Krishna Kshetra Das

According to Gerard Colas (p 253, Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, G. Flood, ed.), Keshava Kashmiri Bhatta was born in 1479. For Caitanyaite Vaishnava history, this date serves to make historically possible that, as Krishnadas Kaviraja relates in his Caitanya-caritamrta (Adi 16), Keshava Kashmiri met “Nimai Pandit” (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, 1486-1533) in a contest of Sanskrit learning. I find this interesting because a few years ago I met a lady scholar (not remembering the name) in Vrindavan who had written her doctoral thesis on Keshava Kashmiri. When I asked her if his dates were known, she said no, but that she had surmised his time as having been some one hundred years prior to Caitanya. If true, it would mean Krishnadas’ account would have to be seen as legend rather than history, so Colas’ date is reassuring, though not in itself proving an actual meeting of the two pandits. Colas further notes that Keshava Kashmiri is the 29th acarya in the Nimbarka sampradaya, and that he “is the first whose historical association with the Braj area is certain. His direction is marked by the revival of the Nimbarka tradition and the propagation of its teachings all over India. He composed doctrinal texts, devotional hymns, and an elaborate ritual treatise the Kramadipika, which influenced Caitanyaite authors [it is quoted in Haribhaktivilasa–KKD].” It would be interesting whether, among his devotional hymns, there is a hymn to Ganga (as according to Krishnadas, Kashmiri’s Ganga-stotra was the subject of discussion between him and Caitanya Mahaprabhu). I find it also interesting that, considering Keshava Kashmiri’s apparent prominence, Krishnadas makes no mention of his sampradayic affiliation with the Nimbarkis. Was he disenclined to acknowledge the Nimbarkis’ presence in Vrindavan when he was writing the CC (early 16th c.)?

From the latest Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies newletter, Winter 2009 (http://www.ochs.org.uk)

 

Hindu studies in China

The Department of Cultural and Religious Studies (CRS), at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), - the oldest department of religious studies in the Chinese speaking world - has raised funding for a professorship in Indian Religions and Culture. This post was held by OCHS Fellow, Dr Kenneth Valpey in its inaugural year.

Students taking Dr Valpey’s courses were from different academic and cultural backgrounds (from Hong Kong, Mainland China, and overseas). In addition to formal teaching, Dr. Valpey also organised several film appreciation meetings for students and staff to introduce the Hindu traditions in an enjoyable way.

Dr Valpey attended a conference on religious experience jointly organized by CRS and the Department of Religious Studies, Peking University, held in Beijing in 2008. His paper on ‘The Experience of Authority and the Authority of Experience: The Bhagavad-gita in Dialogue with Modern “Religious Experience” Discourse’ was subsequently accepted for publication by Beida Journal of Philosophy, a journal published by the Peking University Press and widely recognised as one of the best known journals in philosophy and religious studies published in China.

Following Dr Valpey’s work, a meeting took place in July 2008 between Prof. Lai Pan-chiu (Chairman and Professor of CRS, and Associate Dean of Faculty of Arts), Gavin Flood (OCHS Academic Director), and Shaunaka Rishi Das (OCHS Director). The discussion aimed at advancing and and formalising an institutional relationship in teaching btween OCHS and CRS.

According to Prof. Lai: ‘Indian culture has exercised tremendous impacts on the historical development of Chinese culture, but since contemporary Chinese intellectuals mostly study the relationship between Chinese and Western culture, the contemporary significance of Indian culture, including Hinduism, has been largely overlooked.’

The work of Dr Valpey has gone some way to redress this, and the establishment of formal links between the OCHS and CRS bodes well for Hindu Studies in China.

Author: Krishna Kshetra Das

September 15, 2008

 

A major portion of the writings given to the world by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada consists of his English translation of and purports (commentaries) to the canonical biography of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the Caitanya-caritamrta, written in the early 17^th century by Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami. Srila Prabhupada’s commentary to the verses of Caitanya-caritamrta consist largely of direct translations of the Bengali commentary written by his spiritual master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. However, on occasion Srila Prabhupada either elaborated on the previous commentary or wrote his own for a particular verse.

 

In several of these purports Srila Prabhupada refers, in general terms, to persons and circumstances following the demise of his spiritual master-persons who were, like Srila Prabhupada, disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and circumstances related to the progress or lack of progress in Gaudiya Vaisnava missionary activity. In such instances, apparently in response to criticisms from various quarters, Srila Prabhupada wanted to make clear that the society he founded in 1966, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, is an institution to be recognized as authentically representing and realizing the wishes of his own spiritual master and of the previous acaryas (revered teachers in the succession of teachers reaching back to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu). It is also clear that he sought to warn and immunize his own disciples against the failings he identifies in the post-Bhaktisiddhanta Gaudiya Math (the missionary institution founded by Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura).

 

The purpose of this article is to offer some further explanation to readers of Srila Prabhupada’s Caitanya-caritamrta who might wonder about the significance of some of his comments regarding the Gaudiya Math and related matters. While over the last forty years there have been some controversies arising with respect to ISKCON and its relation to other Vaisnava institutions or their leaders, I do not try here to provide a single definitive resolution to such controversies that all parties might agree with. Rather, I try to provide a brief and hopefully balanced presentation of key themes while suggesting viable ways to understand and cherish the words of Srila Prabhupada as teachings meant for all serious practitioners of Krsna consciousness, regardless of institutional affiliation.

 

There are several purports in Prabhupada’s Caitanya-caritamrta that make reference to the matters at hand, but for our purposes I will focus on only two, namely, that of CC Adi-lila 10.7, and that of CC Adi-lila 12.8. The former includes an assertion that ISKCON should be seen and respected as a “branch” of the “Caitanya tree” consisting of the followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. The latter elaborates on what Srila Prabhupada identified as unfortunate developments among some followers of his own spiritual master. Together these two purports provide a general sense of Srila Prabhupada’s concerns regarding the ongoing and future culture of practicing and spreading Krsna consciousness. These concerns, though written more than forty years ago, are relevant today for many members of the expanding Krsna consciousness movement, so I hope that this brief essay may help members of ISKCON and the wider Vaisnava community to reflect more clearly on these matters for the benefit of all. I also hope that readers of Srila Prabhupada’s books who may be unfamiliar with ISKCON and the wider Vaisnava community may gain better understanding of the issues at hand.

