And for that matter, a physicalist worldview really has no justification for being at odds with religion as a made up meaning because in the physicalist worldview all meaning is made up and mere human convention—there is no actual right or wrong act or thought. Nor is there any real meaning to any sense of self-determination. Really, what is the point of debating with someone who “believes” that the outcome of the debate is already determined and there is nothing either side can do to change that?

Yes, modern science looks at the world and interprets what it finds. And so does the Bhagavatam, which in contrast to the dominant materialistic interpretation coming from science, finds purpose, will, meaningful action and rationality, atma, and Paramatma. Neither does the Bhagavatam rely only upon the senses for its conclusions derived from observation. Indeed, it teaches a method of stilling them that gives rise to experience unfettered by them, the experience of the experiencer. Go within or go without.

Why then did he not pass on the names of the gurus in the lineage of Gaura Kishore or those of Bhaktitivinode? With all the emphasis on formality and the lack of spiritual substance and even definitive understanding of the siddhanta in some members of the formal diksa lineages he responded to claims of siddha pranalis with the idea that lineage (pranali) without siddhas is hardly a siddha pranali or line of siddhas, but rather merely a line. Instead, he felt compelled to draw a line from one siddha to another, even if their connection to one another was by siksa rather than diksa, thus drawing his own conception of a siddha pranali. While all of these siddhas were also members of different diksa lines, they stood out as siddhas, as great luminaries crisscrossing various lines that gave life to all the Gaudiya lineages through their contributions.

The Thakura taught his disciples to refer to their lineage as the “Bhaktivinode Parivara,” and following this lead our Prabhupada referred to his movement as the movement of Bhaktivinode. Just as other universally accepted Gaudiya lineages have stressed a particular member of a lineage and and not stressed members of his parampara that preceded him to the same extent, Bhaktisiddhanta did this with Bhaktivinode. Good examples are the well-known Narottama Parivara and the Syamananda Parivara, lines that do not originate with Narottama or Syamananda.

So we are members of the Bhaktivinode Parivara. That said, this preaching idea of Bhaktisiddhanta obviously lends itself to misrepresentation in the form of ritvik-vada. That, however, was not his idea. Not that one can simply declare oneself to be connected to a previous acarya and ignore present day qualified representatives of the sampradaya. This would be a gross distortion of his emphasis that one should be connected to the parampara through the association and service in the present with a devotee of spiritual substance either by diksa and or siksa. And his idea was not that that siksa is more important than diksa. Both the seed and the watering are required. It means that either guru, diksa or siksa, could take precedent in the life of the disciple and one may draw his or her line accordingly.

But the sadhaka deha is a work in progress. Initiation falls under sambandha jnana. So the imparting of the mantra is the beginning of something that culminates when sambandha jnana is complete, not only in terms of theoretical knowledge but also realization. Thus initiation, in one sense, is complete when the sambandha jnana imparted in seed at the time of diksa, is realized. Once this is accomplished, one’s practice is fully informed and one enters into bhava-bhakti with a spiritualized practitioner’s body.

Sankirtan is the way to the goal of prema, wherein Sri Nama recedes to the background and lila seva comes to the foreground. In prema, the lila within the name comes forth and takes precedent as one becomes a player in the eternal drama of Krishna lila.

Our goal is to serve Krishna in the form of sakhya or madhurya rasa, but in the nitya lila separation is not prominent, because Krishna does not appear to depart for Mathura and Dvaraka, as he does in the prakata lila for such a long time. So service in separation is more related to the way than it is the goal.

As far as what to wear, householders can dress in sattvic clothing. Someone more focused on the goal can dress as a member of Gaura-lila, in meditation on that lila, and with the aspiration to enter it in dasya bhakti for Mahaprabhu. Monastics should wear traditional monastic attire. But if outreach is hindered by any particular dress, those engaged in such outreach can adjust accordingly.

