Monthly Archives: September 2008


My beginning association with Krishna devotees offered me an extended sequence of astonishments.  It amazed me, for example, to discover that a group of enthusiasts encountered on sidewalks jumping and singing wildly to a pounding drum would be absorbed in a deep, comprehensive, and highly sophisticated theology. Another surprise revealed that this theology, filled with subtle elucidations of ultimate issues of transcendence, engendered a practical, down-to-earth political philosophy.

This political philosophy itself amazed me.

It was like nothing I had seen before: much further to the right than any contemporary conservatism, it was simultaneously much further to the left than any contemporary radicalism. These two apparent extremes met and blended together without incoherence. Astonishment gave way to fascination.

I have come to see that the power to unify or reconcile opposites is a salient characteristic of transcendence in thought and action. This fact has been reported by a variety of spiritual researchers. Nicolas of Cusa described the divine as the “coincidence of opposites.”  The Tao Te Ching (40) says that “reversal” or “return” is the movement of the Tao. The Bhagavad Gita teaches us how to act without acting, just as Tao Te Ching advocates “wei wu wei” “doing-not-doing.”  Jesus Christ proclaimed that the last shall be first. Lord Buddha directs us to The Middle Way.

Mundane thought and action shows an inability to find the transcendent center. Consequently we are always swinging from one extreme to another, and never pass through real wisdom. We never find the center.

The center I refer to is not the mundane middle—the cautious “center” of the political or social moderate. I refer to the transcendent middle which is able to absorb fully and synthesize the apparently conflicting opposites.  The mundane middle has always proven anemic and unsecured, and it generates yet another opposition to the power and firmness of either extreme. The mundane middle is a washed-out reflection of the real thing—the real thing that eludes us.

The fascination of Krishna conscious political science to me lay in its uncanny synthesis of opposites.

Srila Prabhupada neatly captured this feature of Krishna conscious political philosophy by calling it “Bhagavata communism.”

It is “communism” because in it there is no personal ownership. The famous slogan of the anarchist Proudhon—“property is theft”—also holds here. It is Bhagavata because all property belongs to Bhagavan or God.  The Bhagavata recognizes that Krishna is the supreme enjoyer of everything, the supreme owner of every place, and the supreme friend of everyone. Knowing this, any apparent owner or controller in this world acts only as an agent of God, and acts for the welfare of all beings.

Here is Prabhupada discussing Bhagavata communism in a lecture in London in 1973:

Isavasyam idam sarvam. Everything belongs to God; nothing belongs to us. This is Bhagavata communism. As the communists, they say, “Everything belongs to the state,” we say “Everything belongs to God.” We never say that anything belongs to anyone. No. This is Bhagavata communism. So everything belongs to God. So one can utilize God’s property as much as he requires, not more than that. Then he will be thief, he will be punishable.

Here, Prabhupada is explicating the first mantra of the Isha Upanishad. This is his translation of the entire text:

Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.

From this text we can understand that God provides the necessities of life for each and every creature on earth. Like everyone, I am entitled to my alotted portion—which is sufficient for my needs. If I take more than my share, I violate the divine law, and in so doing I deprive a fellow creature of its allotted portion. Because this divine principle is the real antecedent of the Marxist principle of “to each according to his needs,” Prabhupada calls it communism:

We cannot take more than what is necessary. This is actually spiritual communism. If everyone thinks that “Everything belongs to God and I am son of God, so I have got right to enjoy the property of my Father, but as much as I require, not more than that,” this is spiritual communism, Bhagavata communism.
(from a lecture in New Vrindavan, 1976)

Speaking in a San Francisco storefront temple in March of 1967, Prabhupada drew out another implication of Bhagavata communism:

There are millions and billions of living entities even in this store[front]. If you find out a small hole, you will find millions of ants coming. They are also living entities. And who is arranging for their food? You are not very much busy to [do it.] Although it is your duty. That is also Bhagavata communism. Bhagavata communism says that even if you have got a lizard in your room, you must give him something to eat. If you have got a serpent in your room, you must give it something to eat. Nobody in your house should starve. You see? This is Bhagavata communism, not that “Only my brother and sister will not starve, and other animals should be killed.” This is not communism. Here is communism. This is Krishna consciousness communism, that a Krishna conscious person is thinking even for the ant, even for the lizard, even for the serpent. That is real communism. . . . Not that, “Oh, my brother is good and I am good, and my father is good or my countrymen is good, my society, and all [others] are bad.” This is not communism.

