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has taken on such heavy baggage, with connotations of "patriarchy," "oppression," "judgement," and being "fake," and "outdated."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/

65: Transcendental Bystander

 Arjuna asks three questions to Krishna (Chapter 14, Verse 21) and Krishna responds with the below verses (22-25), which are traditionally grouped together. I will be focusing on the words and phrases that I bold and underline.  

CHAPTER 14, TEXTS 22-25: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities – such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.

Talking about religion and saying the word "God" is now taboo. But the soul craves some kind of way to seek righteousness through reform and behavior. As a result, social and political issues and involvement seem to be the new religion. 

On the social level, there's the Me Too movement, Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+ equality and pride, affirmative action, school shootings, abortion, and many more.

On the political level, there's the matter of Donald Trump being president, America's handling of its borders with Mexico, illegal immigrants, North Korea, involvement in the Paris Climate Agreement, voting, and many more.   

Of course, social and political issues overlap - Black Lives Matter is sometimes considered a political issue, the handling of illegal immigrants sometimes considered a social issue. In either case, in the past few years there seem to be marches and protests and riots on a regular basis; the people who participate are fighting for their voices and opinion to be heard, for a change to be made.

From what I have observed on social media and in person, the engagement with these issues escalates to an almost religious fervor. If one chooses to not engage with any or all of these issues, one runs the risk of being a "bystander" - one who just lets things happen without taking a stand for what is right. 

Krishna has a different perspective, though. 

In the previous verse, Arjuna has asked Krishna: What is the behavior of a person who has transcended the modes of nature?  

This fourteenth chapter has explored the modes of nature, specifically goodness, passion, and ignorance, and how they permeate this world and our existence. These modes are binding, even goodness. And so Arjuna is asking how to move beyond them. 

Yes, even goodness. 

Krishna replies that the symptom of one who has transcended these modes has "renounced all material activities." This could mean many things and this response could, quite frankly, be bewildering. But Prabhupad elaborates on this particular phrase in two sentences. 

In the first sentence, he says, "[The transcendentalist] is equally disposed and sees everything on an equal level because he knows perfectly well that he has nothing to do with material existence." This seeing everything on an "equal level" is key here, but what is important is to be able to see reality and then be on an equal level. If I deeply identify with being a woman, there is no way I can be equally disposed towards all. This goes for any material identity (such as race, age, sexual orientation, religious orientation, etc.). True equality and neutrality must come from a spiritually informed perspective that we are a spirit soul, that we have "nothing to do with material existence." That is spiritual reality and the foundation for an equal disposition. 

Prabhupad then specifically writes that a person who has renounced all material activities renounces connections to these ever-changing social and political issues. In the second sentence he writes, "Social and political issues do not affect him, because he knows the situation of temporary upheavals and disturbances." The material world is in constant flux, the modes of material nature in perpetual competition for supremacy (14.10). But our true, divine nature is not in flux - the soul and the Supersoul is steady, eternal, at peace. Getting deeply absorbed in the comings and goings of material problems is a never-ending, turbulent storm.  

For example, Donald Trump has been president for four years. The maximum term he could have held was eight years. People opposed him and supported him with feverish, religious fervor, but at the end of the day, his "reign" was four years, and if he had been voted into office for a second term, a maximum of eight years.  

Then the next upheaval would've come. 

Many of the issues listed earlier in this post have been under scrutiny for decades, but the past few years we've seen an explosion of talking about and shedding light on them. 

But they will come and they will go. This is not a pessimistic opinion dismissing important issues of the world. The statement that these issues will come and go is based on reality - social and political issues are temporary because they are born of the material world and the modes of nature. Material issues deal with the body, country borders, and the environment; for each of these issues there is a perpetual merry-go-round of goodness, passion, and ignorance fighting for supremacy. 

These are not issues of the soul. 

An important distinction to make here is that Krishna and Prabhupad are not recommending anyone to renounce material activities. Krishna and Prabhupad are describing the symptoms of a person who has transcended the modes of nature. 

So in this way, Arjuna could've asked the question flipped around: What is the behavior of a person who has not transcended the modes of nature?

And Krishna would've responded, logically, "He is deeply absorbed in material activities" and Prabhupad would've elaborated, "He is affected by social and political issues, thinking the problem to be permanent and that he must be the one to solve the problem." 

As a reader, we are now faced with a choice: which person do I want to be? 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/14/22-25/

61: The One Who Takes My Hand

 CHAPTER 13, TEXT 26: Again there are those who, although not conversant in spiritual knowledge, begin to worship the Supreme Person upon hearing about Him from others. Because of their tendency to hear from authorities, they also transcend the path of birth and death.

When I was teaching in New York City, the fourth grade teacher at my school told me a story: 

"I told Kaya (pseudonym) to quiet down and stay in her chair. 

She then fired back, 'This is a free country,'"

You may commend this girl for using her intelligence - that comeback is snappy. At the same time, if you look just a little deeper at her words, you can see a kind of deep unwillingness to accept authority. No one is "above" her or has the right to give her directions - her reasoning is that we are all free and thus we are all equal. 

The word "educate" derives its meaning from the Latin "educare" which means "to lead out." This implies that someone is in a kind of darkness of ignorance (the student) and someone is leading that person out into the light (the teacher) (much like Plato's Allegory of the Cave).