However, it is not a foregone conclusion that the traditional dress of Gaura-lila hinders outreach. It seems to me that people who would be alienated by thinking they had to change their dress to be a member would be even more alienated by thinking that they had to chant and dance in public to be a member, if not more so. Fortunately, the teaching is that they do not have to do either. One can dress in the sattva guna and practice in one’s home, and many Gaudiya Vasinavas do this today. Still they will in time be meditating on empowered descriptions of specific lilas coming from our founding acaryas, the Six Goswamis, that describe modes of dress, etc.

The fact that monastic dress in public for actual monastics is not an impediment to sharing the teaching is evidenced by the recent visit of the Pope to the US. Millions of people came to see and hear him, dressed as he was in flowing robes, etc.

An example of changing one’s dress in consideration of outreach is the sannyasa dress implemented in the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. Traditionally the Gaudiya renunciates wore white and a short cloth. Hari-bhakti-vilasa cites sastra stating that white cloth is for Vaisnavas. Gaudiya tyagis like Sanatana Goswami wore short white vesa just above the knees, but not new cloth, rather only cloth previously used by others, and Mahaprabhu was pleased to note this. However, Saraswati Thakura experienced that babas dressed like this in his time were not respected by the public, whereas those from other lineages dressed in saffron were respected. So he instituted a renounced order of sannyasa and dressed his sannyasins in saffron with much success in terms of attracting educated people.

As a member of that sannyasa order living in the West, I find that this dress has some power. Many people go out of their way to smile, nod, and in other ways acknowledge that I am a monk of an Eastern tradition and indicate that they think this is an admirable lifestyle.

Every culture has a uniform for its religious priests, and it’s renunciates are to avoid the vanity involved in attire. Thus, they adopt anything from ashes to a simple cloth and make it a point to stand out in society.

Adopting traditional religious Indian dress in the context of worship and temple life is not the same as inappropriately behaving like one is part of Krishna-lila, although it is like behaving as if one is part of the extension of Gaura-lila in the present. This constitutes following the example of members of Krishna-lila in terms of their example in their perfected Gaura-lila sadhaka dehas. That is recommended.

There are descriptions in our sastras of Sriman Mahaprabhu dressing in his householder life like this, in white dhoti folded thrice. Very nice!

There are of course many descriptions of how Krishna dresses and the Deity is Krishna.

Diet

If you like someone, you cook what they like to eat. It is hard to argue against that. Yes, Krishna eats bhakti. But is the vegetarian diet of Gaudiya Vaisnavas based primarily upon ethical concerns or is it based upon what Krishna eats? It seems it would be both but with an emphasis on the latter. After all, one can make an ethical case for eating the meat of animals that have died naturally. In the beginning one should perhaps offer what one likes the most because arguably such an offering can be most lovingly offered. If you love something, you want to offer it to the one you love. But as you learn what he or she loves, you will want to offer those items.

Culture

Is Krishna-lila devoid of Indian cultural sensibilities? Descriptions of those lilas are passed on to us by empowered devotees. Without these descriptions, how will we meditate on Krishna, his form, his qualities and his lila? They may be limited in as much as language and thought are insufficient to express the nature of transcendence, but they are empowered descriptions that have the power to draw one into Krishna-lila.

Earth is one planet. Krishna himself appeared on Earth in one place. That place has a culture. Dislike for that culture on the part of one who identifies philosophically and theologically with Hinduism confounds me. We live in a multicultural world and different religious expression have arisen in different cultures. These cultures tend to correspond with the ideals of those religions.

As far as taking birth in the lila goes, you will take birth in the lila setting you meditate on that arises from immersion in Krishna nama. His form, qualities, and lilas arise out of his name, and those who have experienced this have related within the limits of language their experience of his form, qualities, and pastimes, and these descriptions serve to guide practitioners in raga bhakti.

The Bhagavata‘s view is that morality and ethical values are not a matter of personal opinion but intrinsic principles of the cosmos—dharma—built into the heart of reality, even as the ongoing determination of particular moral standards is arrived at with the help of reasoning in consideration of consequences.

There are moral principles and then their are time and and circumstance application of those principles. Thus Sri Krsna says in Mahabharata:

“It is difficult to grasp the highest understanding [of morality]. One ascertains it by reasoning. Now there are many people who simply claim ‘morality is scripture.’ Though I don’t oppose that view, scriptures do not give rules for every case.”

