East West Dialogues - Steven Rosen (Satyaraja dasa) and Rev. Alvin V. P

7/14/2019 East West Dialogues - Steven Rosen (Satyaraja dasa) and Rev. Alvin V. P

1/69

EAST WEST DIALOGUES

An inter-religious encounter

CHAPTER ONE

RELIGION IS ONE

Rev. Hart:

Last time we spoke, you quoted a biblical verse: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for

doctrine..." (II Timothy 3.16-17). Frankly, as you might remember, I had some trouble with your interpretation.

You were using this verse to show that a Christian might potentially use the sacred books of the East, the Vedic

literature, to understand the Absolute Truth. While this may be true - the books of the East can be used - I dont

think that you can use this New Testament quote to substantiate this view. Still, your argument was not without

merit. You reasoned that the Vedic literature is also scripture, and the Bible, in this verse, refers to allscripture...

But traditionally this verse only refers to Old Testament literature; at least this is the common interpretation.

Anyway, after debating with you in this way, I thought about it for quite some time. Why would the Bible say "all

scripture if it merely meant biblical literature? Were the prophets and compilers of the Bible unaware of the

Vedic literature, which predates the biblical tradition by many generations? I don't think so.

Anyway, I wasn't going to agree with you so easily. I went through my reference library and found a wonderful

statement in The Book of Mormon, which, mind you, is a book that I generally have no connection with and rarelyever read.

Satyaraja Dasa:

What did you find?

Rev. Hart:

Well listen to this. I really liked it quite a bit, although it definitely substantiates your point of view. Let me read itto you:

"Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men,

and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth

beneath; and I bring forth My word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of My word? Know ye that the testimony of two

nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the

same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together, the testimony of the

two nations shall run together also...And because I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak

another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man..."


2/69

Satyaraja Dasa:

This is wonderful...

Rev. Hart:

Wait, it goes on:

Wherefore, because that ye have Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words. Neither need ye

suppose that I have not caused more to be written. For I command all men, both in the East and in the West, and

in the North and in the South, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto

them. For out of the books that will be written I will judge the world..."

Now it's not that I necessarily accept this as divine revelation or anything. But it certainly rings true. And I think it

lends credence to your position in regard to the Vedic literature and the other holy books of the East.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes. Religion is one. It is revealed variously, selectively, according to time and circumstance. But the essence is

the same. For example, take a dictionary. You have a small, expedient version - a pocket dictionary. Or you have

huge, unabridged dictionaries, like the one here on your desk. The knowledge is the same, but the unabridged

dictionary gives more detail, explaining every nuance of any given word. The real thing, of course, is to find that

tradition which gives the greatest and most complete revelation. To my mind, Jesus reveals quite clearly the

limitations of the Christian revelation: I have yet many things to say unto you, but your ears cannot bear themyet." (John 16.12)

Rev. Hart:

Yes. Although it is said that he gave deeper, confidential knowledge to his disciples, it is also true that the biblical

tradition as a whole is revealed in parables, and, it seems, there is great difficulty in finding a cohesive, systematic

way of finding out those original, deeper truths. To go along with your point, you'll be interested to know that the

Bible also quotes Jesus as saying, "If you do not believe when I tell you of material things, how will you believe

when I tell you of spiritual things?" (John 3.12)

Satyaraja Dasa:

Exactly. But Krishna says in Bhagavad- gita: "I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge, both phenomenal

and numinous. Once this is known, there is nothing further to be known." (B.G. 7.2) And there is a clear,

systematic approach for attaining this level of God realization. It is called Krishna consciousness. So this Vedic

revelation has a lot to offer.

MONOTHEISM


3/69

Rev. Hart:

When you refer to "the Vedic tradition," I understand you to mean more than just some antiquated Indian religion.