Here is a truly comprehensive welfare state. It is delimited by no border, no boundary, nor is citizenship restricted to the human inhabitants. So Prabhupada tells devotees who rent the storefront, that they have duties toward all the creatures—like the ants in the kitchen—who share it with them. They have a right to their place too.

Here is a far more radical communism than any we have encountered in this world.

“These things will be explained in Shrimad Bhagavatam,” Prabhupada told the representatives of the Dai Nipon company in Tokyo in 1972,

that anything, wherever it is, on land, on the air, sky, within the water, everywhere, God’s kingdom; and all living entities, they are God’s sons. So everyone has got the right to take advantage of his father’s property. This is Bhagavata communism. The communists are thinking in terms of their own country. But we, a devotee, we think in terms of all living entities, wherever he is, either in the sky or in the land or in the water. These things are explained in the Shrimad Bhagavatam.

In a conversation about Marxism, Prabhupada explained the difference:

If the communist idea is spiritualized, then it will become perfect. As long as the communist idea remains materialistic, it cannot be the final revolution. They believe that the state is the owner of everything. But the state is not the owner; the real owner is God. When they come to this conclusion, then the communist idea will be perfect. We also have a communistic philosophy. They say that everything must be done for the state, but in our International Society for Krishna Consciousness we are actually practicing perfect communism by doing everything for Krishna. We know Krishna is the supreme enjoyer of the result of all work . . . The communist philosophy as it is now practiced is vague, but it can become perfect if they accept the conclusion of the Bhagavad-Gita—that Krishna is the supreme proprietor, the supreme enjoyer, and the supreme friend of everyone. Then people will be happy. Now they mistrust the state, but if the people accept Krishna as their friend, they will have perfect confidence in Him, just as Arjuna was perfectly confident in Krishna on the Battlefield of Kurukshetra. . . . So if Krishna is at the center of society, then the people will be perfectly secure and prosperous. The communist idea is welcome, provided they are prepared to replace the so-called state with God. That is religion.

In this election year in America, we witness the tumultuous clash between a religious right and a secular left, locked in the agony of cultural and political war. Yet each party is incomplete, and each needs something its opponent possesses to complete itself. Bhagavata communism is the synthesis both sides unknowingly seek. I am convinced that this synthesis is Srila Prabhupada’s gift to us, pointing the way to the fulfillment we desire for ourselves and for our world.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

Munchies for the Mind III


truthiness (noun) Truth coming from the gut, not books; preferring to believe what you wish to believe, rather than what is known to be true.

Steven Colbert: “Truthiness is ‘What I say is right, and nothing anyone else says could possibly be true.’ It’s not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There’s not only an emotional quality, but there’s a selfish quality.”

OH . . . .

Oxford Concise Dictionary of Proverbs: “With base and sordid natures
familiarity breeds contempt” (1654, T. Fuller, Comment on Ruth, 176).


“There ought to be behind the door of every happy, contented man someone standing with a hammer continually reminding him with a tap that there are unhappy people; that however happy he may be, life will show him her laws sooner or later, troubles will come for him—disease, poverty, losses, and no one will see or hear, just as now he neither sees nor hears others.”
—Anton Chekhov, “Gooseberries,” in The Wife and Other Stories, translated by Constance Garnett (Ecco, 1985), p. 283.


