84: True Worship

CHAPTER 18, TEXT 70: And I declare that he who studies this sacred conversation of ours worships Me by his intelligence.

I just Googled "worship" and here's an image that pops up:

I've been to a few Christian services, rock concert style, and sung at the top of my lungs. I've also attended Buddhist prayers, Catholic mass, Vaishnava congregational singing (kirtan), and bowing in the Islamic call to prayer (azaan). Each ritual and service has touched my soul in a special way. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the verb worship means to "show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites." 

But in this verse of the Gita, Krishna is declaring to Arjuna that by studying this sacred conversation, one "worships" Him with one's intelligence. There is no requirement here for a religious rite.  

So then what IS worship? 

The word "worship" is derived from the Old English weorthscipe, which means "worthiness, acknowledgment of worth" (see worth, -ship)" (Oxford Dictionary). Fascinating, no? The core of worship is to acknowledge worth. 

As in, I value spirit, I value God as more valuable than any diamond of this world and so I'll acknowledge His worth in any way I know how: bells and incense and rock concerts. 

The essence of all of these expressions, though, is to acknowledge God's / the Divine's worth. In this verse, Krishna is saying that if we engage our intelligence in understanding with our hearts this conversation, we are acknowledging His worth. 

That is worship. 

It's so easy to reject scripture as arcane, irrelevant, and a source of dogma and strife within this world. These conclusions usually come, though, from either ignoring, misconstruing, or blindly following the teachings of scripture. 

But if one would just apply one's divine power of discernment to any scripture of the world, we would experience the priceless worth that these scriptures provide to elevate the soul to become pure and learn how to love. 

At the core, worship is not a ritual or a religious rite. Worship is to acknowledge the greatest worth of God, the priceless diamond we are all searching for in our heart of hearts. 

Full text here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/18/70/

64: A Dark Future

CHAPTER  14, TEXT 16: The result of pious action is pure and is said to be in the mode of goodness. But action done in the mode of passion results in misery, and action performed in the mode of ignorance results in foolishness.

In this purport, Prabhupad lays out clear logic that "indulgence in animal killing for the taste of the tongue is the grossest kind of ignorance." This is not Prabhupad being judgmental or disgusted. He is simply building upon this verse, 14.16, especially "action performed in the mode of ignorance results in foolishness." 

How is killing animals for the sake of the tongue foolish? How come it's it in the mode of ignorance? 

The foundation of this logic begins with the word ignorance, which is translated as "lack of knowledge or information" (Oxford Languages). 

Simple. 

If one performs an action without appropriate knowledge or information, the action and the results are often harmful to the self and to others. 

For example, I am ignorant of surgical procedures. I have a lack of knowledge and information (A BIG LACK) in order to produce a result that won't harm my patient (stab an artery...??) or harm myself (all those malpractice lawsuits!). In this regard, "the performer is without knowledge, and therefore all his activities result in present misery." This means that a lack of knowledge (ignorance) when we perform an action results in misery, not just a hazy confusion or discomfort. 

Misery. 

And misery for everyone. 

Lack of awareness and the repeated choosing to ignore and turn away from knowledge and reality leads the soul to "go on toward animal life. Animal life is always miserable, although, under the spell of the illusory energy, māyā, the animals do not understand this." Animals are all in varying states of ignorance, surviving from day to day, operating from a place of instinct and driven to eat, mate, and defend. This is a miserable existence, but souls in these bodies are not even aware just how miserable they are. In a sense, animals are innocent. Animals do not produce karma, or reaction to their actions, because they are simply acting out of instinct. 

But human beings can choose to act from a place beyond instinct, humans can act from a place of knowledge. Prabhupad writes, "Slaughtering poor animals is also due to the mode of ignorance. The animal killers do not know that in the future the animal will have a body suitable to kill them. That is the law of nature." Only human beings who kill animals or participate in the process of killing and eating animals recur this reaction to one day be slaughtered in kind. As Prabhupad says here, "That is the law of nature." If karma is working in all other spheres of existence as a divine system of justice, then this system also applies for killing animals. Thus, if one kills an animal to enjoy the tongue, "one has to pay for it." Action and reaction is a law of nature. 