Let me see if I'm correct. In our recent discuss ions, if I may summarize, what has emerged is this: There was an

ancient monotheistic tradition known as Vaishnavism, or the worship of Vishnu (Krishna, or God). This wasoriginally referred to as sanatan dharma, or "the eternal function of the soul." The sacred culture and literature

that elucidates these truths may be referred to as "the Vedic tradition." Is this correct?

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes.

Rev. Hart:

The interesting thing, to my mind, is that a superficial look at religious history tells us that Judaism, Christianity,

and Islam are the only existing monotheistic religions, or certainly the three earliest. But now I can see quite

clearly a precursor in the Vedic (Vaishnava) tradition of ancient India. This is fascinating. As a Christian, I am

intrigued by the idea of an ancient culture having love for God - especially the same "One Supreme God" that I am

familiar with. Prior to the commonly accepted Judaeo-Christian origins, this existed-I have no more doubts. But

where did it end? Why is Indian religion no longer accepted as monotheistic?

Satyaraja Dasa:

The original system of loving God was more technically called bhakti-yoga, or the science of devotional service.

Contrary to popular belief, India gave rise to the first monotheistic tradition - you are correct - and it was based on

bhakti-yoga service to Lord Krishna. The view of a "One Almighty God" was integral to original Vedic culture, and

this is clear from the earliest parts of the Vedic literature. Most scholars have no problem with this. But with the

influx of Buddhistic thought in five hundred B.C., and with the monistic - "it's all one" - teaching of Shankara in the

eighth century A.D., the original Vedic concept became obscured. What followed is the confusion now broadly

known as "Hinduism," with its plethora of gods and the desire to merge into the existence of the Supreme. Prior to

these interpretive ideas, love and reverence for the One Supreme Godhead- known by an unlimited variety of

names but primarily as "Krishna"- permeated the Vedic tradition. This predates the three popular monotheistic

traditions. Incidentally, this original Vedic tradition never died. It was obscured, no doubt, for some time. But it is

thriving today. There are literally mill ions who follow this path in India. And in the West, it is best represented bythe International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).

THE FOREMOST COMMANDMENT

Rev. Hart:

Followers of this ancient monotheistic tradition would have appreciated what Jesus called "the first and foremost

commandment": to love God with all of one's heart, soul, and mind. And the second important commandment,according to Jesus, is just like it: to love one's neighbor as one loves one's self. I'm just curious. As a modern


4/69

practitioner of this ancient bhakti-yoga, or Vaishnava system, how do you interpret Jesus' commandment?

Satyaraja Dasa:

This first commandment is synonymous with the essence ofbhakti-yoga. However, the fulfillment of thiscommand is best expressed in the Vedic literature. The Bible, which might be considered a Vedic supplement, gives

some indication of how to fulfil the mandate to love God. But to know Him is to love Him-and one can know Him

most clearly through the Vedic texts. This is not a subject for debate. One need simply make a comparative study.

Rev. Hart:

Yes. I think, in a sense, more information is given in the Vedas. And this tends to give greater facility. As you say-

to knowHim is to love Him. That is, if you really knowHim, how could you help but love Him. He's the most

wonderful... But what of the second command, to love one's neighbor?

Satyaraja Dasa:

This is a noteworthy teaching. Jesus makes a distinction between loving God and loving ones neighbor which, he

says, is like loving God. Still, there is a distinction. So we do not show God that we love Him by loving our

neighbors, although this blending of the two commandments is commonly assumed within Christian circles. Do

you follow?

Rev. Hart:

Yes. Certainly. I think mature Christians know that there is a difference. At least I can speak for my

denomination. Otherwise, loving God and loving man is the same. And implicit in Jesus' statement, these two

types of love are notthe same. But then how do we show God we love Him? Through prayer?