In this sense, student and teacher are not equal. One is more knowledgeable and is helping the other, so that person is the authority. 

The hardest part about education is to surrender to authority, whether that is to superior knowledge, a teacher, a path, a lifestyle, and more. Surrender begins with the process of hearing, for words may enter the heart and brain and wake up deep inside a longing, a curiosity, an emptiness. 

Words have a mystical power to touch the soul. 

The ancient process for any kind of progress, but especially spiritual, is to hear from an authority with submissiveness. Prabhupad writes, "Lord Caitanya, who preached Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the modern world, gave great stress to hearing because if the common man simply hears from authoritative sources he can progress." Note that Prabhupad emphasizes that the "common man" can progress - not the scholar or the spiritualist but the common man. 

That's you and me, buddy. 

Krishna describes in this verse a person who has the "tendency to hear from authorities" - the key word here is "tendency." Even more important that downloading loads of knowledge is to cultivate that tendency to hear, an inclination and even hunger to hear. 

Prabhupad writes that the common man must "simply hear" from an authoritative source. 

That said, 

there is "hearing"

and there is "listening." 

Did Kaya hear her teacher's instructions? Yes.

Did Kaya listen to her teacher's instructions? No. 

Listening implies submissiveness, a willingness to learn, a willingness to be lead out of the dark, aware that one is even in the dark. 

Listening means that one wants the light, is open and ready to change and transform. 

The Sanskrit word used in this verse is sruti, which is translated as "hearing." This word is also intimately used in connection to or alludes to the Vedas, the ancient scriptures of spiritual knowledge. This means that hearing doesn't just mean the physical experience of processing raw sound. Hearing means that one should hear spiritual knowledge of great weight and authority (such as the Vedas) in order to be transformed and lead out of the darkness. 

Hearing, then, means accepting authority. Hearing from an authority who is knowledgeable and of impeccable character is a special, rare opportunity in this world. Prabhupad emphasizes that "One should learn to become the servant of those who are in knowledge of the Supreme Lord." This means that to truly prepare the heart to hear from an authority, to serve that person opens up one to the light.  

This story of the girl Kaya - the girl who refused to follow the directions of her teacher with her claim that this is a free country - rankles me so much because, frankly, I have a bit of Kaya within my own heart. I don't want to surrender to someone who will tell me the Truth and show me the Way. I want to find my own truth, find my own way. 

Yes, this is a free country, and I am free. No one should have the power to tell me what to do. 

So.

I'll take baby steps. 

There are a few people in this world whose authority I accept in deep, quiet way. One of those authorities is Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the man who writes purports to these verses of the Gita. Sure, maybe I'm still a bit like Kaya when I hear some of his directions, and at the same time I trust him.  

I'd bet that Kaya did not trust her 4th-grade teacher. So why would she follow her directions? 

I trust that Prabhupad is taking my hand in his strong, gentle hand. Although I may dig in my heels and turn away, still with gentility and firmness and kindness, he leads me towards the light. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/13/26/

16: Be Exemplary

CHAPTER THREE, TEXT 21: Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.

Once, I asked my spiritual teacher if he had any instruction for me. He simply said, "Be exemplary."

Year after year, his words have rung in my head and reverberated out into my behavior. It's very confronting. 

Would I want another girl or woman to wear what I'm wearing?

Say what I'm saying? to her mother? to her student? to her husband? 

Would I want another woman to do what I'm doing? in the subway? at the temple? online? 

Post a picture that I'm posting? 

Write what I'm writing? 

How does an exemplary woman behave at work? At school? With her husband? 

Basically, the declaration is: Make my life transparent. I have nothing to hide. 

What's more, I need people to look up to, to show me the way to live a transparent life. Without their examples, I would be very lost indeed. In my mind I think of my mother, dance teacher, husband, spiritual master, professors, other teachers, and more. 

In the purport to this verse, Prabhupad writes that "People in general always require a leader who can teach the public by practical behavior" (149). Practical behavior is the key phrase here. Philosophy and words only take us so far. We all need someone who can show us the way through his or her example.

A leader is often equated with a powerful role that he or she attains, such as the CEO of Amazon or the President of the United States. In this verse, for the phrase "great man" Krishna uses the word sresthas, which is translated in the word-for-word as "respectable leader." In this sense, just being in the position of a CEO or the President is not enough for us to call him or her a "great man" - the person must be respectable.

Nevertheless, a role does carry a heavy responsibility. Prabhupad elaborates that "The king or the executive head of state, the father and the schoolteacher are all considered to be natural leaders of the innocent people in general" (149). Note that while many people may or may not have a king or even a schoolteacher to look up to, everyone has a father. For better or for worse, the example the father sets is a powerful precedent for the family and for society at large. The repercussions are great: "All such natural leaders have a great responsibility to their dependents" (149).

Would I want another father to do what I'm doing?

Would I want another mother to do what I'm doing?

Would I want another teacher to do what I'm doing?

Sometimes, it's hard to answer those questions. We simply don't know. That's why we need other people to set the example for us, those who are more powerful, loving, and wise.

So then I may ask: Who is MY role model? Who do I look up to? What would he do? What would she do? Those role models often light up a path that seems very dark. And then, once we are guided, we light the way for others. We are all meant to be leaders, to set standards that the whole world would follow.