Been there, done that


16th Century

Licence my roving hands, and let them goe
Behind, before, above, between, below.
O my America, my new found lande,
My kingdome, safeliest when with one man man’d,
My myne of precious stones, my Empiree,
How blest am I in this discovering thee.

from “To His Mistress Going to Bed,” by John Donne (1572-1631)

21st Century


“Lovemarks are super-evolved brands that forge lasting emotional connections.”

Check out the Love/Respect axis at Saatci & Saatci’s “Lovemarks:”

The Love/Respect Axis
“A fast and intuitive way to give any brand or experience a reality check”

What about: your work? your family? your country? your school? your religion?

Leave a comment

Filed under Munchies for the Mind

Power Part 3 (continued from last week)

In the last two postings we have been considering a letter Shrila Prabhupada wrote in 1972 concerning the nature of power. A devotee had written Prabhupada with misgivings about competition in activities of preaching. To this apparently simple and down-to-earth question, Prabhupada gave a reply that rose quickly to ultimate philosophical principles. Prabhupada’s presentation is brilliantly compact; I have been unpacking it somewhat.

To review:

Prabhupada claimed that it is an eternal natural law—sanatana dharma—”that the strong will utilize the energy of the weak, the weak must serve the strong.”  His succinct argument: “That we see everywhere, is it not? Who can deny?”

Prabhupada then asked: Who among us is actually strong? The most powerful human is weak before Durga Devi, material nature, and Durga Devi is weak before Krishna. Therefore Krishna alone is strong, and all others are weak before him.

Prabhupada quoted Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita: “I am the strength of the strong.” In other words, any power that you, I or anyone else may exercise is actually bestowed by Krishna. He gives power, and he also takes it away whenever he wants. We are all dependent on him, and therefore we are weak.

If we should shine, it is always with reflected light.

Prabhupada accordingly urged: “Therefore, being weak, it is the eternal occupational duty [i.e. sanatana dharma] of the living entity to surrender to Krishna, that’s all.”

Prabhupada is asking us to do no more than to acknowledge reality. In any case, we are under Krishna’s control; our best course is to serve him willingly.

Now Prabhupada concludes his discussion of power:

In the surrendering to Krishna, if everyone does it, still, the brahmanas will be served by the lower castes, the kings will be served by vaisyas and sudras, the vaisyas will be served by the sudras, and the sudras will serve all higher castes—there is still utilizing the weak by the strong—but feeling themselves always very much weak in comparison to Krishna, the whole society services the Strongest, therefore there will be no envy of the stronger by the weaker class of men. So perfect society, or Vedic society, does not eliminate competition—competition, stronger and weaker, must be there—but it eliminates envy, because everyone is weak before Krishna. Is that clear?

Here Prabhupada shows how the principle of the strong engaging the weak becomes manifest through the organization of human society.

Prabhupada has already given the universal, over-arching principle as it applies between Krishna and all living entities. This principle is stated in the Katha Upanishad: Even within transcendence there exists a distinction of two classes: the category of the one and the category of the many. The former is the class of Godhead—a set which has only one member. The latter is the class of the creatures—a set with unlimited members. The members of both classes are spiritual—both are characterized as eternal, conscious selves. The one, however, is independent and the many dependent. The one sustains and maintains the many perpetually.

The principle of the stronger controlling the weaker is reflected within human society in the form of the Vedic system of varna, the famous—or infamous—division of human society into four castes.

As a follower of Vedic tradition, Prabhupada regards this social hierarchy as the normative structure of civilized society. In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna says that this four-fold division is produced by him. It is therefore sanatana-dharma, and entirely natural.

Just as the human body has a head, arms, belly, and legs, so the social body has by nature the corresponding parts: The brahmanas are the head: these thinkers and visionaries properly guide and direct society because they can perceive the truth and apply it appropriately. The kshatriyas are the arms: they are the spirited, honorable type who manage society and protect it from external aggressors and internal lawbreakers. The vaishyas, who constitute the belly, are those of an enterprising, industrious nature who supply the material necessity for everyone, working as agriculturalists, traders, bankers, and so on. The shudras—the legs of the social body—are those who, lacking the capacity for independent action, act as general assistants to the other three.