Satyaraja Dasa:

That's one way. But I propose something that connects the two commandments. And it can be summed up in one

short saying: spread the word. Preach. What does it mean to reallyhelp another living being, or to love one's

neighbor? As soon as we ask ourselves this we are assaulted by a barrage of cliches: help the homeless, feed thehungry. And these are certainly laudable activities. But such actions could only be considered "virtuous" by those

who are not very introspective. I realize that this assessment seems harsh. But ask yourself this question: Can it

really be considered an act of transcendent love to throw a rope to a drowning man?

Or to clothe someone? Or to feed them? Are we so jaded that we would consider a natural human response to

someone else's suffering a virtuous Christian" sacrifice, a fulfillment of the second commandment?

Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding Yes! In this way the biblical commandment to love one's neighbor has

been reduced to what is really just a fundamental human reaction to another's pain. What's more, it keeps the

commandment to love one's neighbor on the bodily platform.

The commandment suffocates. It doesn't reach its divine potential.

This is at the heart of my argument. Let's breathe new life into this commandment. Or, rather, let's give it back its

original life, elevating it once again to the spiritual platform. If it's a religious command it should address not only


5/69

the body but also the eternal soul. My contention, then, is that the real essence of Christian love -allspiritual love -

consists, in its roots, of sharing knowledge of God with others. Loving one's neighbor is best affected by

transmitting the teaching of God consciousness. In this way, one can best show one's love for God as well.

TRANSMIGRATION

Rev. Hart:

I agree completely. But let's move on. I'm interested in this concept of the soul. You were mentioning a soul-

based interpretation of these commandments rather than a material, or in addition to, a material one. This is

essential, at least to my way of viewing things.

Aquinas, you know, had a great deal to say about the soul...

Satyaraja Dasa:

But it was so confused. He taught that there was a vegetable soul, an animal soul, and a rational soul.

Rev. Hart:

Right. And he initially claimed that beasts and even women were not to be counted amongst those with rational

souls. I'm not saying that I agree or that he made sense in all soul-related areas. Remember, I'm Episcopalian, notCatholic! [laughter]

Satyaraja Dasa:

The Vedic conception of the soul is much clearer. There are not three types of souls, as Aquinas mistakenly

asserted. His confusion arises due to a misidentification with the body. Because he saw, basically, three types of

bodies, he concluded that there were three types of souls. But the soul, being spiritual, is of one nature. Duality

cannot rear its ugly head in the realm of the spirit.

According to the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, there are 8,400,000 species of life, or bodily forms, and the same "type

of soul" transmigrates through each of these, by gradual evolution, and eventually reaches the human form. This

form is like a gateway through which we can attain transcendence or, instead, go back down the chain of species .

Pious activities elevate us in the human form and impious activities send us back down. This is called karma, or the

law of causality. According to our merit we transmigrate into appropriate bodies. This is nature's law.

REINCARNATION

Rev. Hart:


6/69

Reincarnation? That is a very interesting concept, with a long history in Christian circles....Quite

controversial....You know, although St. Thomas Aquinas is certainly not known for promulgating reincarnationist

views in his Summa Theologicahe describes how departed souls reach their respective places after death. He

says that living beings have a tendency to "sink" (gravitas) as well as to "rise" (levitas); exactly what he meant is

unknown.

In the Second Letter of Peter, the word exitus ("exit" or "a way out") is used for "dying." The expression implies

that something does exist which at death goes away, or "exits" the body. Reincarnation would explain a great

many things - such as just where the soul goes after death. After all, it is unlikely that a merciful God would send a

sinner to "hell" after just one birth into this crazy world....It takes time...

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes. According to the Vedic tradition, we-the soul-actually do not die. We are merely recycled, so to speak.

Rev. Hart:

[laughter] Reincarnation was also accepted by many philosophers in the early church. To my way of thinking, it is

a logical explanation of what happens at the time of death. After all, the first Law of Thermodynamics -the law of

conservation of energy-states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So what happens to that energy, that

thing which animates the body, at the time of death?

Satyaraja Dasa:

A rhetorical question, no doubt.