 

Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 10.7

 

The seventh verse of chapter 10 in the Adi-lila of Caitanya-caritamrta is a Sanskrit prayer translated by Srila Prabhupada as follows:

 

I offer my obeisances to all the dear devotees of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, the eternal tree of love of Godhead. I offer my respects to all the branches of the tree, the devotees of the Lord who distribute the fruit of love of Kåñëa.

 

Throughout the ninth and tenth chapters of the Adi-lila Krsnadasa Kaviraja develops the image of a large and splendorous tree with numerous branches and “sub-branches” to represent the extended spiritual family of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s immediate followers. In these chapters he provides the names of those followers, indicating how each was related to others in the list, in terms of disciplic succession and, often, in terms of biological family affiliation.

 

In his purport to this verse Srila Prabhupada calls attention to the sense of equality suggested by the Bengali (based on Sanskrit) term bhakta-ganan, which he translates as “all the devotees.” He contrasts Krsnadasa’s admirable attitude of respect for all devotees with “many foolish so-called devotees of Lord Caitanya.” The latter, in his own recent experience, objected to himself receiving the honorific-affectionate title “Prabhupada” from his disciples in recognition of his outstanding accomplishment in spreading Sri Caitanya’s mission throughout the world. These same objectors, he goes on to explain, proceeded to “minimize the value of the Krsna consciousness movement.” He concludes the purport by referring again to the verse’s spirit of equality:

 

Kåñëadäsa Kaviräja Gosvämé therefore offers equal respect to all the preachers of the cult of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, who are compared to the branches of the tree. ISKCON is one of these branches, and it should therefore be respected by all sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu.

 

Srila Prabhupada’s assertion that ISKCON is a branch of the “Caitanya tree” is clearly intended to remove doubt about his institution’s authenticity and its spiritual connection to the Caitanyaite tradition described by Krsnadasa. It implies, further, that it is and will continue to be a healthy branch, capable of bearing the “fruits” of love of Godhead.

 

Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 12.8

 

Srila Prabhupada’s translation of verse eight of Adi-lila chapter 12 is as follows:

 

At first all the followers of Advaita Äcärya shared a single opinion. But later they followed two different opinions, as ordained by providence.

 

In apparent contradiction to the spirit of the verse quoted previously, within the passage to which this verse belongs, Krsnadasa Kaviraja expresses strong condemnation of some persons who were seen as deviating from the way of following Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. In verse nine such persons are accused of having been disobedient to the order of their guru-in this case Advaita Acarya-and they are roundly condemned in verse ten as being asara, which Prabhupada translates as “useless”.

 

In his purport to verse eight, Srila Prabhupada echoes Krsnadasa’s critical tone to note a parallel with more recent Vaisnava history and to express his deep disappointment with the behavior of leading followers of his own guru, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. As in his purport to Adi-lila 10.7, Prabhupada points to his own success in preaching, here attributing his success to his obedience to the order of his spiritual master (namely, to preach Krsna consciousness in the English language, implying that he should spread the Caitanyaite teachings beyond India to the rest of the world, especially by printing and distributing books profusely). He thus contrasts the “useless” followers who “could not make any progress in preaching” with his own and his ISKCON followers’, who “are getting results beyond [their] expectations.”

 

I shall now make some brief observations with respect to these two purports.

 

 

 

My comments on Adi-lila 10.7 purport:

 

Prabhupada asserts that ISKCON is a branch of the Caitanya tree of disciplic succession (repeated in the Adi-lila 9.18 purport), clearly intending to emphasize that an institution (namely ISKCON) that may have not been recognized as authentic by certain members of the wider Caitanya Vaisnava community deserves to be recognized as such. Using Krsnadasa’s analogy of a tree with its branches, Prabhupada notes that “ISKCON is one of these branches.” We must note that Prabhupada does not write that ISKCON is the entire Caitanya tree. Rather, he recognizes that there are other branches which, by implication, are either thriving or capable of doing so, and therefore capable of bearing the desired “fruit,” love of Godhead. The further implication would necessarily be that, as many ISKCON members have come to realize, it behooves all members of ISKCON to respect members of other Caitanyaite branches, and to appreciate their sincere efforts and successes in practicing Krsna consciousness and spreading the teachings of Caitanya Mahaprabhu throughout the world.

 

My comments on Adi-lila 12.8 purport:

 

Srila Prabhupada’s echoing of Krsnadasa’s strong discriminatory language is, in my view, meant above all to serve as a teaching and warning, especially to his own followers, members of ISKCON, to not make the same mistakes that were made by some of his godbrothers (disciples of the same guru). That the thrust of this purport is didactic and not condemnatory can be safely assumed in light of another statement by Prabhupada, in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.31:

 

Among Vaisnavas there may be some difference of opinion due to everyone’s personal identity, but despite all personal differences, the cult of Krsna consciousness must go on. [. . .] The disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Maharaja are all Godbrothers, and although there are some differences of opinion, and although we are not acting conjointly, everyone of us is spreading this Krsna consciousness movement according to his own capacity and producing many disciples to spread it all over the world.

 

One might indeed wonder whether these two contrasting passages cancel each other out. In one statement Prabhupada seems to condemn some of his godbrothers as “useless” and in the other he acknowledges their preaching success. What are we to make of this? After leaving aside speculation on the mind of the guru and on his relations with his godbrothers, all that can be safely and constructively assumed is that from the Caitanya-caritamrta purport in question, Prabhupada’s followers are to draw a warning in order to be successful in their important undertaking, by following Prabhupada’s instructions.

 

Undoubtedly Srila Prabhupada uses strong language in this purport, indirectly but clearly urging every member, every “branch,” of the Caitanya tree, to engage vigorously in work to realize Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s vision for the world. By implication, members of ISKCON have no business condemning other branches. Rather, they should see the changes that have taken place in recent years in a positive light. Largely following Srila Prabhupada’s example, leaders and members of present-day Gaudiya Math branches have become much more active in propagation work, and they deserve acknowledgement and congradulation for their efforts and successes.

