Where's The Nectar? - So what do you think?

So what do you think? Is there any merit to Kundali's argument? Or is it just rehashing the same old Gaudiya Math dogma, without anything substantially new?

I would say this: The nectar is meant to inform our understanding of the rest of it all. When we form our being by other myths or theological structures, we fundamentally change our orientation. Does it make a difference if we are oriented to Rama or to Radha?

What about those who are less philosophically minded, or have a natural inclination to lila katha, are they inferior beings because they cannot discuss the Upanishads or Erich Fromm?

Maybe they are, I don't know. I am certainly puffed up with academic learning, miniscule as it is. And I have certainly been arguing, like Kundali, that we need to be rational and intellectually responsible. But I prefer to channel my rationality through the nectar...

But then, I did go through years of Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam before Bhajana Rahasya changed my life. And sometimes I wonder if that was a good thing!

Being a rasik and a philosopher need not be mutually exclusive. It shouldnt be. siddhanta boliya ihate na koriho alasa (C.C.) "Dont be lazy or complacent in this, thinking it is only philosophy." These are words spoken by the great rasik Krishnadas Kaviraja Gosvami. There will always be a small group of simple, gullible sentimentalists, naturally, but any mature Vaishnava should be able to speak on philosophy as well as he can on lila. Again, I am astonished at ACBS' description of folks who jump straight to the 10th Canto. Maybe he personally knew such people, but I have never met such a person in my life. The stories of the first nine cantos are so famous amongst Hindus in India, I cannot imagine that any gopi bhavopasak who is into the 10th Canto has jumped over the other nine ones. Unfortunately, discouragement of cheap and mundane approaches of gopi bhava usually is taken further by fanatics who prohibit the subject matter of gopi bhava altogether, as is seen in Iskcon and GM branches the world over.

I was driving the other day and turned on NPR (=National Public Radio, one of the cultural treasures of the United States, IMO). They were broadcasting a speech by the vice-president of the National Rifle Association. It was astonishing. Although it wasn't talk back radio, I was talking back. The man's arguments were irrational to the extreme. Essentially he argued that civilians bearing arms is the one principle of the US constitution that guarantees all others. Europe, Australia, etc. were not free, in his opinion. Gun matters aside, I was struck by the methodology of his beliefs: essentially he had accepted a conclusion and worked back from there, fitting facts around his conclusion with only the glue of his convictions holding it all together, at least in his mind and in those of his ilk.

I find Kundali's argument fails--as do those of the ritviks and ISKCON. The conclusion they start with is ACBSP 1977, fixed in stone. From that supposedly fixed point, you work back, explaining phenomena like the "nectar hounds," "the zonal acarya system," etc. and you then add the glue of your own conviction--"I am an independent thinker," "I am loyal," or whatever.

Unfortunately all the arguments are likely to fail as they start not with Gaudiya Vaisnavism as taught by Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the Six Goswamis, not with sastra and history.

The power of the arguments also need to be judged in light of pragmatic results: who is making progress, developing a taste for sravanam kirtanam? Whose heart is changing?

There is some need for "nectarean discrimination" but if that is the only tool in your box, I don't think you'll build much of a mansion, nor even a little kutir.

Die-hard intellectualism founded on very restricted premises tends to get rather tiresome. The farther removed you are from those premises, the less relevant the arguments become, as they are in the ultimate without a viable basis and therefore meaningless for any practical purposes.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Just a few quick thoughts… I would say when you consider Kundali das’ main audience this is a rather moot point. Is there anyone that says we should focus purely on the intimate affairs of Krsna and the Gopi’s without having a grasp of the theological precepts given in the first 9 Canto’s? Who are these people I hear so much about?

The key word that Kundali mentions is balance. Balance is simply defined as “to equal or equalize in weight, number, or proportion”. I would wholeheartedly agree with him on the need for balance. The trick is that balance is subjective to an individual. Ultimately it is our Guardians who are best situated to make this determination as they will have the best understanding of ones nature, aptitude, and adhikari. These characteristics will determine what “balance” means for an individual.

Can an argument not be made that ISKCON doesn’t have this balance because there isn't enough of a focus on these “nectar” topics? Again balance means that both sides need to be present and in concert with one another. Most that jump from the extreme of discipline to “just nectar” may very well be doing so because they haven’t been taught a balance.