Rev. Hart:

Of course. Reincarnation is an acceptable answer. The earliest Church fathers knew this. In fact, it is quite

interesting if you study the history of how modern Christendom came to reject the doctrine. This is detailed by a

prominent Christian theologian, Dr. Geddes MacGregor. His book is called Reincarnation in Christianity. It's

excellent.

Satyaraja Dasa:

I understand that the early Church was influenced by Plato, which would have given additional emphasis to

reincarnationist beliefs.

Rev. Hart:

Christian doctrine was essentially Platonic - all the way up to the time of Aquinas, when Aristotelian philosophy

started to infiltrate Church teaching. But the Plato-influenced Church, like Plato himself, strongly endorsed

reincarnationist ideas. I think it was not until the Fifth Ecumenical Council, or the Second Council atConstantinople, that the doctrine was dropped. This was in the sixth century.


7/69

Satyaraja Dasa:

Why was it dropped?

Rev. Hart:

That's difficult....There are problems....Well, essentially it was dropped due to a papal edict, which was, in turn,

influenced by the leading politicians of the time- most notably, Emperor Justinian. It seems that "the powers that

be" were expecting people to become lax in their resolve to attain perfection. If people thought that they had

more than one life with which to become a perfect Christian, they might resort to sinfulness in this life, thinking

Ill atone in my next. So it was decided to obliterate the doctrine of reincarnation. All texts taken out of the

Bible....Anyway, this is the more charitable scenario. There is actually another perspective that tells a more

devious story. Politics...intrigue....In any case, that's history. And there isn't much we can do about it.

PRAMANAS

(or means of acquiring knowledge)

Satyaraja Dasa:

Well, we can give people the truth. We can explain the logic and even the scriptural basis of reincarnation. The

Vedic tradition is devoid of politics, at least on a spiritual and philosophical level. Devotees involved in

organization and management may have to dirty hands to some degree, but this is never on points of theology orhermeneutics. It is merely organizational.

Rev. Hart:

But how does one receive knowledge? Surely he must use his concoctive and speculative abilities. Political

leaders tend to influence the way we think, and they tend to direct the way in which we speculate...

Satyaraja Dasa:

No. That may be true in the West-indeed; it is the history of western culture and the perversion of the Judaeo-

Christian tradition. But in the East, and especially in the Vaishnava tradition, it is the brahmanas - the pure

intellectual and priestly classs - that are looked to for guidance. Definitely notthe politicians.

You see, there are standardpramanas, or means of acquiring knowledge, in the Vedic tradition. And these make it

very difficult for a political leader to extend his influence. The most important pramana is shrutior shabda-this

refers to valid testimony or revelation, particularly as it is enunciated according to scripture by the pure devotee

coming in disciplic succession. So there is little room for outside influence.

Rev. Hart:


8/69

What are the otherpramanas.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Oh, there ispratyaksha, or "sense perception," and anumana, or "inference." Also sometimes accepted are

upamana, or "analogy;" abhava (sometimes called anupalabdhi), or "proof from non-existence or non-perception;"

and arthapatti, or "inference from circumstance." Jiva Goswami also accepts arsha, or "the statements of saints

and sages;" sambhava, or "probability;" aitihya, or "traditional knowledge;" and cheshta, or gesture." Among

many of these, there are merely subtle distinctions, and they all have their place when we seek to acquire

knowledge. But spiritual seekers mainly accept the shabda process, for this is considered infallible, especially

when received in the proper way.

8,400,000 SPECIES

Rev. Hart:

Tell me, earlier in the discussion, you mentioned 8,400,000 species. I understand that this is Vedic knowledge, a

scriptural statement - I guess you would call it shabda, at least according to the pramanas you've just enumerated.

But I can't see how this could be accurate. It seems like there are only a few species, at least that's what I was

always given to understand.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Well, the 8,400,000 species refer to varieties of species. In terms of broad categories there are actually six species,

and these are aquatics, plants, insects, birds, beasts, and humans.