Thus we come to where we began this post: "indulgence in animal killing for the taste of the tongue is the grossest kind of ignorance." Animal killing is the grossest kind of ignorance because there is such a fundamental lack of knowledge and information that if I kill another living being I am responsible for its death. 

What's more, "A human being has no need to kill animals, because God has supplied so many nice things." Nowadays, some would reject this statement and assert that some people just can't not eat meat because of his or her blood type or constitution. My sister professes that if she does not eat meat she becomes very unhealthy. I confess, I'm not a nutritionist or health science expert. That said, I am going off of Prabhupad's purport here, and he is emphasizing that [all] human beings do not need to eat meat, as "God has supplied so many nice things." 

Okay, so if one is aware of the law of karma and aware that killing animals to enjoy meat is not the best for a bunch of reasons, how come this post or any debate or discussion is unlikely to change anyone's stance on eating meat?  

I once debated this topic of vegetarianism in a Bioethics class in my undergraduate degree. We discussed all the reasons, from environmental impacts, to health reasons, and for this class especially, the ethical obligations of slaughtering animals for meat. 

The conclusion was pretty obvious: don't eat meat. 

But no one in the class, including my professor, was moved to make a change in behavior. 

One day, I approached my professor after class to assert that really there is only one reason that people eat meat and will not give it up: the taste. People enjoy the taste, texture, and experience of meat. 

The professor, a highly educated, sharp man in his thirties, at last conceded. He said, "I find it to be one of the greatest failings in my life that I'm not a vegetarian. But... I just love the taste of meat,"

One may have the knowledge and philosophical reasons to not eat meat, but at the end of the day, the fact that meat tastes good trumps all. In this sense, if one has the knowledge and information to not eat meat - that's not ignorance any more, right? In this case, then, ignorance is a true "ignore-ing" of what meat is (flesh of animals) and what the consequences are (being killed in kind). So "If one indulges in meat-eating anyway, it is to be understood that he is acting in ignorance and is making his future very dark." 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/14/16/

62: Illuminating Presence

CHAPTER 13, TEXT 34: O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness.

So simple. 

So sublime. 

The sun is one, and yet it illuminates and animates the whole earth. A symptom that the sun exists is that we see light. 

Krishna says in this verse that similarly, the tiny spark of the soul illuminates the body. A symptom that the soul exists is that we experience consciousness. Prabhupad writes, "Thus consciousness is the proof of the presence of the soul, as sunshine or light is the proof of the presence of the sun." One may ask how  consciousness is "proof" of the presence of the soul - why are there no other ways to prove the presence of the soul - say a microscope? Of some kind of energy meter...? 

In the previous verse, Krishna compares the soul to the sky - how the sky mixes with everything and at the same time is aloof and is never contaminated. The purport reads, "Similarly, the living entity, even though situated in varieties of bodies, is aloof from them due to his subtle nature. Therefore it is impossible to see with the material eyes how the living entity is in contact with this body and how he is out of it after the destruction of the body. No one in science can ascertain this" (13.33). The very nature of the soul is subtle and immeasurable to some kind of microscope or energy meter. Trying to manufacture some method to directly perceive the soul is pointless. As Prabhupad mentions here, "no one in science can ascertain" the soul or how or when it moves and functions. The soul itself is subtle. 

But we can perceive the soul through the symptoms of the soul, and the most obvious symptom is consciousness. We don't need fancy instruments or fancy scientific calculations to perceive the soul. The logic is simple: "When the soul is present in the body, there is consciousness all over the body, and as soon as the soul has passed from the body there is no more consciousness. 

"This can be easily understood by any intelligent man." 

Yes! The key word here is "easily" - this is easily understood! How is someone who has died referenced?

"She left us."

"He is gone."

"She is no longer with us."

Or maybe someone in grief, weeping at the bedside crying out, "Where are you?"

