94: The Yoga Ladder

 CHAPTER 12, TEXTS 8-12

TEXT 8:

 

Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.

TEXT 9:

 

My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulative principles of bhakti-yoga. In this way develop a desire to attain Me.

TEXT 10:

 

If you cannot practice the regulations of bhakti-yoga, then just try to work for Me, because by working for Me you will come to the perfect stage.

TEXT 11:

 

If, however, you are unable to work in this consciousness of Me, then try to act giving up all results of your work and try to be self-situated.

TEXT 12:

 

If you cannot take to this practice, then engage yourself in the cultivation of knowledge. Better than knowledge, however, is meditation, and better than meditation is renunciation of the fruits of action, for by such renunciation one can attain peace of mind.

78: Distinguishing Reality From Illusion

CHAPTER 18, TEXT 32: That understanding which considers irreligion to be religion and religion to be irreligion, under the spell of illusion and darkness, and strives always in the wrong direction, O Pārtha, is in the mode of ignorance.

Based on this verse of the Gita, Prabhupad offers three ways that intelligence works in the opposite way that it should:

1) "It accepts religions which are not actually religions and rejects actual religion." 

The word "religion" in 2020 has taken on such heavy baggage, with connotations of "patriarchy," "oppression," "judgement," and being "fake," and "outdated." Thus religion is rejected on a wholesale level. 

But religion is simply a practical path for the soul to engage with spirit.

If one does not follow an established religion of the world, the soul still craves a practical way to evolve and connect to the divine. So then what do human beings do who crave to connect with God but are not engaged in a legitimate religion? 

They invent their own. 

Jeff Brown, a popular "grounded spiritualist," has written a "Humanifesto" to state his beliefs, what he strives to do for humanity, and the labels of the people who follow his particular brand of spirituality ("enrealment activists" or "Souldiers") and the things that they do. This "Humanifesto" is replete with invented words such as "gender-ation," "enrealment," and "womanifestation." In this way he is inventing a system of spirituality, and he is at the helm. 

Brown does not cite a single authority or a single source of inspiration for his own journey. In fact, he rejects them all. He writes, "[I endeavor to] liberate the species from the idea that those who came before have all the answers we seek. They don’t. We are a species in-process, endlessly evolving" (https://jeffbrown.co/humanifesto/) Note that he writes that "he" endeavors to liberate the species - he does. As in, he believes that by his own endeavors he can actually liberate human beings from the concept that those who came before us (any authorities, sages, saints, or self-realized beings) have  answers or truth that the soul is searching for. This directly counters the teachings of the Gita that if one wants to learn the truth, one must approach a spiritual master, render service, and inquire submissively (4.34). Basically, Jeff Brown and those who follow Jeff Brown reject the paths of genuine religions and invent their own religions and ideas based on subjective, personal experiences. This is considering "religion to be irreligion and irreligion to be religion." 

As a note, there is a grain of truth to Brown's statement that human beings are endlessly evolving, and that the soul is full of knowledge by nature. In fact, great souls emphasize that the soul is eternally full of knowledge (chit). So Brown is speaking of some truth, but it's a half-truth - it's not complete. In the purport to the Sri Isopanishad, Mantra 12, Prabhupad condemns spiritual leaders who present half-truths to the population. He writes, "If such foolish men have any knowledge at all, it is more dangerous in their hands than ignorance itself." This means that the general populace resonates with the grain of truth presented, but because it is couched within ignorance, ultimately even intelligent, thoughtful people can be lead astray. 

This approach leads to Prabhupad's second point of intelligence in the mode of ignorance: 

2) "Men in ignorance understand a great soul to be a common man and accept a common man as a great soul." 

Jeff Brown, although putting forth himself as a man who endeavors to "liberate," "awaken," and "remind humanity," he is simply an ordinary man. He may have some interesting ideas, but ultimately his ideas have little substance because they are not based upon the foundation of tried and tested knowledge, truth, and realization of great souls or the scripture. In fact, he rejects all of these things, calling the great souls common men or women. He does not accept or acknowledge that there are great souls or scripture who have more knowledge, understanding, or realization than him. He puts forth himself - in so many words - as a great soul (his website states that he has been featured on CBS, NPR, and Good Morning America), and he has a following who believe him to be a great soul. 

But in fact, Brown is a common man. 

Thus, he considers great souls to be common men, and he is a common man who is considered to be a great soul (or considers himself to be a great soul), which is intelligence in the mode of ignorance. 

And the final point that Prabhupad makes in this purport is that:

3) "They think truth to be untruth and accept untruth as truth." 