Rev. Hart:

This makes more sense.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Oh, yes. According to the Padma Purana there are 900,000 types of aquatics; 2,000,000 species of plants and

trees; 1,100,000 species of insects; 1,000,000 species of birds; 3,000,000 species of beasts; and 400,000 species of

humans - no doubt we can see many of them right here in New York.

Rev. Hart:

[laughter] Okay. So these are the 8,400,000 varieties of species . That I can accept. Wait, you said there are


9/69

400,000 human species? How so?

Satyaraja Dasa:

Unlike modern biologists, the Vedic literature does not draw distinctions based upon gross physical appearance ormorphological nature alone. The major deciding factor is the level of consciousness. And of these there are

many...

Rev. Hart:

I see. This is so much to absorb. Let's backtrack a moment. So, through a natural evolution we come to the

human form...hmmm....This is similar to Origen's statement. He was an early Church father who claimed that

when a soul falls from the spiritual world he first incarnates as an angel-perhaps you would say he incarnates as

Lord Brahma, or some other elevated demigod - and then, due to association with irrational passions borne of

materialistic life, falls to the lowest species and gradually works his way up to human. He naturally evolves. At this

point-the human level; one becomes responsible for one's activities. This, again, is where karma - action and

reaction- comes into the picture, and the soul goes up or down. To heaven or hell. Depending, of course, upon

one's activities and faith in God.

Satyaraja Dasa:

This is the Vedic conception. But the Vedas take it further. Up and down, as you say, refers to life in this world;

there are heavenly planets and hellish planets, and according to one's activities and one's relative faith in God or

mammon, one gets a bodily existence on one of these planets. One goes up or down. But Krishna teaches us totranscend the "up and down" of this world. He says that:

"Whoever, at the time of death, quits his body remembering Me alone, he attains to the kingdom of God."

Such an attainment is rare. And there is a definite distinction - both in the Bible and the Vedic literature - between

heaven and the Kingdom of God.

The righteous and pious of this world may go to heaven, but only the pure devotee goes to the kingdom of God.

This is rarely achieved. Heaven is a "good" place, but God's Kingdom is "transcendental." In other words, it goes

beyond the good and evil-the dualities -of this world. It's the final destination.

SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION

Rev. Hart:

I have a question and I wonder if it's answered in the Vedic literature. Through which species do we enter the

human form?

Satyaraja Dasa:


10/69

Yes, the Vedic tradition outlines this quite clearly. But there are variables. A basic hierarchy of bodily forms is

delineated....One evolves from fish to plant life. And then to insects, birds, and, finally, beasts. From there, we

find three gateways into the human form....Basically, if one is born as a human in the mode of goodness, he comes

by way of a cow's body. A human in the mode of pass ion comes through a lion gateway. And a human in the

mode of ignorance comes by way of a monkey body....This is general....Of course, in order to be a highly evolved

human, in the mode of goodness, one will generally pass through many human forms....This is another sense of it...

Rev. Hart:

This is no doubt judged by the mode that predominates, since, as you once mentioned, we are all, largely, a

combination of these three modes...interesting...

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes. In general, this is the rule, though there are exceptions. This knowledge, however, is merely academic, at

least in one sense, for in whatever way we attain the human form our ultimate duty is the same: we must

surrender to God and we must begin by transcending the bodily concept of life. The very first step in self -

realization is to understand one's identity as separate from the body. There is no question of going beyond this

point if this first step is not fully realized.

It is not my position to pontificate, but I think that most religionists today have not even gotten to this rudimentary

level. That's one of the reasons that we still judge "my religion" and "your religion." We are judging by the outer

shell. We have not yet developed the ability to go beyond the external vision-even in relation to our own being

(which is our most immediate experience). Naturally, we unconsciously extend this misidentification with the

outer and we identify ourselves as "Christian" or "Hindu" because our bodies were born into a Christian or Hindufamily.