 

I should further mention that, given the critical tone and content of this purport, it is understandable that some respected members of Gaudiya Math have found it unsettling and counter-productive to the cultivation of harmony among the branches of the Caitanya tree that we all seek. They have therefore humbly requested the publisher of Srila Prabhupada’s books, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, to remove this purport (and any others considered disturbing) from future editions of its Caitanya-caritamrta. All of us share the same concern to cultivate harmony. This we can certainly pursue effectively without making what could only be a further mistake: To excise the purport would be exactly counter to the spirit of the purport itself, which emphasizes the necessity to diligently follow the instructions of the spiritual master. Since Srila Prabhupada never suggested that any of his purports might in the future be eliminated, there would be no way to do so without violating the principle of following the guru’s order. Indeed, to remove a purport in which he so strongly emphasizes what should not be done, namely, to disobey the orders of the spiritual master, would be deeply problematic.

 

Gaudiya Math members need not feel pained or implicated by such designation as asara, because clearly they are now inspiring many souls to take up the path of Krsna-bhakti given by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, under the inspiration and guidance of their gurus. Nor need they assume that such designation was meant to refer specifically to their own spiritual masters, all of whom Prabhupada ultimately appreciated for their dedication to the greater mission of spreading Krsna consciousness, as is understandable from another of his Caitanya-caritamrta purports (Cc Adi 7.37):

 

Every acarya has a specific means of propagating his spiritual movement with the aim of bringing men to Krsna consciousness. Therefore, the method of one acarya may be different from that of another, but the ultimate goal is never neglected.

 

The “ultimate goal,” by implication, is that which unites all Vaisnavas, despite their different means of propogation. It is this unity of purpose for which Srila Prabhupada constantly strove, and for which he sometimes expressed his disappointment at its temporary obscurity.

 

The consistent message of the Vaisnava acaryas is always one of urgency, calling us to take up and propogate the teachings of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Sometimes the tone of their call is soft and sweet, while other times it is sharp and pointed. Whatever the tone, it behooves us who try to be serious readers to acknowledge and respond to the message. It also behooves us to constantly seek deeper understanding of the message in order to receive and take full advantage of the blessings coming from the acaryas through their writings. In this way we can “catch the truth” (SB 1.3.1 purport) of the often challenging words of the previous acaryas as our guiding light for approaching the lotus feet of Lord Krishna.

There are interesting parallels between the classical eightfold Yoga system delineated in the Yoga-sūtras of Patañjali and the bhakti-yoga system delineated in the Bhagavad-gītā and Bhāgavata Purāṇa, both traditionally attributed to Kṛṣṇa-Dvaipāyana Vyāsa. Yet at least as striking as the similarities are the differences between the two systems, both in their philosophical underpinnings and in their practices. In this context, the integrative character of bhakti, whereby the bipolar features of yoga and worship[1] come together, is especially worthy of consideration.

 

The most visible, and at the same time most formalized, practice of the bhakti-yoga system is called arcana, involving carefully prescribed ritual practices which together constitute worship of images, known as arca-vigrahas or arca-mūrtis. In this paper I wish to briefly outline these practices as they reflect the stages of yoga practice in classical Yoga, and to touch on how the philosophical understanding of God as the absolute in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition of bhakti brings a fundamentally different understanding to the word yoga than is found in the classical Yoga system.

 

The philosophy and process of arcana, or formal worship of images, is delineated for Vaiṣṇavas-worshipers of Viṣṇu as the Supreme-in a collection of texts known as Pañcarātra. Though generally considered of relatively recent origin,[2]  the tradition itself identifies them as canonical, carrying equal validity with the original four Vedic Saṁhitās, yet conveying greater import for the present degraded age of Kali. Even more important for Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas is the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which includes significant elements of Pañcarātra ideas, one of which is the acceptance of the physical image as worshipable.  In the Eleventh Skandha of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Kṛṣṇa explains to his friend Uddhava:

 

In worshipping the temple deity, My dear Uddhava, bathing and decoration are most pleasing [offerings]. [For the deity traced] on sacred ground, tattva-vinyāsa is most dear. Oblations of sesame and barley soaked in ghee are the preferred offering to the sacrificial fire, whereas abhyarhaṇam is preferred for the sun. [One should worship Me] in [the form of water] by [offering] water, etc.  Whatever is offered to Me with faith by My devotee-even [if only] water-is most dear [to Me].[3]

 

The bhakta, or devotional yogin, has faith (śraddhā) that the image he or she serves is thoroughly equivalent to, or “nondifferent” from, the transcendent supreme being aspired for by means of the perfecting of devotional practice. But I shall spare the reader an elaboration on this important subject to proceed with an overview of the practices involved in arcana as related to the stages of yoga.[4]

 

          YAMA AND NIYAMA:  In the first two practices of aṣṭāṅga-yoga-the exercise of five types of restraint (yama) and five types of discipline (niyama)-there is a perfect homology with the bhakti systems in general and arcana process in particular. This might not come as a surprise to one familiar with Mircea Eliade’s observation that the restraints “can be recognized by all systems of ethics and realized by an apprentice yogin as well as by any pure and upright man.”[5]  Nonetheless, one will note a clear distinction in this matter between bhakti as practiced by Vaiṣṇavas (whereby the Pañcarātra literature is sometimes referred to as sattvika-tantra, or tantra based on pure, illuminated practices), and the “left-handed” (vāma-mārga) tantra involving indulgences rather than restraints.[6]

 

In arcana practice, the day begins very early with a series of purifications meant to place one in a condition for approaching the Lord. Such striving for purity takes place in a framework of self-regulation considered in Vaiṣnava literature as prerequisite to acceptance by a guru for instruction in devotional practices.[7] Thus, for example, where Vyāsa, the Yogasūtra commentator, puts emphasis on ahiṁsa as central to the practice of yama,[8] the Vaiṣṇava would concur; the basis of the Vaiṣṇava’s claim to the practice of non-violence is to refrain from eating animal flesh. Similarly the strict Vaiṣṇava sādhaka (practitioner) conscientiously refrains from other activities of sense indulgence: in addition to refraining from meat eating, he or she avoids all intoxicating substances, all sexual activity (unless one is a householder, in which case procreational sex may be practiced), and all forms of gambling.

 

          ĀSANA:  The aṣṭāṅga-yogin practices āsana to establish stability, for which he may practice “uncomfortable and even unbearable” postures until he gains perfection in them, recognizable when the “effort to attain [them] disappear[s].”[9]

 

In arcana, the main daily practice of worship takes place in a sitting position, with legs crossed as in much of yoga practice. However the bhakta is for most of the time of worship quite active in a variety of absorbing engagements. Less concerned with a “complete suspension of attention to the presence of one’s own body,”[10] the bhakta looks to be reasonably comfortable for the business at hand, having first offered formal respect to Ānanta-śeṣa and other expansions of the supreme being who are considered to be supporters of the earth.