Brown states in his "Humanifesto" - essentially, his own created scripture: "Simply put, an absolute state of enlightenment does not exist—enrealment does. And it’s a relative process, changing form as we change form. We are form, and we are here to in-form our humanness." Brown is declaring that absolute enlightenment does not exist. This goes directly against the truth as stated in the major scriptures of the world and the teachings of the great souls that liberation from this material world is possible and real. For example, Krishna states in the Bhagavad-gita that "After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogīs in devotion, never return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because they have attained the highest perfection" (8.15). Krishna says that these yogis in devotion "never" return to this temporary world - thus absolute enlightenment exists. So Brown is stating truth to be untruth.

Brown posits that enlightenment is a "relative process, changing form as we change form." But enlightenment, according to the Gita,  is a specific state of the soul in connection with God and all other souls - this is not relative. The soul - the unchanging, eternal soul - does not change form.  

Brown then invents his own word, enrealment, to describe a kind of relative process of how we are the form of our bodies and we "in-form" our humanness.

???

Honestly, I'm bewildered by Brown's philosophy. 

I have no intention of figuring it out, either. I see that he's posing an untruth as truth, which is intelligence in the mode of ignorance, where "intelligence is working the opposite way that it should."  

While certainly Brown's endeavors to uplift himself and humanity contain sparks of sincerity and striving for truth, his striving is upside down and flipped around. He insists that 2 + 2 = 5. He insists on creating his own path. But Prabhupad writes that "In all activities they simply take the wrong path; therefore their intelligence is in the mode of ignorance." Brown is taking the wrong path. If he was even to read this post, he would probably reject what I've written and declare that his path is the right path, everything is relative after all. 

I've done my best to base my analysis on the ancient words of the Bhagavad-gita and the words of Bhaktivedanta Swami, a man who is within an unbroken lineage of great souls who are handing down spiritual knowledge and realization. While I may be a fool, clouded by my own pride at times in my writing and thoughts, I trust at least that the great souls can help me distinguish reality from illusion, to help strengthen my intelligence to be in the mode of goodness. 

While I can see some small kernels of truth here and there in Brown's "Humanifesto" (which, again, can be more dangerous than pure ignorance) I can say with confidence that his approach to wisdom and transformation is intelligence in the mode of  ignorance. Jeff Brown is not a "grounded spiritualist" in any way. After all, what and who is he grounded in? 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/32/

4: Justice vs. Forgiveness

CHAPTER 1, TEXT 36: Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends. What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?

Arjuna is in deep distress. Like a lawyer, he is presenting his case to not engage in this vicious war. Arjuna is arguing here that "sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors." Defining terms is a good place to start in any logical argument, so Prabhupad first defines "aggressor":

According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another’s land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife (53).

Each of these types of aggressors threaten one's life, and threatening one's livelihood (such as occupying another's land) is a threat to one's life. In a rather natural sense of balance and justice, for the aggressor to receive the same kind of treatment is logical - their life is threatened and even taken. In simple terms, you get what you deserve.

Prabhupad then offers a statement that, in today's context, would be taken as quite controversial: "Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors" (53). Whoah, interesting. This sounds almost barbaric, to kill someone "at once" for a violent crime that s/he committed. The debate surrounding the modern death penalty is thick with emotional tension and political strife. On a strictly monetary scale, to convict a man or woman of the death penalty takes, on average, 1.26 million dollars (amnestyusa.org) to process. In contrast, to incarcerate a man or woman (often for life) costs about 740,000 dollars. That is a difference of half a million dollars - it seems it would be better to just keep a man or woman jailed for life than go through the tangled political web and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to ultimately convict a man or woman who may not actually be guilty. In fact, throughout the history of the world there have been many instances of a man being killed who was later discovered to actually be not guilty, and so I imagine that the burden of this history - wrongful death - has driven these costs and the controversy to frenzied heights.

Consider though that Prabhupad states, "Such aggressors are at once to be killed." The key phrase here is "at once." The way that death penalty cases are currently managed, the average length to process such a case is 16 years (bnd.com). In this time, over a million dollars is spent on fees and investigation, and the aggressor is simply waiting behind bars.

But let's contrast this with a situation when an aggressor attacked another and in self-defense that person killed the aggressor immediately. The court case is more straightforward and swift, millions of dollars are not spent, the person acting in self-defense is not imprisoned for 16 years or more; there is - in other words - no sin incurred. In fact, there may even be a sense of relief that justice was served immediately. Prabhupad asserts that "Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting any ordinary man" (53).

Of course, the biggest problem is determining motivation. Was the person acting as an aggressor actually defending his or her own life? Was the person acting in self-defense actually framing the aggressor for murder? We have all seen enough crime movies or possibly paid attention to real-life court cases to know that the matter is often not so simple - the person who looks like the aggressor could be innocent of wrongdoing, and the person who looks innocent could be guilty of unjust violence.

In Arjuna's situation, though, the evidence is clear. The aggressors - The Kurus - have shown time and time again that they are relentless in plundering the riches of the Pandavas, occupying their land, and even inviting them to a flammable house in an effort to kill them. There were no repercussions simply because the Kurus were in power. Time and time again, justice did not prevail.