In all these situations, the body is right there. How is he or she "gone" or "no longer with us" and why would one say, "where are you?" if we can touch and see the body? 

The soul has gone, the soul is no longer with us, we are asking where the soul is. The soul is what illuminated the body with consciousness, like the sun illuminating the earth. "Therefore consciousness is not a product of the combinations of matter. It is the symptom of the living entity."

The living entity is not a product of matter - the soul is of a spiritual, divine nature. 

So simple. 

So sublime. 

The most reassuring part is that over and over again in the Gita and in other Vedic scriptures the soul is described as "eternal" and "undying", so when the soul "leaves" the body it's not like the soul is snuffed out like a candle, forever extinguished into oblivion. (This is a common belief of atheists.)

No. The soul leaves the body and moves on to another body. I mean, if the soul is eternal (and not just snuffed out) and it's not ready to go to heaven or back to God, what else would the soul do? The soul has a journey. Each body is a portion of the soul's journey.

I hope I can use this time wisely while my soul is in this current body. 

I hope to cultivate love and cleanse my heart, and seek God. 

I hope to live a life of purpose with each day, no matter how simple. 

And when the day comes when the lights go out forever on this life in this body and my soul travels on to my next destination, I hope the journey will take me ever closer to love and to God. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/13/34/

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/

56: Bhakti Causes Bhakti

CHAPTER 12, TEXT 20: Those who follow this imperishable path of devotional service and who completely engage themselves with faith, making Me the supreme goal, are very, very dear to Me.

Arjuna asked which is better - "one who is engaged in the path of impersonal Brahman or one who is engaged in the personal service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead" - and Lord Krishna replies here without a shadow of a doubt that devotional service is the best of all processes of spiritual realization (Purport, 12.20).

But even though personally serving Lord Krishna with devotion is the process recommended here as the highest, most direct path to loving God, the process is also somewhat shrouded in mystery.  

A great Vaishnava saint and scholar, Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur, makes this point in his commentary on a famous verse in the Srimad Bhagavatam that describes bhakti as causeless. He writes, "Here the work ahaituki, causeless, means that devotional service has no material cause (hetu)" (Madhurya Kadambini, 3).  

It's not possible to simply serve God and then after a preordained amount of time love would flood my heart. This would make love a business exchange, a kind of calculation on the grocery store receipt - 3 prayers, 5 fasts, 10 times giving in charity = love of God. 

Loving devotion, or bhakti, has no material cause. I could engage in these processes of prayer, fasts, and giving in charity for a million years and still not experience love of God, because bhakti is not dependent upon my material endeavors. 

So. The million dollar question: 

If I can't endeavor for bhakti, how do I get it?

???

Association with a pure devotee. 

Srila Prabhupad writes that this kind of association is essential to the cultivation of bhakti within the heart. In fact, Prabhupad emphasizes the essential nature of association by saying that "as long as one does not have the chance to associate with a pure devotee, the impersonal conception may be beneficial." How interesting! Krishna has just emphasized to Arjuna that bhakti yoga, without a doubt, is the best and highest path for spiritual realization, but here Prabhupad is saying that if one does not have the association of a devotee, the path of jnana (knowledge, meditation) yoga is beneficial. 

This means that associating with a devotee is a necessity for cultivating bhakti.  

But if one does not have that association, then this process of jnana yoga is your second best bet. 

Jnana yoga involves working without fruitive result, meditating and cultivating knowledge to understand spirit and matter (Purport, 12.20). These activities are all confirmed by Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur as referring to "bhakti in the material mode of goodness (sattviki-bhakti) which acts as a limb of the system of jnana" (Madhurya Kadambini, 5). Being in the mode of goodness in our devotion is a great stepping stone to elevating our souls. Sattviki bhakti may never take us to our ultimate destination of love of God, but it opens the heart up to receive the love when it does come. That is why Prabhupad says that this process of jnana may be "necessary as long as one is not in the association of a pure devotee" (Purport, 12.20). 