 

The activities included in arcana are not restricted to sitting. When the main worship is concluded by the individual sādhaka, public worship begins, usually standing, with the singing of kīrtana, dancing, and playing of musical instruments for the pleasure of the deity.

 

          PRĀṆĀYĀMA:  Whereas yoga practitioners may spend considerable time in the practice of breath control as a technique to prepare the body and mind for further “refusals,”[11] Pañcarātra literature prescribes a minimal practice which takes but a few minutes, as an aspect of citta-śuddhi, or preliminary purification of the consciousness. Bhūta-śuddhi, also prescribed in various tantra traditions, is a related process of conscious disintegration and reintegration of the bodily elements ultimately meant to help identify oneself as a spiritual being catagorically different from the ephemeral material body. The control of breath in arcana becomes more generally a vehicle for devotional uttering of the mantras associated with the worshipable image: Visual absorbtion in the form of the image is complemented with recitations which serve as concrete means of opening communication with the worshipable personage. 

 

         PRATYĀHĀRA: The “ability to free sense activity from the domination of external objects”[12]  is accomplished in arcana practice by a “positive engagement” of the senses. According to the Bhagavad-gītā, since as living beings we cannot refrain from acting at any moment, one should perform action (karma) with the organs of action (karmendriyaiḥ) as karma-yoga, or in a spirit of detached regulation for a higher purpose.[13]  The higher purpose is to offer service with devotion to the supreme being who, being sentient as is the yogin, enjoys the offerings presented to the arca-vigraha much as one might enjoy gifts received from an affectionate friend. The “domination of external objects” is overcome by thinking and acting in such a way as to see all sense objects as potentially enjoyable not by oneself but by the supreme, or bhagavān, who is present in the arca-mūrti. Thus arcana is the formal means of practicing or playing out this mode of understanding. Kṛṣṇa summarizes this mode of practice in the Bhagavad-gītā:  “He who with devotion offers Me a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, that devout offering of the pure-minded one I accept.”[14]

 

          DHĀRANĀ:   Patañjali’s sixth stage of yoga, defined as “fixation of thought on a single point,”[15] is generally accomplished by concentrating the mind on a particular location of one’s own body-the navel, the lotus of the heart, or the tip of the nose. In arcana it is the object of worship, the Lord, upon whom one concentrates. The bhakta asserts that this process is incomparably easier than artificial attempts of the yogin to fix the mind on something innately uninteresting like the navel! In the beginning of the Twelfth Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa shows unequivical preference for devotional practice over meditation focused on spiritual existence beyond the senses or the unmanifest. Hence devotional ritual in the arcana process emphasizes focusing attention on the arca-mūrti.

 

After having purified oneself in preparation for approaching the Lord (abhigamana) and collecting appropriate items for worship such as pure water, fruits and flowers (upādāna), one can procede with the third of five aspects of worship (pañcāṅga-pūjā), called yoga.[16]  Yoga as a formal subdivision of arcana encompasses certain practices already mentioned, such as bhūta-śuddhi, but it also covers what would be the seventh phase in the Yoga system of Patañjali, namely dhyāna, or meditation.

 

          DHYĀNA:  Before the worship of the image with physical paraphernalia begins, the bhakta engages in meditation on the form of the object of worship, following a description contained in a dhyāna-mantra appropriate for the form of the image being worshiped. Such descriptions typically portray Viṣṇu displaying his divine opulence — his dress, ornaments, and four symbols, namely the wheel of fire, conch, club and lotus flower.  The bhakti literature also gives further details to help the worshiper to become fully absorbed in the worshipable form. In the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, after describing Viṣṇu’s bodily features from the feet to the head, Kapila urges one to meditate on Viṣṇu’s beautiful eyes, smile, and even laughter:

 

One should meditate within the hollow of his body [the heart] on the laughter of Viṣṇu, which is the refuge of meditation.  His laughter [reveals] a row of fine jasmin-like teeth made rosy by the abundance of light from His lower lip. With a dedicated mind, with tender devotion, one should not desire anything separate [from this].[17]

 

Here we may note the emphasis on the ease with which success can be attained, by virtue of the attractive quality of the object of meditation.  After the more passive dhyāna the process continues with manasa-pūjā, in which the worshiper mentally performs all of the activities of worship which he or she will soon perform externally.  In its more advanced form, such exercise becomes a prelude to full absorbtion in awareness of oneself as a participant in the līlā, or pastimes, of the Lord in the transcendent realm.

 

Before proceeding with a discussion of the final stage in classical Yoga and its parallel in arcana, a remark about the specific nature of bhakti may be appropriate. Just as in Yoga the practitioner strives constantly for a fundamental transformation of existence culminating in liberation, or mokṣa, the bhakta similarly strives for transformation. But whereas the yogin strives by his or her own effort, relying on the acquired power of tapas, or austerity, the bhakta strives for the divine grace of the Lord, the object of  worship, based on the fundamental principle of reciprocation.  The relationship based on bhakti acts similtaneously in two ways:  First, it acts to root out the ahaṁkara principle from the bhakta’s heart-the principle of selfish orientation which perpetuates the notion of independent agency-enabling one to act in harmony with the divinity. Second, as O.B.L Kapoor writes, bhakti “energizes [the Lord’s] mercy and releases the forces of redemption,”[18]  making the Lord attentive to, and even submissive to, his bhakta and the particular mood or bhāva in which the bhakta is inclined to approach the Lord.  To understand this distinctive feature of bhakti is crucial to an understanding of samādhi as it pertains to devotional activity such as arcana.