Duryodhana built a highly flammable house and invited the Pandavas to stay

with the intention of burning  it down to kill his cousins.

Thus, Prabhupad refutes Arjuna's concern that "Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors." There is no sin to slay aggressors such as these.

Nevertheless, even though so much violence has been perpetrated towards him and his family, Arjuna is still in distress at the prospect of fighting, because although meting out immediate justice befits an ordinary man, "Arjuna is not an ordinary person" (53). He is saintly. Saintly persons are "advised to forgive" and "such [saintly] injunctions are more important than any political emergency." He is seeing how these aggressors are no ordinary aggressors - they're his own grandfather, teacher, friends, sons, grandsons (53) and more. He argues that to forgive, especially his kinsmen, is religious and noble, no matter the political emergency.

Arjuna also emphasizes that there's nothing to gain - no happiness or peace of mind - in ruling over a kingdom that was obtained through such bloody, tainted means.

Like a lawyer in a court case, such are the opening arguments of the saintly Arjuna, and we will explore more of his reasons in the upcoming verses. As a reader, 5,000 years after this conversation was spoken, I empathize with Arjuna. And that is the point. We are meant to connect with Arjuna's distress, connect with the struggles we face in our own lives that no amount of logic can reason us out of. Deep down, we all desire to not simply be ordinary and mete out ordinary justice to our aggressors, but to be saintly and forgive. As the Catholic Lord's Prayer goes, "[O Lord] forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." Being unconditionally merciful towards another - especially a family member - resonates on a deep religious and spiritual level.

That said, we can feel the tension build. We can feel that, somehow, Arjuna is arguing a case that will be refuted by Krishna. This tension is the basis of the entire Bhagavad-gita.

We shall see where Krishna, The Supreme Lord, takes us. 

Introduction to the Bhagavad-gita

Why read the Bhagavad-gita?

There is a trendy phrase circulating among leaders and forward-thinkers: find your why. The reasoning is that if you find your why, your whole life - and all the activities in your life - will have purpose.

In his Introduction to the Bhagavad-gita, Bhaktivedanta Swami (Prabhupad) provides the purpose of studying this scripture: "The whole purpose of the Bhagavad-gita is to revive our sanatana occupation, or sanatana-dharma, which is the eternal occupation of the living entity" (16). Interestingly, the purpose of studying this scripture is not to ruminate or continue to think and appreciate wisdom, to be an "armchair philosopher" (as the saying goes). Prabhupad emphasizes that the living entity has an "occupation" and inherent within an occupation is activity. Thus the whole purpose of the Gita is to actually become active.

One could say that to translate spiritual philosophy to be engaged in action is religion. The word "religion" often has very negative connotations attached to it - to be "spiritual but not religious" is the approved catchphrase, but to be "religious but not spiritual" is downright horrifying. Prabhupad emphasizes, though, that "Sanatana-dharma does not refer to any sectarian process of religion" (17). Indeed, if sanatana-dharma is eternal and inherent within all souls, then it exists outside of any religious idea of a ritual or belief. Prabhupad continues, "The English word religion is a little different from sanatana-dharma. Religion conveys the idea of faith, and faith may change. One may have faith in a particular process, and  he may change this faith and adopt another, but sanatana-dharma refers to that activity which cannot be changed" (17). Within this definition of sanatana-dharma lies the essence of what it means to seek truth, the absolute truth. Truth is not relative. Truth just is. 2 + 2 = 4. Truth is not dependent on my willingness to believe or have faith (numbers don't care if I believe in them, they just exist), and it cannot be changed (2 + 2 will always, always equal 4). Truth is independent of my own brain and mind and heart.

Truth is truth.

Religion can fluctuate, but the nature of the soul just is. Prabhupad goes on to give the example how heat is integral to fire (17) - take away heat and there is no fire.

So naturally I wonder: what IS the eternal occupation of the soul? If the soul is "fire," what is the equivalent of "heat", the quality that defines the soul and cannot be taken away?

Prabhupad provides the answer: rendering service (18). Prabhupad reasons that service cannot be avoided, it is as integral to the soul as heat is to fire. We are all serving someone, right now, whether we do so out of fear (my boss) or duty (my students) or love (my husband). The fact that we serve others at all times is not up for debate or confined to this or that religion or if you or I believe in this or not. To serve is the eternal occupation of the soul.

The whole purpose of the Gita is to revive our truest expression of service, to serve God with love (27). This is not a matter of sectarian religion, this is a matter of truth and being aligned with that truth, because this is how the soul will ultimately, truly be happy. To stop chasing happiness and simply live it: to love and be loved.

If I was to find my why, that is my why. To love and be loved is the nature of my soul. This is not religion. Show me how to serve God. If this is a science, show me. I'm all ears.

I'm ready to hear.

sincerely,

Bhakti