In relating what we need to do to become balanced Kundali makes the following statement “Just like in learning a martial art there are set disciplined exercises or drills that one must do over and over, until it becomes part of one’s nature, so the practice of analytical thinking must become part of one’s nature.” To a point I think everyone accepts this as logical. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that many take the disciplined exercise and the drills to be the all in all when in fact it is not the goal to simply follow a discipline or complete an excercise. Kundali's example in using martial arts is great as long as one realizes that as one realizes that as one is trained in these disciplined exercises or drills they are also instructed on the specific practices (attack and/or defense). There is a balance between the fundamentals needed to execute each move while practicing the move itself.

I think those examples that are often sited which show such a gross negligence to either discipline or philosophical disengagement, for the sake of “nectar”, are many times the result of not leading a balanced spiritual life to begin with. Again I haven’t encountered those that say to hell with balance just take the nectar. I am sure there may be some out there, as there may very well be some that say to hell with the “nectar”, but isn’t that a very small minority? Why do we so often mold our visions, examples ad ideals to the small minority?

All in all Kundali seems to be addressing what balance means to him and how that balance is struck within his life. It becomes spoiled when he presents that very same mix as balance for all. The analytical will stress being analytical but to say that should be universal is in direct contradiction to the very idea of individual balance.

When I initially read this article I was amazed that even though we prescribe to such an intimately individualistic theology we expect everyone’s experience, tendencies, attractions and path should be exactly the same. I reflect on my name, Rasaraja dasa. When I received this name I was told that Krishna is the king of Rasa as he had an unlimited sweet relationship with each of his devotees. Each relationship is different and contains sweetness like no other; almost like every preparation one tastes is the best preparation that there is; but for Krishna this feeling is present in each relationship which is why He is the king of rasa. It strikes me that our aspiration is to realize and serve within this relationship and mood yet many attempt to do so by seeing the process to realizing this relationship as being static to all.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Kundali comes from a tradition in which the "nectar" is not an integral part of sadhana, and I think his approach is consistent with that tradition.

His tradition considers fund-raising an activity "in the mood of the gopis." Such an approach will obviously affect one's view of "nectar." Practical sadhana in his tradition includes chanting the maha-mantra, but most of the teachers in his tradition discourage meditating on "nectar" while chanting; they recommend concentrating on the sound of the mantra. Some in his tradition even say that one's chanting is less important than one's work towards the socioeconomic benefit of the guru's institution. "Nectar" is valued as a reminder of the goal, but too much attention to nectar is considered a distraction from attaining that goal. "First deserve, then desire." Thoughts of "nectar" can be seen as presumptuous, or worse. "Nectar" is certainly not integral to sadhana.

Devotees in the traditional parivaras, however, cannot separate "nectar" from sadhana. Lila-smarana could not exist without "nectar." As such, "nectar" will necessarily play a more crucial role for a traditional Caitanyaite than for a member of Kundali's tradition.

In Kundali's tradition, philosophy is for everyone, and this philosophy leads to nectar for a very few who "deserve, then desire" it.

In the rest of the Caitanyaite tradition, nectar is for everyone, and this nectar defines the philosophy by which devotees live. For a very few, this nectar also shapes a deep and profound understanding of philosophy.

In either circumstance, humility is vital. A "nectar hound" who demeans philosophical inquiry is probably a bit too prideful to be a genuine "nectar hound." However, a "philosophy hound" may be so proud of his "rational" approach that his pride blinds him both to his own philosophical shortcomings and to the value of "nectar."

Personally I think that Kundali dasa makes way too much of a very simple point. He thinks way too much of his own limited mind and way too little of others, in my opinion anyway.

There is merit in the argument (at least from my own perspective) but it is really nothing more the a repackaging of the arguments made by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and those following in his lineage through various branches and sub-branches.

The basic jist of the argument is that progress is gradual and should be made step by step.

The problem I have with Kundali dasa is touched on by Jagat in his post - spiritual life is not a function of your mental prowess. My own take on the whole affair is that we should all engage whatever talents we have in Krsna's service. We should engage our minds according to our own abilities and natures. Obviously some discrimination is necessary in order to make progress and we do need sambandha jnana for a proper orientation to what it is we are involved in - but I don't think that Kundali's take on the whole affair is very useful.

What is better 'nectar hounds' or 'arrogant mental masturbators'?