But our real identity is not the body and its bodily designations. We are pure spirit-soul.

Part and parcel of Krishna. And we become religious by developing love for Him, not by labeling ourselves

according to some bodily or familial designation, even if it's apparently religious.

Rev. Hart:

That is very deep. I don't say that I agree with everything you've said, but you've certainly given me food for

thought. This non-sectarian view that you're espousing was also taught by our Christian mystics, some were not

even that mystical. In fact, St. Augustine himself, even after he became a pillar of orthodoxy, was quoted as saying

that: "the religion preached by Jesus predates what is now known as Christianity." Various interpretations of this

statement include very catholic, universal, and non-sectarian views. I think there is a "common" religion, if you will,

and a transcendental" religion. You are emphasizing the transcendental s ide, but not everyone can grasp this

side. Nor is it suitable for everyone.

Satyaraja Dasa:

I disagree with you there. It is the essence of religious truth that I am speaking about. True, there may be two

distinct levels of religion, the common and the transcendental, as you say. But the Vedic revelation is meant tobring everyone-gradually-to that highest level. Not to let them rot in the den of misconception. If you give


11/69

someone a half-truth, you are giving them a lie. They should know the ultimate goal and, according to their means,

they should pursue it. Krishna's Bhagavad-gita concludes with the instruction to give up "common" religion and to

embrace "transcendental" religion. The latter being embodied in full surrender unto His lotus feet.

WHY DO WE COME TO THE MATERIAL WORLD?

Rev. Hart:

I see. Yes, when you put it that way, I can readily agree. But these talks bring to mind questions that have plagued

me since my youth. Related questions. For instance, we were speaking of the soul's evolution through the various

species in this material world. But this naturally gives rise to a more fundamental question: why is there a materialworld in the first place?

Satyaraja Dasa:

The material world is a necessary manifestation of God's completeness.

Rev. Hart:

How so?

Satyaraja Dasa:

God has multifarious potencies , and these include both limited and unlimited energies. He must have both,

correct? If He were lacking one of these energies. He would not be complete. He would not be God. So the

material world is a manifestation of God's limitedenergy, which must exist for God to be complete and is thus

necessarily a part of God.

Rev. Hart:

Okay, I can accept that. It's logical enough. But it doesn't explain why we would come here. Are we not perfectly

happy in relation to the Lord in His spiritual kingdom? What's the Vedic viewpoint on this?

Satyaraja Dasa:

We are part and parcel of God. We are like small samplings of the Supreme. Whatever quality He has in full, we

have also, but in smaller quantity. For example, He has all strength, beauty, wealth, fame, knowledge, and

renunciation. Being part of Him, we share these qualities , too, but in minute proportion.

Now, one of His qualities is that He is supremely independent, that's what makes Him God. Similarly, we, as His


12/69

parts and parcels , have minute independence. After all, if He did not give us independence then how could we

choose to love Him? It would be aforcedaffair, and that can't really be considered love. So He gives us a choice

and, naturally, some misuse that choice, and they decide to leave the Lord. But the Vedic literature affirms that a

small number ofjiva-souls actually leave God's company. It's described that one quadrant of all of existence is

here for the rebellious souls. The vast majority remain in their constitutional position as eternal servants of the

Lord. Unlimited living beings serve Him eternally, and an insignificant few tend to fall into the material world.

Rev. Hart:

But my question...

Satyaraja Dasa:

I'm getting to that. But I needed to give this much background information. Now your question is this: of the few

who do fall, why would even one want to leave the perfect spiritual world? This is your question, correct?

Rev. Hart:

Yes.