 

          SAMĀDHI:   After long and arduous discipline in practice of the previous seven stages, the yogin may be fortunate to attain full samādhi, a state of absorption which defies description particularly because no relation to an Absolute, either personal or impersonal, is affirmed.[19]  In thorough contrast is the state of absorption attained by the bhakta-a dynamic state in association with bhagavān, the personal (and, for Vaiṣṇavas , primary) feature of the Absolute. In the context of arcana, this dynamic between sevaka and sevya, or servant and served, is exemplified by Śrī Caitanya, whose ecstatic dancing before the deity of Jagannātha in Pūri is documented in the late sixteenth century work Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī.  During the yearly public procession of the massive Jagannātha, Subhadrā, and Baladeva mūrtis, Śrī Caitanya, whom the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas consider to be Kṛṣṇa himself incarnate, would manifest a variety of ecstatic symptoms while dancing in the midst of his followers and associates:

 

When Caitanya Mahāprabhu danced and jumped high, eight wonderful transformations indicative of divine ecstasy were seen in His body. All these symptoms were visible simultaneously. His skin erupted with goose pimples, and the hairs of His body stood on end. His body resembled the śimulī [silk cotton tree], all covered with thorns. Indeed, the people became afraid just to see His teeth chatter, and they even thought that His teeth would fall out. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s whole body flowed with perspiration and at the same time oozed blood. He made the sounds “jaja gaga, jaja gaga” in a voice choked with ecstasy. Tears came forcefully from the eyes of the Lord, as if from a syringe, and all the people surrounding Him became wet.[20]

 

Pañcarātra literature prescribes chanting and dancing before the mūrti as the conclusion of the ritual of worship, the process of arcana.  In his chanting and dancing before the Jagannātha deity, Śrī Caitanya demonstrated by his very public ecstasies the highly esoteric theology of bhāva, or the complete absorption of consciousness in active service to the Lord:  The culmination of what may seem mere ritual is, in its most perfect performance, the opportunity to enter into intimate association with God on the timeless platform of līlā.

 

To explore the relationship between devotional ecstasy and yogic “enstasy” it behooves us to consider also the relationship of the former with shamanic ecstasy. Mircea Eliade, in his discussions on the relation of shamanism and Yoga, compares the ecstasy of the shaman with the “enstasy” of the yogin.  While the former is characterized by a “desperate effort to attain the ‘condition of a spirit’ to accomplish ecstatic flight,” the latter is characterized by “perfect autonomy,” or withdrawal within to a state of liberation, as a jivan-mukta, or a soul liberated in this life.[21]  As one might expect, a sharp contrast between shamanic ecstasy and devotional ecstasy also exists, as June Daniels has noted in her book The Madness of the Saints: Ecstatic Religion in Bengal.  Referring to Mircea Eliade’s definition of ecstasy, namely “to stand outside” or “to be outside,” she emphasizes that devotional ecstasy is “a radical alteration of perception, emotion, or personality which brings the person closer to what he regards as the sacred … The ecstatic often passes through a stage of disintegration, but ultimately experiences an integration that brings parts of the self, or the self and the Divine, into a closer relationship or union.”[22]  Whereas ecstasy of the shaman “manifests the separation of the soul” and thus “anticipates the experience of death,” that of the bhakta involves a supraconsciousness in which all of the senses are surcharged or infused with awareness of the worshipable object, the Lord.

 

Like the yogin, the bhakta in the perfectional stage attains jivan-mukti.  Yet the bhakta considers liberation secondary to the much more significant attainment of uninterrupted service to bhagavān.  In the Bhāgavata Purāṇa Kapila highlights this point:

 

By the attractive forms of the Lord, with His noble sports, smiling glances, and pleasing words, one’s mind and life air are taken away [such that] one attains devotion without [conscious] desire [and thus] gains My subtle abode.[23]

 

In the devotional rituals of arcana there are several points of resonance with the eightfold practice of classical Yoga, yet both the practice and the goal of devotional arcana stand in sharp contrast to those of Yoga.  For the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas , following the guidelines of Bhāgavata Purāṇa, arcana is only one of nine processes by which bhakti is practiced; in fact arcana ritual is considered subordinate and dependent upon the two primary activities of śravana and kīrtana, or hearing and chanting about the names, forms, qualities and pastimes of the Lord.[24]  Still, for Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas , as for other Vaiṣṇava traditions, arcana persists as a viable and potent means of attaining the link with the supreme of which Kṛṣṇa speaks in the Bhagavad-gītā:

 

On Me your mind, on Me your loving service, for Me your sacrifice, to Me be your prostrations: now that you have thus integrated self, your striving bent on Me, to Me you will [surely] come.[25]

 

For the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava bhakta, it is being absorbed in Kṛṣṇa and coming to Kṛṣṇa which constitutes yoga, whereby the sense of “joining” which yoga implies is understood as the process of joining oneself with the supreme Self in a relationship of service.  The bhakta bases his understanding of yoga as a process of joining oneself with the supreme on Kṛṣṇa’s claim at the end of Chapter Six of the Bhagavad-gītā:

 

But of all yogīs, the man of faith who loves-and-honours Me, his inmost self absorbed in Me, — he is the most fully integrated: this do I believe.[26]

 

Thus whereas the yogin is above all seeking liberation from the miseries of material existence, the bhakta seeks to be actively absorbed in positive relationship to his or her object of worship, the supreme divine being.  In the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition, Śrī Caitanya provides the ideal model for such active absorbtion, and his demonstration of ecstasy in service to the Jagannātha deity exemplied the perfection of Vaiṣṇava yogic practice in the context of arcana.

 

---

[1] Ninian Smart, Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy, (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1964.) 144.

 

[2] “Pañcarātra,” The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions, ed. Keith Crim, (New York: Harper and Row, 1989).

 

[3] Bhāgavata Purāṇa of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipayana Vyāsa with Sanskrit Commentary Bhāvārtha-bodhinī of Śrīdhara Svāmin, ed. Prof. J.L. Shastri. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988). Translation of verses by Howard Resnik. XI.27.16-17: snānālaṅkaraṇaṁ preṣṭham arcāyām eva tūddhava / sthaṇḍile tattva-vinyāso vahnāv ājya-plutaṁ haviḥ // sūrye cābhyarhaṇaṁ preṣṭhaṁ salile salilādibhiḥ / śraddhayopāhṛtaṁ preṣṭhaṁ bhaktena mama vāry api.

 

[4] Rāmānuja, whose philosophy regarding arcana is for the most part taken up by the GauḍīyaVaiṣṇavas , stressed the divine nature of the arca-mūrti in his Vedārthasaṁgraha. See John Braisted Carman, The Theology of Rāmānuja: An Essay on Interreligious Understanding, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 167 - 171.

 

[5] Mircea Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) 50.

 

[6] “Pañcarātra,” “Tantrism,” The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions, ed. Keith Crim, (New York: Harper and Row, 1989).

