The greatest book distributors–Bhakta Carl & Radhika Ramana Prabhus

While there are many greats in this most pleasing service.  Heroes such as Vaisesika, Vijaya, Brighupati, Navida Nirada, and Parameshvara Prabhus.  There are others, great heroes, who dynamic feats go on unsung.   One such fellow is His Grace Bhakta Carl Prabhu, the biological brother of His Holiness Tamal Krishna Goswami. 

Bhakta Carl Prabhu is an English Professor and Hinduism teacher in a university Iowa.  In his classes students have as a required reading the Bhagavad Gita As It Is and several other of Srila Prabhupada’s books.   He also uses other books as well.  In fact in the beginning of the semester students read, side by side, the Bhagavad Gita As It Is version of Srila Prabhupada, a very beautiful poetic version by a mayavadi impersonalist, a version by HH Tripurari Swami,  and a version by Graham Schwieg AKA Garuda das.   At the beginning of the semester students have their particular versions that they like.  Some like the poetic version, and some will also say that Srila Prabhupada is too heavy.   However at the end of the semester all the students prefer the version of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the Bhagavad Gita As It Is.   The students say that this version is the most logical and gives the most clear explanations.   Bhakta Carl Prabhu also every year brings his students, many of which probably never have even been out of the state of Iowa, to Vrindavan India to go on pilgrimage and learn from all the great devotees there.

In my life I have distributed a good number of Srila Prabhupada’s books but I cannot say that I can make those books a required reading of the recipients.  I cannot imagine just how many books I would have to distribute to insure that a classroom sized group would study such books and new group semester after semester.  It is very glorious.  Such book distribution is in the line of another, little more well known hero, His Grace Radhika Ramana Dasa, AKA Dr. Ravi M. Gupta. 

 

Radhika Ramana Prabhu is well known for entering the university at 13 year of age, becoming valedictorian of Boise State at 17 and receiving his PHd at Oxford at the age of 22.  His students at his university also have Srila Prabhupada’s books as a required reading.  His students are required to read important books such as the Sri Isopanisad, Srimad Bhagavatam, and the Bhagavad Gita As It Is.  All glories to these unsung heroes!

TEXAS FAITH 58: What happens when the pew and the pulpit don't see eye-to-eye?

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

In this essay from the Washington Post's On Faith blog, Robert P. Jones drew several conclusions from polling data about the flap over Catholic institutions being required to provide contraceptives.

Among his conclusions was this observation:
"The Catholic bishops appear to be gearing up for a long fight against the mandate itself, but the Obama administration's compromise seems likely to satisfy lay Catholics' concerns, without losing younger women's support in the process. Obama' support among Catholics appears to have remained steady as the controversy raged last week."

What he suggests is that there is a difference between the pew and the pulpit on this matter. Of course, that is not the first time a divide has been seen between the leaders of a religious tradition and those who adhere to that faith.
What I would like to hear from you all this week is how such a divide gets resolved in your tradition. I recognize that sometimes they aren't resolved, but I would like you to elaborate upon this question:

What happens in your tradition when there is a divide between the pulpit and the pew?

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas 

There must be a divide, for spiritual culture is a counter culture in opposition to materialistic culture.

Spiritual culture teaches that we should all love and serve God. In material culture we teach others that they should love and serve ourselves as God. It is rooted in selfishness. But it is also just ignorant selfishness, because one must first know what is the self in order to endeavor to please the self. So even though it is rooted in selfishness there is no one who is actually satisfied.

How to know that one is selfish? Take a picture with your friends, take a look at the picture and then see who did look for first?

Because the body is only the vehicle and the soul is one who drives this vehicle, it is imperative to act in a way that pleases the soul, rather than ignorantly trying to satisfy the unlimited longings of the body and mind. The vehicle must be maintained properly however the driver is of utmost importance.

Such a divide is there because of this difference of consciousness and a bridge can developed through education and practice that produces direct experience of the spiritual pleasure of satisfying the soul. Hare Krishna.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

After Virtue–The Mind, the foundation for improvement or the fickleness of a floozy

A friend of mind, a Christian minister who studied a bible school here in Dallas, sent me this question.

Hi Nityananda,
I was reading a book on ethics and was wondering what you might think
of one of its ideas ("After Virtue" by Alasdair MacIntyre).
He talks about a threefold scheme for thinking about ethics/virtue/character:
- A humanity that exists in a somewhat lower state (greed, etc.)
- A humanity that progresses to realizing the goals of humanity
(mature, humility, sacrifice, etc.)
- A process of growing that uses the mind to consider and change
habits towards humanities goal
I was curious what you think of this idea.  Perhaps parts of it sound
good and other parts not as much.

Dan

My reply:

I would not agree with it. 

It was said that "- A process of growing that uses the mind to consider and change

habits towards humanities goal"

however true ethics are beyond the scope of the mind.  True ethics come from God.  Knowledge about and from God is not revealed by the mind but by God Himself.  God has spoken the word and He has given us those who very life are the word.   Even if one has a revelation that should be first validated by the scripture, and those who emulate it such as the guru, and the previous saints. 