In the scientific and philosophical community, consciousness is often conflated with various psychological and neuro-physical phenomena such that consciousness—first person subjective experiential reality itself—is completely eluded.

The focus of cognitive science is almost entirely on functional properties of the individual or mechanisms that relate to an individual’s operation. As such, these mechanisms can be explained in terms of how the organization of a physical system such as the brain allows it to react with the environment, process information, and generate behavior in appropriate ways. Such study focus for example on reportability, awareness, attention, intentionality, perception, wakefulness, and so on. The ontology of such psychological properties is not metaphysically baffling, and there is reason to believe that they could be explained in physical or functional terms.

Consciousness, however, as I am referring to it, is not a functional property or even individual qualitative experiences (qualia). It is the subjective existence in which these experiences manifest. As the International Dictionary of Psychology defines it, consciousness is “impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means.” Thus with words we can only offer some calculation, and much of that as to what it is not, neti neti. It can only be defined in terms of itself because it is like nothing else, like no “thing.” Thus the method for understanding it lies not within the scope of modern science.

That said, we have to rely upon first person reporting, which arguably should not be excluded from scientific inquiry. But this is then where science and meditation meet. However, first person experience of consciousness proper as described by mystics should result in observable evidence in the physical and mental dimensions of the adept doing the reporting/meditating. This would take the form of the ability to harness the mind and human passions, which in and of itself is arguably evidence of the supernatural, an observable supernatural.

Spiritual life on the other hand begins with moving away from such a path by following the socio-religious system but without attachment to the fruits of material acquisition. This is called (niskama) karma yoga.

Such detached action results in the ingress of knowledge. When knowledge is attained, one become exempt from the laws of dharma. But this does not mean the jnani engages in immoral acts. He or she has no desire for such and this lack of desire is the symptom of knowledge. In this sense the laws do not pertain to the jnani. The jnani conducts herself like a person in knowledge that is experiencing inner life and as such is not involved in the socio-religious world but rather the contemplative world.

However, the power of bhakti is greater than jnana. Thus mere faith in her efficacy that results in adopting the path of bhakti in all seriousness also exempts one from the system of varnasrama. Such a devotee is also a moral person but more so a spiritual one in ideal. Instead of performing five kinds of sacrifices before eating to avoid the karma involved in cooking and feeding oneself, the devotee merely offers food to Krsna and eats the remnants. Simple and better. And so it is with all of the rules of varnasrama.

The devotee as well as the jnani embrace the hygienic sensibilities of varnasrama and might follow the entire system in a culture where it is manifest (which does not exist on Earth at this time) to set an example for others or abide by such a societies rules, but to think that following or not following varnasrama will enhance or inhibit one’s bhakti is to be engaged in bhakti “covered by karma.”

Bhakti is an independent path. Varnasrama does not beget bhakti. However, because Visnu is worshiped in varnasrama (along with every other god and goddess), even without knowledge of who he is, it can be said in the most remote sense to be a factor in bringing one to vaidhi bhakti. But it can never be a factor in granting eligibility for raganuga bhakti, which is soley dependent upon mahat krpa.

The tension between morality and spirituality is an interesting subject. The extreme is presented in the Gita to underscore the difference. Arjuna, for moral reasons, does not want to fight. Krsna says fighting is moral as the dharma of a warrior. Arjuna replies yes, but in this war innocents will be killed. Krsna agrees and then says that nevertheless even killing, if it is done out of necessity in the context of pursuing spiritual life, bears no karmic reaction!

Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in his commentary on Gita 2.35:

Arjuna: “You have explained by verse 38 and the verses following it, that I will attain sin by not fighting since I will be giving up my duty. But still, I should not fight because sin will arise from killing brahmanas and gurus in a war to gain a kingdom.”

Krsna: “It is not so: you will not incur sin by killing them, when you are fighting with the desire for liberation.” This is explained in this verse.