(Membership in any of the four groups is determined by an individual’s natural qualities and aptitude—not birth. Prabhupada often denounces the hereditary caste system of India, holding it to be corruption of the divinely ordained structure.)

In his letter Prabhupada asserts that although the divisions of stronger and weaker apply, there will be no envy, because all will be equally aware of themselves as weak before Krishna. Even though there may be divisions of higher and lower based on material qualities, on the spiritual platform all are equally servants. This has to be abundantly clear to every individual. It cannot be merely a theoretical doctrine; it needs to be constantly observed in actual practice.

In a sense, this hierarchy would have to contain its own inversion. Only then will it work properly. That is to say, the more one acts as master, the more fully one must be—and be recognized as—a servant. The highest group, the brahmanas, who are the teachers of everyone, has the task of instilling in all other members the ethos of servitorship to God. This kind of teaching—the formation of character—is possible only if the teaching is exemplified by the instructors’ own behavior. This is what is conveyed by the Sanskrit word for teacher—acharya. If the acharyas instill such a sense of subordinate servitorship in all groups, only then can the system work. Only then can power be decontaminated of its corrupting toxicity.

I received some realization of this principle early in my adventure in devotional service. I had become a temple president within a year of my moving into the ashrama. After a while, administrative duties kept me from our main activity of teaching and preaching, distributing devotional literature on the streets. Finally, an older devotee had a practical suggestion: I should take the train every morning to the center of the city, toward the end of the rush hour, and spend at least an hour every day distributing our Back to Godhead magazine to the commuters.

So every morning found me standing on the same corner opposite City Hall, distributing Back to Godhead for small donations. And, every morning I saw a man in his fifties standing in the same spot, watching me. Finally, I went up to him with a magazine, but he curtly dismissed me. Yet he was still there every day.

At last, as I was standing in my usual place with a stack of magazines cradled in my left arm, he came up to me. Before I could even say hello, he opened up with a tirade: “You know, I really admire you people! You are so dedicated, and you are out here day after day working really hard! You work so hard, you are so self-sacrificing, you don’t take anything for your self.

“It makes me so angry! It makes me furious!” His face indeed had contorted into an alarming mask of rage. “You collect money every day, you don’t keep anything. Instead you GIVE IT ALL TO HIM!” Here his forefinger began to bang on the picture of Shrila Prabhupada on the Back to Godhead cover. “He takes everything. And he lives in big mansions. He rides around in Cadillacs. Any you stand out on the street with nothing. It makes me FURIOUS!”

I protested at once: “No, no! He’s not like that, he’s not like that at all!” But the man didn’t buy it. No matter how much I remonstrated with him, he remained adamant. He was immovable. He was utterly certain that Prabhupada enjoyed a high life of luxury and ease, while I and other devotees sacrificed ourselves mercilessly on the streets. He was a principled man of liberal views, a crusader for social justice. Injustice and exploitation infuriated him.

Later, I thought about his intransigence, on his certainty concerning Prabhupada. Actually, he had seized upon a truth: in any organization when the people at the bottom are working hard and not enjoying the fruits of their labor, then the fruits are being enjoyed by the person at the top.

He was right in this, I thought. The person at the top is indeed the enjoyer. His mistake was this: he did not realize that Prabhupada was not at the top—Krishna was the enjoyer at the top.

Prabhupada was only his servant—and far more of a servant than I. By that time I had seen enough of Prabhupada, and studied him long enough, to know for sure that he worked far harder than I ever did. His singleness of purpose, his renunciation of all else was awe-inspiring. If only the man on the street corner could have observed Prabhupada the way he’d observed me!

Reflecting in this way, I realized that Prabhupada’s servitorship was the very reason I was happy to surrender to him, glad to call him master.

Therefore, I can vividly imagine a society in which the weaker will serve the stronger, and there will be no envy or exploitation.

How to bring it about?

Prabhupada instructed his students to become just like him. So. . . ?

1 Comment

Filed under Power