 

[7] Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, Haribhaktivilāsa 1.62., trans. Kuśakratha dāsa. (Los Angeles: The Kṛṣṇa Library, 1992). Vol. 153, p. 40.

 

[8] Mircea Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) 49.

 

[9] ibid., 53. Eliade may very well have personally experienced the pain of a novice attempting to perform āsanas while he was in India learning about yoga!

 

[10] ibid., 53.

 

[11] ibid., p. 55.

 

[12] ibid., p. 68.

 

[13] Swami Vireswarananda, Srimad Bhagavad-gita, (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, nd.) 87.

 

[14] ibid,. 278. IX.26: patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati // tad ahaṁ bhakty-upahṛtam aṛnāmi prayatātmanaḥ.

 

[15] Mircea Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) 70.

 

[16] Kenneth Valpey, ed., Pañcarātra Pradīpa: Illumination of Pañcarātra, (Mayapur, India: ISKCON-GBC Press, 1994). Vol. I, 21-22.

 

[17] Bhāgavata Purāṇa III.28.33, trans. of verse by Howard Resnik. dhyānāyanaṁ prahasitaṁ bahulādharoṣṭha- / bhāsāruṇāyita-tanu-dvija-kunda-paṅkti // dhyāyet svadeha-kuhare ‘vasitasya viṣṇor / bhaktyārdrayārpita-manā na pṛthag didṛkṣet.

 

[18] O.B.L Kapoor, The Philosophy and Religion of Śrī Caitanya, (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1977) 183.

 

[19] Ninian Smart, Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy, (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1964.) 131.

 

[20] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, Śrī Caitanya-Caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, (Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1975.) Madhya-līlā 13.101 - 105. vol. 5 of Madhya-lila, 163-166.

 

[21] Mircea Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) 339-340.

 

[22] June McDaniel, The Madness of the Saints: Ecstatic Religion in Bengal, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989) 2.

 

[23] Bhāgavata Purāṇa III.25.36. trans. Howard Resnik. tair darśanīyāvayavair udāra- / vilāsa-hāsekṣita-vāma-sūktaiḥ // hṛtātmano hṛta-prāṇāṁś ca bhaktir / anicchato me gatim aṇvīṁ prayuṅkte.

 

[24] A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, (Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1987) Vol. VII.1, p. 255 - 257.

 

[25] R.C. Zaehner, The Bhagavad-gītā with a Commentary Based on the Original Sources, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973) 286. IX.34: man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru // mām evaiśyasi yuktvaivam ātmānam mat-parāyaṇaḥ.

 

[26] ibid., p. 242. VI.47: yoginām api sarveśāṁ mad-gatenāntar-ātmanā // śraddhāvān bhajate yo māṁ sa me yuktatamo mataḥ

© Kenneth Valpey (Krishna Kshetra Das)

This is an essay I wrote for a seminar, “Christ in Light of Hindu Theology” at the Graduate Theological Union in 1997. Professor Francis X. Clooney, S.J., who later became my doctoral supervisor, led the seminar. This is an exploratory essay, preliminary thoughts on a theme that could be developed further.

 

While reflecting on some of Bede Griffiths’ observations about the Bhagavad-gita in his Christian commentary River of Compassion I was somewhat dissatisfied with his perhaps too simple contrast of the Gita with the Judeo-Christian perspective in regard to time and historicity. As he writes, whereas cosmic religion (i.e. Indian religion) is cyclic in its view of time, “the religion of Israel concerns God’s revelation not in the cosmos but in history, and this is constantly emphasized in contemporary Biblical studies.”[1] With ideas culled from Marcus Borg’s book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith I am tempted to explore a possible softening of this distinction, especially in light of what Borg calls “macro-stories” of the Bible, in the interest of bringing the two traditions closer together for mutual benefit.[2]

 

            In the context of current discussion on narrative theology, Borg identifies three basic narratives which define the Judeo-Christian faith experience — the Exodus Story, the Story of Exile and Return, and the Priestly Story. In summarizing each of these, he is prompted by an observation of William James in the last chapter of his book The Varieties of Religious Experience that all religious traditions make essentially two claims about the human condition. The first claim involves a description of the human predicament, a recognition that “something is wrong with our lives.”[3] The second claim is to offer a solution to the problem. Borg sees the Exodus, Exile, and Priestly stories, (stories of bondage-to-liberation, exile-return, and sin-guilt-forgiveness respectively,) as “constituting a pastoral ‘tool kit,’ each addressing a different dimension of the human condition.”[4] Thus I would suggest that if (using the language of “cosmic religion” versus “historical religion”) we find it valuable to acknowledge a “cosmic” (i.e. non-linear or “holistic”) dimension to human existence,[5] additional stories out of such cosmic religion could be added to this “pastoral tool kit,” from outside the Biblical tradition, not least of which would be the narrative of the Bhagavad-gita, situated within the greater narrative of the Indian epic, the Mahabharata. As narrative, both the Mahabharata and the Gita within it have their beginning, middle, and end — their own linearity, or direction — and therefore “history” — which, persisting in human culture as profound literature, comprehend in linear (story) fashion  significant features of the human drama.

 

            I would characterize the Gita, as a narrative, as a story of “confusion-to-determination,” which, by its dialogical structure, urges us to focus on discipleship as its forward moving principle. Looking at how Arjuna comprehends discipleship in the Gita in turn suggests that we consider the narrative(s) of Jesus in the context of discipleship. As much as these two pictures of discipleship contrast with each other, perhaps they also complement each other in some way for our own personal understanding and practice of discipleship. (If we are putting together pastoral tool-kits, certainly they should be of use in discipleship-construction and -maintenance!) In this context, by viewing these narratives in proximity to each other, the different dimensions of our own human condition might take on greater depth, allowing us to more deeply fathom the grace of the Lord who reveals himself in a variety of responses to humanity’s predicaments.

 

            Whereas the human problem is expressed in Biblical narrative as bondage, exile, and sin/guilt, Bhagavad-gita opens with the problem of confusion. Arjuna, suffering what today we might call a nervous breakdown, has enough presence of mind to seek understanding and clarification from his charioteer and guide, Lord Krishna about his proper duty as a warrior and human being. Faced with the prospect of killing his relatives on the battlefield, Arjuna is emotionally distraught, but he is not bereft of reasoning power; thus it is clear to him that nothing short of a spiritual transformation will resolve his dilemma. His sensitivity to moral issues and preparedness for such a transformation become his qualifications for discipleship to Krishna.