Satyaraja Dasa:

As I've explained, we are part and parcel of Krishna, and we share His qualities, but in minute portion. Okay. Now

one of His qualities is that He is Supreme Enjoyer. So we must also have the enjoying propensity in minute

proportion. Enjoyment presupposes personality and taste - it is this taste that is at the heart of answer to your

question. Some people like rich, sumptuous halavah, and others puffed rice. Both desire to enjoy, but one likes a

luxuriant thing and the other enjoys more humble fare.

Thats called taste. Variegated tastes have their origin in spiritual world. Therefore it can have its perverted

reflection here. Good taste and not-so-good taste. Perfect enjoyment or pleasure exists in the spiritual world while

lower or imperfect enjoyment and pleasure is in the material world. Now, when we first manifest lower taste in

God's kingdom, it still necessarily takes the form ofdevotional service - we do not easily give up such service. That

kingdom is the realm of service and love - and nothing more. We do not become envious in the spiritual world, as

it is often told. No. No material quality-such as envy-can rear its head in the spiritual world. What happens,

rather, is that we desire to serve Krishna in a lowerway, a way that is not necessary in the kingdom of God.For instance, we may desire to serve as a creator. Since the spiritual world calls for neither creation nor

destruction, it is eternal, the service of a creator is called for elsewhere. In the material world. Therefore we take

birth as an elevated demigod, like Brahma, and we serve as a creator. Notice that we are stil l serving. But in the

form of Brahma, now that we are in the material world, our difficulty begins, and we inevitably fall to the l ower

species. In this way, we gather conditioning and various inferior, material qualities. These qualities haunt us and

torture us birth after birth. Eventually we come to our senses, and we naturally evolve, meet a pure devotee,

when we are finally ready, and advance back to Godhead.

But let's backtrack for a moment. It should be pointed out, also, that there are certain elements inherent in the

lesser realm of enjoyment that may go along with our taste.

For instance, in the material world we can be the center instead of Krishna. So when we have this inferior taste,which we can say is borne of envy and lust (but this is overly s implistic)-we must satisfy this taste in an inferior


13/69

realm. Therefore the material world is created, so we can enact this perverted pastime of indulging our lower taste

and engaging in a lesser service.

But we only enact it temporarily, and gradually Krishna shows us the true inferior nature of our taste. We thus

develop a higher taste in due course, and we voluntarily return to Him. It's something like having a taste for

cigarettes. And then when we get sick by giving way to this taste, we come to our senses and give up our bad habit

gradually developing a higher taste when the poisons are out of our bloodstream. Then we wonder how we could

have smoked at all...

Rev. Hart:

Fascinating. This is a satisfying answer, more profound than it initially sounds. Aquinas gives a similar explanation

in his Summa Theologiae - but now it is very clear. You know, there are still those who would not be able to follow

the rigorous logic here...

Satyaraja Dasa:

Such persons can at least understand this: if you're drowning and someone throws you a rope with which to save

yourself, what will you do?

Rev. Hart:

[laughter] You grab it for dear life!

Satyaraja Dasa:

Right. You don't s tart contemplating how you happened to appear in the water or how you got yourself in that

terrible predicament. There's time for that latter. Nor do you question the man throwing you the rope: Who are

you? Is this the best rope you have?" No. If youre drowning, you grab it! So we are drowning in the ocean called

the material world. How we ended up here is secondary. The primary concern is to return to God.

Rev. Hart:

Bravo! I agree completely. Do you think, that once we return to God we could again fall into this world? After allour inferior taste may again develop.

Satyaraja Dasa:

It's not likely. Not for the majority. In this if one develops cancer or some other serious life- threatning disease as

a result of bad habits, such as meat-eating, one's lower taste will soon be rectified, at least, if one is intelligent.

The point is this: when your only alternative is death, you start to seriously reconsider your priorities. You'd be

surprised how quickly one's taste can change. If it is a disease that one can control by one's activity, just watch and

see the vital transformation that often occurs. And, in due course, you definitely develop a taste for those things

which are better for you. Of course, there are those who will not learn from their experience. Such stubbornunfortunates are rare, though. The majority will work hard to reorder their tastes - especially if their life hangs in


14/69

the balance.