So how come association is so essential to cultivating love in our hearts? The answer lies within a devotee's mercy. 

One may say that when or how a devotee gives mercy is dependent upon situations, so this is a material cause. But "Without the devotee having bhakti, there is no possibility of him giving mercy to others. Bhakti causes the devotee's mercy which causes bhakti in another person. 

"Bhakti causes bhakti."

This is why we cannot huff and puff away at our prayers and fasts and charities, expecting love of God to sprout in our hearts on its accord from all of these endeavors. Bhakti can only be given by one who possesses bhakti, someone with love and mercy in his/her heart. 

So either I engage in jnana yoga for lifetime upon lifetime, or I can seek out the association of pure devotees in order to take the highest, direct path to Krishna. The choice is mine, the choice is yours. 

Full purport  here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/12/20/

53: Krishna at Face Value

CHAPTER 11, TEXT 51: When Arjuna thus saw Kṛṣṇa in His original form, he said: O Janārdana, seeing this humanlike form, so very beautiful, I am now composed in mind, and I am restored to my original nature.

The Gita has been studied for thousands of years. Scholars often recognize certain philosophical points in the Gita as truths and laws of nature, such as the law of karma, the eternality of the soul, the modes of material nature, and much more (https://www.ancient.eu/Bhagavad_Gita/). Krishna's words are taken at face value, no metaphorical bending or interpretation required.  

But when it comes to Krishna's statements that fools deride him when he descends in human form (9.11) or that one should worship Him with love and devotion by meditating on His form (9.22), Krishna's words suddenly are not taken at face value. They're seen as metaphorical.  

Many scholars take one of two standpoints: 1) Either Krishna is seen as an ordinary human being who gave some great wisdom to his friend on a battlefield, or 2) this battle at Kurukshetra never actually took place - the whole Bhagavad-gita is interpreted as a metaphor for the soul's battle for goodness and truth. 

There's a third possibility, though: 3) The battle of Kurukshetra took place, Krishna is God in human form conversing with his dear friend, instructing him how to live in this world and become a loving devotee. Bhaktivedanta Swami's commentary on the Bhagavad-gita is aptly entitled As It Is. 

Take everything Krishna says at face value. As it is. No metaphorical mind-bending.

If He says that there's a law of karma, there's a law of karma. 

If He says that there are three modes of material nature, there are three modes of material nature. 

If Krishna displays the universal, cosmic form, a form that only God can display, then that is Krishna's power and Krishna is God. 

If Krishna is described in His original form as having two hands and being very beautiful, then His original form has two hands and He is very beautiful. 

Prabhupad writes, "Here the words mānuṣaṁ rūpam clearly indicate the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be originally two-handed." This is clear. There is no need for a twisted interpretation to this verse and these statements. 

If Krishna's other statements of profound philosophical truths are so often taken at face value, why not these statements that He is the Supreme Controller, the Supreme Source of All, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead who comes in the form of a human to exchange love with His devotees? Although Krishna may look ordinary, He is not. Prabhupad argues this point, "If Kṛṣṇa is like an ordinary human being, then how is it possible for Him to show the universal form and again to show the four-handed Nārāyaṇa form?" Krishna has already shown and stated that He has displayed His universal form as well as his Narayan form - this is certainly not something an ordinary human being can do. So then the only other option is to see all of Krishna's words as metaphor. That option seems to be a little bit like cherry-picking the verses and ideas that are comfortable and leaving the rest as vaguely "metaphorical." 

After experiencing the terrifying universal form, Arjuna is now satisfied and at peace in his heart to behold his dear friend, Krishna, in his original two-armed form. This form is beautiful, a form that Arjuna can look in the eyes, a form that he can see with his ordinary eyes. 

Two seemingly opposing possibilities - that Krishna is in a human form and Krishna is all-powerful God - are reconciled once we just take Krishna's words at face value, As They Are. 

Prabhupad concludes his commentary on this verse by emphasizing that "the original verses of Bhagavad-gītā are as clear as the sun; they do not require lamplight from foolish commentators." 