 

            To instill transcendental understanding upon his disciple, Krishna sustains a didactic time-out before the ensuing great battle of the Kuruksetra war. In the course of instruction we, the readers or hearers, are urged to take up the weapons of transcendental knowledge in our own great battles against illusion. Thus Krishna shows the way for us to become, as  R.C. Zaehner writes, “athletes of the spirit” as we practice the disciplines of karma-yoga, jnana-yoga, and dhyana-yoga with increasing bhakti, or devotion, gaining reinstatement in our positions of eternal discipleship or servitorship to the Lord in full submission to his will.

 

            Looking at Jesus as teacher, Borg stresses his challenging spirit — challenging with alternative wisdom the conventional wisdom of his countrymen, his disciples, and ourselves as that which prevents us from attaining the goal of life. Conventional wisdom is the wisdom of maintaining the status quo in family, wealth, honor, purity and religiosity.[6] As Jesus sometimes urged rejection of family in favor of recognizing one’s true Father, so Krishna calls on Arjuna to fight his family members in battle, trusting that their “deaths” will be but changes of the “clothing” of their bodies. Arjuna’s conventional morality privileges family maintenance by domestic religiosity, or artificial renunciation of duties in the face of moral dilemma. As a well educated warrior and as a pious soul, Arjuna’s concern to act correctly is paramount. Krishna undermines his notions of right and wrong as he induces Arjuna to acknowledge a higher, more complete conception of morality which comprehends the purposes of God, which include a transformation of the self. Arjuna’s predicament, if considered a moral one, could be seen as his attempt to find moral integrity beyond the first of three dimensions of morality as outlined by C.S. Lewis in his lectures Mere Christianity:[7] Arjuna’s failure to find harmony between individuals (the first dimension, according to Lewis),  prompts him to seek morality in the second, that of “harmonizing the things in each individual.” But the seriousness of his inquiry allows him to learn of the third dimension of morality, that of the “general purpose of human life as a whole.” Krishna, as the supreme guru, subverts Arjuna’s superficial morality with a deeper morality which comprehends the “general purpose of human life as a whole,” namely surrender to and devotion for the Lord, who is the higher Self of every individual self.

 

            Similarly, as part of the “priestly story,” but also as a subversion of that story, Jesus repeatedly challenges conventional wisdom and morality to point to ultimate purpose, instatement in the kingdom of God. As Borg points out, in the course of his ministry Jesus challenges the Jewish conception of holiness and purity with his own message of compassion. “It is in the conflict between these two imitatio deis – between holiness and compassion as qualities of God to be embodied in community — that we see the central conflict [that which makes the “plot” of the story move forward] in the ministry of Jesus: between two different social visions. The dominant social vision was centered in holiness; the alternative social vision of Jesus was centered in compassion.”[8] Jesus’ alternative did not, of course, entail a rejection of holiness, but rather the revelation of a higher conception of holiness. Similarly dharma is not rejected by Krishna; rather he reveals its essence to Arjuna by elaborating the process of gaining divine intuition or communion with God, which is the essential element of holiness.

 

            To move from confusion and ignorance to knowledge and determination, Arjuna must undergo schooling. Unlike Jesus, who calls his disciples to him to take up his mission, Krishna is requested by Arjuna to accept him as Krishna’s  disciple.[9]Initially Krishna mildly reproves Arjuna for speaking “wisdom-words” while ignoring the spiritual constitution of the soul, the most elementary spiritual lesson. But Arjuna is an attentive student, asking intelligent questions and readily revealing his doubts. As a well-trained warrior, he is accustomed to discipline and able to absorb his teacher’s precepts. He is pious, “not born of the demonic nature,” and from the beginning he is bound in friendship to Krishna. When overwhelmed by the vision of Krishna’s universal form (in the eleventh chapter), Arjuna is appropriately humbled, begging Krishna to resume his four- and then two-armed form, a request Krishna immediately obliges. The bonds of reciprocation between guru and disciple are strong, such that Krishna can confidently unfold the force of his argument: One should mold his or her life in such a way as to be fully attentive to the will of God. “Bear Me in mind, love Me and worship Me, sacrifice, prostrate yourself to Me: so will you come to Me, I promise you truly, for you are dear to Me.”(Bg. 18.65).

 

            The contrasts between Krishna’s relationship with Arjuna to Jesus’ relationship with his original twelve disciples is striking. Jesus’ disciples are, from a mundane perspective, uncultured or even socially outcast persons. They do not always comprehend Jesus’ instructions[10] and sometimes they neglect his instructions. One of the disciples betrays Jesus to his executioners, and even after he has risen from the dead, when the disciples worship him they are, in some sense, doubtful.[11]And yet, Jesus accepts them as his disciples despite all their faults, and even commissions them as his apostles. For Jesus, compassion is the power that overrides all error and all shortcomings: our very existence is one of shortcoming, which only becomes complete, redeemed, by acceptance of discipleship to him as he who is sent by God.

 

            Does this third “meta-story” of the Bible — sin-guilt-redemption — have any place in the Gita narrative? Bede Griffiths seems to see this as the central culminating story of the Bible, noting the increasing historicity of the Biblical story, leading from early times shrouded in myth and legend to the descent of Jesus, which marks a finality, pointing to the end times to come.

 

            I am suggesting that this might be an artificial distinction borne from the predominant Christian notion of the centrality of the “priestly story.” Marcus Borg, perhaps in contrast to Griffiths, notes several problems with placing this “priestly story” in a favored position over the two previously mentioned stories,[12] the last one being simply that “some people do not feel much guilt… Guilt is not the central issue in their lives. Yet they may have strong feelings of bondage, or strong feelings of alienation and estrangement. For these people, the priestly story has nothing to say.”[13]

 

            Arjuna, who is addressed by Krishna as “sinless one” (anagha, Bg. 3.3), might be counted amongst those who do not feel guilt, yet have strong feelings — in this case feelings of confusion and doubt about the best course of action. In the Gita, our original problem is identified as lust, which is described as a covering over the true knowledge of the soul (Bg. 3.37-39). From this perspective, sin results from lust, which enshrouds the soul in ignorance.[14] Ignorance is the tendency to ignore the divine council which is the “alternative wisdom” constantly afforded the enlightened soul by the Lord’s presence in the heart, but also available to the sincere soul willing to accept such council through discipleship. Thus in the Gita redemption becomes reinstatement in a condition of responsibility (response-ability) — the ability to act decisively and respond appropriately to God’s actions in harmony with his will. At the conclusion of the Gita, Arjuna says, “Destroyed is the confusion; and through your grace I have regained a proper way of thinking: with doubts dispelled I stand ready to do your bidding”(Bg. 18.73, Zaehner trans.).