What is the meaning of Krsna consciousness if you aren't going to learn about and contemplate Krsna's pastimes? If we are truly interested in Krsna it will naturally follow that we will gravitate more and more towards hearing more specifically about him. We will also naturally try to apply ourselves so that our lives are lived in such a way that is conducive to devotional service and progress which means applying the philosophy to our daily lives.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

I would like to highlight the point of individual application here, as mentioned by Rasaraja and others. Indeed, in assessing a suitable path for ourselves, we somehow tend to wish to superimpose that upon everyone else as an objective ideal, to make the people of the world into our own images if you will.

However, such an approach is obviously flawed, and will breed little positive in the long run. In the short run, it may lead to the forming of communities of individuals who all frantically try to superimpose such an ideal over themselves, only to come to eventually notice that the reality of their own nature is something different from what they once wanted to transform themselves into.

We are not here to modify ourselves into psychologically homogeneous individuals (if such a thing would be individual any longer, to begin with). There is no particular certain psychological mindset which would be exclusively suitable for bhagavat-seva. There is a grand variety out there, and all may be positively and individually engaged.

Though I would say that a good philosophical basis would be necessary to understand the mechanics of lila. Its very easy to fall into the trap of mistaking Krsna to be a youthful adolescent who is only interested in amorous pursuits.

I have this book that I bought in India by an Indian author (whose name escapes me right now) though published by Penguin. The book is supposedly about all aspects of Krishna's life, but funnily enough devotes a large part to the youthful pastimes complete with explicit erotic details. It made me shudder to think that such "confidential" information was freely available to the public presented in such a nondevotional way, and I wasn't even affected by ISKCON conditioning at the time!


So I think that Kundali's basic point is correct; it is better, or preferable, to have a good grounding in the philosophy before "diving into the nectar," simply to avoid the trap of ascribing mundane qualities onto Him.

That said, it has often been the experience that devotees who are more philosophically-minded enjoy the philosophical debates. Why is that? Is it because they feel that they have a need to engage in argument? There are some who tend to show off their learning and acquired knowledge, and fall into the trap of intellectual snobbery? Those who may have fallen victim to this would do well to have a good dose of "nectar", in my opinion, in order to soften their hearts and prevent their fall into mental masturbation as someone put it. This is when the "nectar" kicks in. When one reads of these nectarean dealings that go on "up there," its easy to learn a lesson about the interpersonal relationships that exist there and attempt to emulate the general mood of friendliness.

There's merit to both sides of the argument as far as I can see.

P.S. Don't anyone get offended, I was not speaking about anyone here, just some general observations!

P.P.S. This needs a bit of work, I'll try for a bit of clarification tomorrow.

I'm offended.

This is the Orwellian nightmare of organised religion.

I think some of you may be missing the point Kundali is making, there is a tendency among Gaudiya vaisnavas to see themselves as experts after a certain amount of time being involved within the religion, they then look at the philosophy apart from lila as being beneath them.

What I see is the reality of form over substance, the word yoga in the term bhakti yoga means to connect with, many devotees don't enagage in learning HOW to do that, connect with Krsna that is. They think that Krsna is in Vraja running around with the gopis never realizing that Krsna is with them at every moment, Yoga means that we can learn How to connect with Krsna here and now, after all Krsna is with us, right now.

The problem is that the knowledge on how to connect with Krsna right now at this moment is ignored in favor of hearing about a reality that really has it's true meaning hidden until you actually connect with Krsna, even though Krsna is with us the tendency is to look for Krsna elsewhere.

Of course there are those who always will demand that their way is the right way and nothing will change their outlook regardless of their religion or lack of it, that is why Mahaprabhu left nothing in writing except his prayers on humility, nothing is more important then recognizing our own egotism when confronted with changing our view of reality from being the master to being the student.

Mahaprabhu did not just leave 8 verses in writing, he ordered and empowered and innerly inspired Rupa and Sanatana to establish the lila, rules and philosophy for our sampradaya, and they wrote some pretty large books for this purpose. In this way all of Mahaprabhu's followers can know understand what to do and think and what not to do and think.



That is allright, but the Bhagavata says that there is the Paramatma aspect, which you describe here, and the Bhagavan aspect which IS playing with the gopis as I speak. It is not one or the other, it is one AND the other.

I would like to hear Kundali meticulously defining who is considered mature enough to dive into Krsna lila and who is not. I want practical explanation preferably in English, not some mystical Sanskrt terms.

The connection with Krishna is not a flash, black-to-white experience. It is a slow process of gradual development, as is explained in detail in the Madhurya Kadambini, particularly the final part of it.