I often feel like one of those foolish commentators as I do this Gita Project, trying to shed lamplight upon the brilliance of the sun of Krishna's and Prabhupads' words. That said, I just want to be as loyal and true to their words as possible, and if by God's grace I can accomplish this, then I am content to be a little lamp basking in the radiance of the sun of Krishna's teachings which illuminate the world. 

Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/11/51/

43: The Devotee of His Devotee

CHAPTER 9, TEXT 29: I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.

A few years ago, I decided to take on an unpaid internship at a school in New York City because I simply wanted to be there. Eventually, I built such a warm and supportive relationship with the teachers that I was asked to step in for a long-term substitute position, and eventually as a full-time teacher. 

For both positions, I was still required to go through the full interview process. Other applicants were interviewed, so we were all given a fair chance at the position.

In fact, other applicants were sometimes even more qualified than me - they had more training, more experience, etc. I remember sitting in my chair outside of the principal's office and seeing these interviewees come in and thinking to myself, "This is nuts. I'm a total newb at teaching, these people look so qualified."

But I was given the job. 

Both times, there was never a question in the principal's mind that she wanted to give the job to me. 

Why? 

There's only one reason. 

We had a relationship. Not only the principal and me, but I also had relationship with almost every teacher at the school, along many of the students. Those relationships took precedence over everything else, from degrees to years of experience. 

This verse of the Gita, 9.29, addresses this seeming contradiction in spiritual life between God's fairness and His special treatment. Srila Prabhupad addresses this contradiction within the very first sentence of his purport: "One may question here that if Kṛṣṇa is equal to everyone and no one is His special friend, then why does He take a special interest in the devotees who are always engaged in His transcendental service?" Indeed, one could argue that true impartiality means that even if there is any kind of a relationship, decisions will be made only upon the laws and objective qualifications. We take great pains in this world to make sure judges and jurors are neutral, and that they are not swayed by personal relationships. 

That is also an aspect of God, which he addresses in this verse: I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. God IS the neutral judge, meting out punishment and reward through the machinations of material nature. 

But that judge in the courtroom - she or he also goes home, right? That judge may have a family. A husband or a wife. A child. Friends. That judge is not only a judge - that judge is a person. At home, that judge is partial to his wife and his child and his friends. He exchanges love with each person in a unique, special way. 

Similarly, God is a person. He is not only the supreme judge and maintainer of  the universe. Krishna is a person whose heart opens to the person whose heart opens to Him. As Srila Prabhbupad says, "[T]his is not discrimination; it is natural." Indeed, for a judge to be partial to his wife or child is not discrimination - it is  natural! Similarly, God is a person who is partial to those He has a loving relationship with. 

Of course, the presupposition here is that God is a person. Prabhupad writes, "If a reciprocal relationship is not present between the devotee and the Lord, then there is no personalist philosophy. In the impersonal philosophy there is no reciprocation between the Supreme and the living entity, but in the personalist philosophy there is." 

The impersonalist philosophy would say that God is an all-powerful force of light that maintains the universe, brilliant like the sun. There's no reciprocation with the sun. The sun simply exists and shines upon all in utter impartiality. 

The personalist philosophy would say that God is a conscious person who has feelings and a heart. This person is inclined to give attention and affection to those who give attention and affection to Him, as any person is.  

The wondrous thing about this verse is that Krishna validates both the impersonalist and personalist approach! He is the impartial sun AND the partial person. He is equal to all AND a friend. Both are needed, both are aspects of God. 

Ultimately, though, a loving relationship is emphasized. And how beautiful that God is partial to His devotees - in this way he so tenderly cares for those who express some faith and love in Him, and try to serve Him in any small way. In fact, God reciprocates so beautifully to the point of serving his devotees. Prabhupad writes, "The Supreme Lord becomes the devotee of His devotees." Note the phrasing of this sentence, and that Prabhupad uses the title of "The Supreme Lord" to emphasize that wonder of God Himself becoming a devotee of His devotee. In this way, God is not just partial to His devotee because He likes being served and likes all the attention for Himself. No. Krishna - The Supreme Lord - reciprocates and takes great joy in serving and loving His devotees with all of His heart. 