The mind is the birth of speculations.  It accepts and rejects proposals based on our attachments.  If one is wholly attached to God then the mind is friend, however if we are attached to adoration, distinction, fame, wealth, power, pride, comforts, and so forth our mind will be our very own enemy.  The mind of the thief justifies his thievery.  Everyone has heard the "path to hell is paved with good intentions".  Therefore no sane mane will put faith in his mind for the mind is like an unfaithful woman, it may act against us at any time.  The intelligent put their faith in God.

Proper ethics means proper perspective.  If one cannot distinguish the soul from the body, one will then not have the sufficient awareness of the being that is meant to be benefited.  There may be something comfortable for the body and may be pleasing to mind but that same thing can also be detrimental for the actual person, the soul.  Without this soul vision one does not know truly how to please oneself and others.  The search for happiness can be the cause of all distress.  Because without soul vision our ventures for this pleasure comes at other's expense.  To experience the pleasure of wealth others must be poor.

Because of a lack of soul vision we had slavery for the slave was said to have no soul

Because of a lack of soul vision women could be mistreated for women were said to have no soul

Because of a lack of soul vision billions of helpless creatures are unnecessarily slaughtered because animals are said to have no soul.

As the blind man should not lead blind, the mind should be governed by the purified intelligence passed down from God.

Jnana Chakshus, Sastra chakshus

Your humble servant,
Nityananda Chandra Das

TEXAS FAITH 57: To what extent should government define the common good?

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

To what extent should government define the common good?

Let me offer this recent essay by Ross Douthat in the New York Times as a way to frame the discussion. Here's what Douthat wrote:
" When liberals are in a philosophical mood, they like to cast debates over the role of government not as a clash between the individual and the state, but as a conflict between the individual and the community. Liberals are for cooperation and joint effort; conservatives are for self-interest and selfishness. Liberals build the Hoover Dam and the interstate highways; conservatives sit home and dog-ear copies of "The Fountainhead." Liberals know that it takes a village; conservatives pretend that all it takes is John Wayne.

In this worldview, the government is just the natural expression of our national community, and the place where we all join hands to pursue the common good. Or to borrow a line attributed to Representative Barney Frank, "Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together."

Many conservatives would go this far with Frank: Government is one way we choose to work together, and there are certain things we need to do collectively that only government can do.

But there are trade-offs as well, which liberal communitarians don't always like to acknowledge. When government expands, it's often at the expense of alternative expressions of community, alternative groups that seek to serve the common good.

Unlike most communal organizations, the government has coercive power -- the power to regulate, to mandate and to tax. These advantages make it all too easy for the state to gradually crowd out its rivals. The more things we "do together" as a government, in many cases, the fewer things we're allowed to do together in other spheres."

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas 

In the Declaration of Independence, it is said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...are God-given rights". These are not government-given rights. If they are granted by a government, then they can be withdrawn by a government. Government officiates are bound by duty to see to the rights of all life. To see that none are mistreated especially those who are unable to protest, such as animals and unborn babies.

Under the directions of spiritually intelligent advisers the government administrators should, at the full extent, see to the proper protection of those whom they govern.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.

Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day, originally uploaded by NityanandaChandra.

TEXAS FAITH 56: How do we create a common good today?

Dallas Morning News,

Each week we will post a question to a panel of about two dozen clergy, laity and theologians, all of whom are based in Texas or are from Texas. They will chime in with their responses to the question of the week. And you, readers, will be able to respond to their answers through the comment box.

President Obama made the case for the common good, as he saw it, in his State of the Union address. Jackie Calmes of the New York Times summarized his theme this way: "Government and citizens are responsible together for the common good, even as they celebrate individualism and free markets."

Of course, you might say. Shared responsibilities and creating room for the individual to flourish are major elements of our national creed.
But how do we build a common good today?
The president, for example, wants clean energy, better schools and housing opportunities for more Americans. Good goals, but they cost money. And we are $14 trillion in debt. Someone has to pay for all these new ideas, including the ones that Republicans offer. Often, it is the rich who are asked to pay, which leads some to wonder why they are singled out to pay for the common good.
I'm not here to ask you to give readers a balanced budget plan. Others can take on that unenviable chore.
But I would like you all to talk about how the country can create a greater sense of the common good. We hear plenty about how political bodies can shape it, but I'd especially like to hear what other institutions could play a role. And how they could shape the common good, or perhaps are shaping it.

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS, minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), Dallas 

Common good must be evaluated by understanding who is the benefitted party. The Bhagavad Gita teaches that we have an identity crisis, we misconceive the body to be the self. In all our endeavors for happiness through various means, such as either religious economic and so on, we fail to find it because we have committed the grievous error of misconstruing the body to be the self.

For example, people who do not understand this principle will approach God for the comforts of the body whereas the intelligent approach God for that which will conforts the soul. What comforts the soul is a spiritual connection with God. That is called yoga, union.

The first step in a journey is know where are standing. So in order for me to know what is good for me I must know what is the me that I am trying to benefit.

To see all responses of the TEXAS Faith panel click here.