 

            What, then, can be said of compassion in the Gita? Indeed, in the Gita, compassion is compared to a shining lamp — a lamp which has a “destructive” function: “Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance”(Bg. 10.11);[15] thus by means of spiritual knowledge the Lord calls us to become mature “athletes of the spirit,” to follow Arjuna’s example of discipleship to act firmly and decisively out of selfless devotion to God. As an athlete practices to become qualified in physical feats, so we may become qualified in submission to God, a condition free from doubt and confusion.

 

            Marcus Borg notes that four common elements in the three macro-stories of the Bible emerge when seen as equally important. The last of these is that they are all describing journeys. Even the priestly story, seen as a journey, “means that God accepts us just as we are, wherever we are on our journey.”[16] Or, looked at in another way, Borg suggests, Jesus’ offering his life is the once for all sacrifice which subverts the priestly story and affirms the journey stories. “In addition,” he writes, “the New Testament has a journey story of its own — the story of discipleship.” This he describes as a “journeying with Jesus” which means “listening to his teaching — sometimes understanding it, sometimes not quite getting it. It can involve denying him, even betraying him.”[17] Borg offers us the image of Jesus feeding the five thousand in the wilderness: “If we think of the Eucharist as like those meals in the wilderness, it becomes a powerful symbol of journeying with Jesus and being fed by him on that journey. ‘Take, eat, lest the journey be too great for you.’”

 

            Arjuna’s discipleship can also be seen as a journey. Mam evaisyasi satyam: “Truly you will come to me”(Bg. 18.65). Krishna promises Arjuna that he will come to him; several references to being on or keeping on the path are there, and the devotee is repeatedly urged to gain spiritual vision, by which one can see one’s way forward. There is a sense of progression, advancement in devotion — a forward motion which definitely suggests a journey, in which Krishna’s instructions are like guideposts on the way. Arjuna was guided to make a momentous decision, namely to go ahead and perform his duty as a warrior and fight in the battle of Kuruksetra, but in transformed consciousness of purpose. Jesus similarly calls his disciples to follow him and bear witness to the redemption of the world. Thus the followers of Jesus may find insight in the Bhagavad-gita, in the example of Arjuna, how to become and remain determined as Jesus’ disciples, and the followers of Krishna may learn from Jesus’ example that, recognizing one’s own shortcomings, one can be assured of the Lord’s compassionate protection in one’s journey toward becoming a fully dedicated servant of the servants of the Lord. “Cosmic religion” and “historical religion” may not be so far apart if we look at them both in terms of their respective stories of discipleship.

---

[1] Bede Griffiths, River of Compassion: A Christian Commentary on the Bhagavad-gita, (New York: Continuum, 1995), 68.

 

[2] I should acknowledge that a fair amount of comparative work has already been done on the Gita and Christian theology, including attempts to integrate the two, both by persons with Christian backgrounds and persons with Hindu backgrounds, with varying conclusions. Here I offer but a few observations from a position which might be said to be culturally somewhere between the two traditions.

 

[3] Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & The Heart of Contemporary Faith, (San Francisco: Harper, 1994), 122.

 

[4] Ibid., 122.

 

[5] I don’t know to what extent this is possible for a Christian, but I would think at least certain wisdom literature within the Bible could accommodate it; especially I am thinking of passages in Ecclesiastes.

 

[6] Borg,  81.

 

[7] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York: Collier Books, 1984), 57.

 

[8] Borg., 49.

 

[9] An 18th century Gaudiya Vaisnava commentator to the Gita, Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, inserts additional lines to the dialogue, such that Krishna is portrayed as initially refusing the position of guru. Paraphrasing, he says “Arjuna, you don’t need a guru; you just need to fight!” To which Arjuna replies with text 8 of Ch. 2: “Even were I to win sovereignty over the gods themselves, my grief would not be dispelled.”

 

[10] All these shortcomings of the disciples are especially emphasized in the Gospel of Mark, as pointed out by John H. Hayes in his book Introduction to the Bible, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 339.

 

[11] The conventional translation “and some doubted” has been challenged convincingly by Keith H. Reeves  in his paper They Worshipped Him, And They Doubted: Matthew 28:17, delivered at the SBL Regional Meeting, GTU, March 24, 1997. Whether the disciples were doubtful of Jesus’ divinity, or whether they were actually seeing him, or of their own qualifications as his disciples, we are not told my the author of Matthew.

 

[12] Borg, 130-131. He lists six “distortions” in the understanding of Christian life: 1) The priestly story leads to a static understanding of the Christian life, “making it into a repeated cycle of sin, guilt, and forgiveness;” 2) it “creates a quite passive understanding of the Christian life,” stressing the idea that “God has already done what needs to be done,” as well as a passivity toward culture, as a “politically domesticating story. The stories of bondage in Egypt and exile in Babylon are culturally subversive stories;” 3) it makes Christianity primarily a religion of the afterlife; 4) it “images God primarily as lawgiver and judge. God’s requirements must be met, and because we cannot meet them, God graciously provides the sacrifice that meets those requirements. Yet the sacrifice generates a new requirement: God will forgive those who believe that Jesus was the sacrifice, and will not forgive those who do not believe… The priestly story most often turns the subversive wisdom of Jesus into Christian conventional wisdon;” 5) the story is hard to believe. “The notion that God’s only son came to this planet to offer his life as a sacrifice . . . is simply incredible. Taken metaphorically, this story can be very powerful, but taken literally, it is a profound obstacle to accepting the Christian message…” His sixth point I explain above.

 

[13] Ibid., 131.

 

[14] Ninian Smart, prof. of Religious Studies at UC Santa Barbara, is fond of refering to this as the “doctrine of original ignorance.”

 

[15] Translation: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhagavad-gita As It Is, (Los Angeles: BBT, 1985); Zaehner translates “destroy” as “dispel.”

 

[16]Borg, 133.

 

[17]Ibid., 135.