Full purport: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/9/29/

37: Conceiving the Inconceivable

CHAPTER 8, TEXT 9: One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is smaller than the smallest, who is the maintainer of everything, who is beyond all material conception, who is inconceivable, and who is always a person. He is luminous like the sun, and He is transcendental, beyond this material nature.

The name for God in Islam is "Allah," which means "The Great One." In Islam, God is never depicted with a form or in any way that could be construed as a material interpretation, for God is beyond our material conception.  

In this verse of the Gita, this understanding is confirmed - God is beyond material conception. At the same time, God is also stated as a person who has a form (rupam). The fact that God is beyond material conception while also having a form is inconceivable - acintya. After all, isn't the fact that one has a form MAKE one conceivable?? Prabhupad writes, "The word acintya (“inconceivable”) is very significant in this connection. God’s energy is beyond our conception, beyond our thinking jurisdiction, and is therefore called inconceivable (acintya)." I appreciate Prabhupad's phrase here, our "thinking jurisdiction," because we all have a kind of arena from which we can think and conceive. After all, human beings have been inquiring about and questioning God since the beginning of our existence. Healthy exploration, questioning, and even doubt is all a sign of intelligence on the spiritual path. At the same time, it is also a sign of intelligence to realize that there are some things that are beyond our understanding, beyond our "thinking jurisdiction." 

Indeed, Prabhupad continues to say that "We cannot comprehend even this material world, which is insignificant compared to the spiritual world – so how can we comprehend what is beyond? Acintya means that which is beyond this material world, that which our argument, logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch, that which is inconceivable." Even this material world is such a mystery. Although much can be puzzled out, and the sciences are dedicated to understanding how this material world functions, still, we may understand how a thing functions but not why. 

For example, we now understand how a rainbow is created, with the reflection of light upon suspended water droplets in the air. But we do not know why rainbows are created. What is the purpose of a rainbow?

That is something that logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch.  

My sense is that scientists can conclude that there is no God because they see that there is no mystery to the mathematical laws that govern the universe; they can conceive of and wrap their minds around things that previously seemed so mysterious, like a rainbow, or lightning, or the human heart. Thus there is no "mysterious God" controlling all.  

Or, scientists can conclude that there must be a God because the laws and calculations that govern the universe are so wondrous, so inconceivable that there must be a higher intelligence at work. They reason that all the laws are actually in service of a higher and more mysterious purpose and person. Aristotle once wrote that "Mathematics is the alphabet in which God has written the universe," which means that behind all miracles is an architect who plays by the mathematical rules he has created.

What's more, there is a purpose - a why - behind every aspect of creation.   

Possessing a higher intelligence means accepting that there is a higher intelligence at work. 

This is not blind following, but an understanding that there are some things that are simply beyond my conception. After all, God is the Great One, He cannot be conceived of with an ordinary mind and an ordinary intelligence. 

If He was, then how Great would He be? 

And yet, if we are to actually love God in a practical way, then He must have a form. Prabhupad writes, "One cannot meditate on something impersonal or void. That is very difficult. The process of thinking of Kṛṣṇa, however, is very easy and is factually stated herein. First of all, the Lord is puruṣa, a person – we think of the person Rāma and the person Kṛṣṇa." Just like we meditate on the people we love, this is the same for God. Although it's an aspect of God, meditating on an inconceivable void can be very difficult in terms of cultivating love. Meditating on the face of the Lord actually awakens love in the heart. And it's so easy, as Prabhupad states.  

Yes, God is The Great One - Allah - who I imagine to be this brilliant and wondrous God who is luminous like the sun (aditya-varnam) as described in this verse. 

God is not limited, though, to only being inconceivable. 

If God is unlimited, then he can also be perceived, even with our limited eyes and senses. So yes, He is The Great One, and He is also the Beautiful One with Skin as Dark as a Raincloud - Shyamasundar. 