Later at the end of his discourse on yoga that begins with verse 2.38 and ends at the close of Chapter 6, Krsna again stresses spirituality over morality. In Chapter 6, Arjuna asks what will happen to him if he gives up the moral course of varnasrama and takes to yoga but fails to attain success in yoga. Krsna then reassures him as he does earlier in 2.40 that there will be no loss. He then says that if one imperfectly engages in yoga and does not attain complete success, that person attains the realm that moralists attain only by perfect execution of varnasrama dharma.

Furthermore, a moral lapse in karma yoga is a blemish and such a fault in jnana is a disqualification. But in bhakti a moral lapse is not a disqualifier, for the devotee is to be considered in light of his or her being properly situated in ideal, which in and of itself when embraced will generate the sadhana and mercy to right one in due course. And in the case of the gopi‘s parakiya, moral lapse becomes an ornament!

Furthermore Nityananda-rama has done more than anyone else in terms of bringing attention to Mahaprabhu and his pursuit of Radha bhava. Rupa and Ragunatha defer to him, without whose mercy no one can approach Gauracandra and Radha Vrindavancandra. Such is the nature of Ntiai’s fraternal love for Gaura. And through his sakti expansion in Vraja, Ananga-manjari who appears in Garua lila as his consort Jhananva devi, Radha dasya has also been widely distributed.

So Nityananda Prabhu is indirectly and directly involved in bringing attention to Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the Radha bhava that he is about, and the blessing of unnatojjvala rasa he bestows. But Nitai himself is steeped in sakhya rasa, and thus it is inevitable that this sentiment will also appear in the sampradaya from time to time, and really to some extent at all times. And again, history bears this out. When it does appear, and especially when it does in a prominent manner, it should be celebrated for what it is.

Those influenced by sakhya bhava are not in competition with manjari-bhava and there is no need for manjari-bhava upasakas to militate against it. Indeed, under the influence of sakhya bhava Nitai’s sector has done more to promote gopi-bhava than any other sector. Nitai started the worship of Gaura. It is under his influence that Caitanya Bhagavata and Caitanya-caritamrta were written. The road to gopi-bhava goes through him. As Narottama Thakura sings, heno bine nitai bhai radha krsna paite nai.

Jaya Nitai!

Just as those who attain the ideal of ragatmika bhakti never loose sight of it, similarly and necessarily, those whom they follow to attain this status also never loose sight of it. Indeed, the following by which one attains the ideal is something that also eternal. So to follow eternally, one needs someone to follow who is always there, not someone who is unreliable.

When Sri Krsna says that those who attain my abode never return to the material world, he is saying that this abode is of an eternally perfect nature. He says it twice, once in comparison to the worlds of the demigods. From there everyone falls. By contrast, from his abode no one falls. This is what he says in the 8th chapter of the Gita. The second time he says that those who attain my abode never return, he is pointing out the luminous nature of his abode. Here luminosity—sun, moon, fire—is used to imply that his abode is devoid of darkness/ignorance. In other words, because of its luminous nature one going there never experiences darkness. This is what he says in the 15th chapter.

So in each instance that Krsna says this in the Gita, he is not qualifying the nature of his abode to say that only those who attain it through sadhana having previously been in ignorance never return to ignorance after attaining it. He is not saying that while perfected sadhakas never again experience ignorance, my eternal associates (ragatmikas) do, which of course would make no sense.

For that matter, the abode of Krsna in essence consists of the ragatmikas love for him. That love and Krsna himself are one and different. There is no meaning to love of Krsna without Krsna, and no meaning to Krsna without love of Krsna. Just as Krsna himself does is not subject to ignorance, similarly love of Krsna—prema—is not subject to corruption. If it were, Krsna himself would not be perfect. Krsna is himself and and love of himself—Radha Krsna. The two are philosophically inseparable. Krsna is not subject to ignorance and neither is love of Krsna.

In other words, those who follow those who are never subject to ignorance, upon attaining their association, are never subject to ignorance. That is what the Gita says. Again, Krsna is not alone. Attaining him means attaining the association of his eternal associates. That is what love of Krsna involves.