoted by Lord Caitanya and His
associates describe bhakti as 'loving devotion', an attitude or state of
consciousness in the devotee. Poetically, one can speak of bhakti as a separate
person, a goddess who does her own will, but that goddess never appears as such in
the Gita or Bhagavatam. Those who speak of Bhakti as overriding all free will, and
all Vaishnava philosophy, have misunderstood poetic speech to be strict metaphysical
analysis. Mahaprabhu explicitly states that Prema is intrinsic to us and simply
needs to be awakened by our devotional practice: nitya-siddha
krsna-prema…sravanadi-suddha- citte karaya udaya. Bhakti arises in a heart and mind
purified by the practice of bhakti-yoga. Mahaprabhu does not say that once
we purify our mind thru sadhana, Bhakti will "think about it," and maybe arise in
an unqualified person instead because "she just felt like it."
[[[ Harinama Cintamani, chapter 15, describes Bhakti devi as the combination of the
samvit and hladini saktis: "Then, by the great mercy of the name, the original
energies of hladini (bliss) and samvit (consciousness) belonging to the spiritual
world, whose prime embodiment is Radharani, unite in the form of bhakti-devi and
descend upon the small jiva, who possesses only a small portion of hladini and
samvit energy." Also, in the purport to Adi-lila 5.84, bhakti is said to be one of
the energies of the Lord. This is metaphysical analysis, not simply poetry. Krsna's
saktis are personalities. When we say, "Bhakti devi ki jaya!" are we not addressing
a real person?
In rare cases a person who performs no sadhana can suddenly attain prema. No
purification is required. Rupa Goswami explains this in Bhaktirasamrta Sindhu. ]]]
At the end of the Gita, Krishna told Arjuna yathecchasi, tatha kuru, "Do as you
wish."
Once Prabhupada told Vishnu-jana Swami, "You are doing very nicely."
Vishnu-jana Swami said, "It is all your mercy, Prabhupada." Prabhupada replied, "I offer my mercy to all, but you accepted it."
[[[ Srila Prabhupada's mercy was equally available to those who came in contact with
the Hare Krsnas. But the devotees did not visit every part of the world. Many people
did not get the opportunity to find out about Srila Prabhupada. This is inequality.
]]]
No one in this discussion claimed that bhakti is the direct result of mundane piety,
so why argue against that?
It is astonishing that someone would claim that "spiritual sukrti… must be
'unconscious."
[[[ Srila Prabhupada agrees with Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura that the spiritual
activities that lead to bhakti are unknowingly performed:
"...The theory of chance can best be explained in the Vedic literature by the words
ajnata-sukrti, which refer to pious activities performed without the actor's
knowledge. But these are also planned. For example, Krsna comes like an ordinary
human being, He comes as a devotee like Lord Caitanya, or He sends His
representative, the spiritual master, or pure devotee. This is also the planned
activity of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They come to canvass and educate,
and thus a person in the illusory energy of the Supreme Lord gets a chance to mix
with them, talk with them and take lessons from them, and somehow or other if a
conditioned soul surrenders to such personalities and by intimate association with
them chances to become Krsna conscious, he is saved from the material conditions of
life...." SB4.21.27, purport. ]]]
Conclusion: as stated everywhere, we accept Guru, Sadhu, and Shastra. One Acarya in
one book cannot overthrow an entire Vaishnava tradition, including the Lord's own
teachings, and start a new tradition. Nor is that Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's
purpose or intent. Rather Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura must be understood in the context of Guru, Sadhu, and
Shastra.
Krishna goes out of His way to emphasize that He is fair, equal to all. How or why
would Krishna authorize another "person", Bhakti, to make a mockery of His solemn
assurances to the living entities? Perhaps we can interept other "Acarya statements"
to dissolve more of Lord Krishna's teachings. In the name of following Acaryas, we
may thus eradicate our entire philosophy, and all common sense, over time.
[[[ As far as my understanding goes, the literal meaning of Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura does not contradict sastra nor common sense. He quotes sastra in his
analysis. Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Srila Prabhupada support the conclusions of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. If the literal meaning makes sense then we can accept it. According to Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, the Bhagavatam teaches that we get bhakti by her independent sweet will. The Bhagavatam also teaches that the Lord is the devotee of his devotees. The Gita teaches that the Lord, although impartial, is partial to his devotees. It is thus reasonable to
accept that the Lord gives his devotees the independence to distribute mercy even if this is not done strictly fairly. ]]]
End of istagosthi message.
Conclusion: In the process of devotional service there is usually justice in the
sense that Krsna reciprocates with our endeavor. But it stands to reason that there
is no justice in a non-Vaisnava benefiting from coming in contact with a devotee. If
the person had no prior spiritual sukrti before meeting the devotee then he has
received the most valuable gift for free. Why was he chosen while so many equally
unqualified persons weren't? This is not fair. In such cases the devotee is creating
the person's good fortune. Or more precisely, bhakti, in the devotee's heart, is
creating his good fortune. On the other hand, if the person did have prior spiritual
sukrti before coming in contact with a devotee then that sukrti was unknowingly
accrued. It came from a collection of chance events. This is also unfair. For me,
Srila Prabhupada's theory of chance is more convincing than Hridayananda Maharaja's
theory of justice.