Personally, I visit Krishna temples and love to absorb myself in the beauty of Krishna's form in His sacred deity. His form touches my heart and soul, giving rise to a kind of unique and beautiful affection, adoration, and a desire to serve.

In this way, God becomes real and luminous like the sun within my own heart. 

Full purport by Bhaktivedanta Swami here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/8/9

14: Beautiful Balance

CHAPTER THREE, TEXT 3: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who try to realize the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service.

Religion gets a pretty bad rap.

In our modern society, the phrase "organized religion" is almost synonymous with "organized crime."

In fact, the words and phrases that come to my mind with the word religion are: strict, shallow, fanatics, meaningless rituals, sanctified violence, suppression of women, power-tripping men at the top, and ego battles. Just a few. I'm sure you could provide a few more colorful phrases to add to that list.

With so many negative connotations to the word religion that are, frankly, kind of warranted, no wonder the phrase of choice today is: "I'm spiritual but not religious."

In this verse, though, Krishna describes that on the spiritual path there are two classes of people - one class wants to understand the spirit through philosophical speculation (sankhya-yoga) and the other class by devotional service (karma-yoga / buddhi-yoga). Prabhupad translates these two principles as philosophy (or "spirituality") and religion, and both are valid approaches.

Yes, religion.

Huh?

I thought religion was strict, shallow, and fanatical?

Definitions are a great place to start. Often, we get carried away with the connotations of a word without truly examining what the word means. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, religion is: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Okay. No mention of strict, shallow fanatics. But I think what gets warped in our modern context is the word "worship" - worship then translates as practical action, which can translate as rituals that are acted upon in very shallow, fanatical ways. Unfortunately, this is common in religious circles.

Conversely, the definition of spirituality is: "the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things." So far so good. Being concerned with the spirit over material things sounds like a pretty great aspiration. That said, the "quality of being concerned" is rather vague. How does one put being "concerned" into action? I could be "concerned" all day and all night about the soul until I die, but if I never act upon or show that concern, then really my spirituality has little to no substance. It's simply that - a concern. Airy philosophy.

The key is that religion and philosophy are interdependent (133) and must be combined. Srila Prabhupad offers a famous statement: "Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation" (ibid).

This means that when religion does not have a deeper concern for the human spirit or higher understanding, it is just a shallow display of sentimental rituals and worship. An excessive attachment to those rituals and regulations shows up as fanaticism. Go figure.

The other side of the coin, though, is that when philosophy is not combined with practical action, one just speculates about truth in circles forever and never acts on those beliefs. Then there's no deep substance to those beliefs. The dreaded "armchair philosopher."

Unfortunately, it is so easy to swing to one side or the other, and the hardest practice is to balance the two. If fact, we could all introspect about our own approach and consider: Which side do I fall harder on - the religious or spiritual side? Which side do I sense I need to develop more?

That said, while both philosophy and religion are interdependent and crucial for balanced spiritual growth, Prabhupad emphasizes that practical action is easier for human beings. We sometimes have a hard time with philosophy. We need practical experience, we need activities that awaken our hearts to love and to the human spirit. I have often experienced that when I'm not "feeling it" and have no concern whatsoever into the "human spirit" and philosophy, if I can just DO some worship - offer some flower, sing some song, fold my palms, anything - my heart awakens to love and to spirituality. I have experienced this awakening during Catholic mass when I kneel as well as opening my palms during prayers in a mosque as well as singing the holy name in communal kirtan in a temple. Devotional service is not restricted to any particular religious path.

In this way, Prabhupad emphasizes that "devotional service is simultaneously easy and sublime" (133). This phrase is so perfect, devotional service, for it implies the perfect balance of spiritual and divine concern (devotional) and the practical and accessible action (service).

Religion is underrated.

Spirituality is overrated.

The balance of the two is more challenging to strike, and yet when we find that beautiful balance, when we offer devotional service, the process is truly easy and sublime.