It should further be noted that one who returns to Krishna's abode is guaranteed by the Lord that he need never

return to the distasteful land of birth and death. The painful playground we mistakenly call "home." Krishna says

this quite directly in Bhagavad-gita. When we finally come to our senses, Krishna says, we never return to the

material world.

Rev. Hart:

Thank you.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Hare Krishna.

CHAPTER TWO

VEGETARIANISM

Rev. Hart:

Since reading your book, Food for the Spirit: Vegetarianism and the World Religions, I have given up the practice

of meat-eating. It's something I've been considering for quite a while. But your book helped to put the icing cake,

as it were. It gave me an in-depth theological perspective on the issue.

Since I stopped eating meat, I feel healthier and more with God's works, with the indwelling spirit of all things. The

Vedic teaching in this regard seems more dynamic than the religious dietary teachings from other spiritual

traditions. In the Christian tradition, of course there have been great saints, like St. Francis, for instance, who also

embody this mood, but I feel it is more in the Vedic scheme of things.

Satyaraja Dasa:

The Vedic tradition, acknowledging one type of soul in all living creatures, naturally endorses ahimsa or"harmlessness ," and this is often extended to vegetarianism. Vaishnavas, in particular, shun the use of flesh-foods.

They are lacto-vegetarian.

But the reasoning behind their diet is only partly because they do not want to harm other living creatures. The

more direct reason for their vegetarianism is based on the scriptural injunction that God will only accept lacto-

vegetarian foods as a sacrificial offering. A loving devotee will only offer God that which He will accept in sacrifice,

and then the devotee graciously takes the "remnants" as his meal. This is traditionally calledprasadam, or "the

Lord's mercy." According to the Vedic tradition, only suchprasadam should be eaten by one who is aspiring to

develop love for God. And if this prasadam is distributed to others, it has even greater transcendental potency. In

any case, this holy food is considered non-different from God, having taken on His qualities by association and

love...


15/69

Rev. Hart:

It's like the Mass, where the Host is considered non-different from the body of Christ, and the wine from his blood.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes, there is a similarity. But we have Communion three times a day! Andprasadam is real food - not the

transubstantiation of merely one wafer and a sip of wine. Prasadam is a whole meal; every morsel of food that

goes into the devotee's mouth is transformed into the body of God. In this way, the devotee is actually nourished

by God's mercy.

In other words, a Vaishnava onlyeats food that is offered as a sacrament to God. Others may take such food on

Sunday only, or, at most, when they feel inspired to do so.

INTOXICATING DRINK

Rev. Hart:

Incidentally, as an abstainer from intoxicants, you will be happy to know that wine, which is now distributed as the

blood of Christ, was not always used in the transubstantiation process. At least this is what certain reputable

scholars are saying. Originally, according to one view, it was grape juice.

In biblical times, you see, all fruit of the vine was called winewhether it was fermented or not. This is what theyre

claiming now. There are thirteen different words used in Hebrew and Chaldee, and four in Greek. The common

word in Greek was oinos. This Greek word corresponds to yayin or yain in Hebrew, vinum in Latin, and wine in

English. However, in classical biblical usage, these words simply refer to grape juice.

In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible, the Hebrew word for grape juice is translated thirty-three times

as the Greek word oinos. It is also used to denote kinds of drinks, such as lotus fruits and dates.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Is this youropinion, or can you cite other scholars and authorities on the subject?

Rev. Hart:

Oh, of course. This is almost common ledge among scholars of Old Testament history. According to Professor

Samuel Lee of Cambridge, the root of this Hebrew word I've been discussing is yain, or wine. But even Professor

Lee admits that in biblical times the word did not refer to intoxicating liquor made by fermentation. It more

referred to a thick, unintoxicating syrup produced by boiling. The boiling process gave the grape a long shelf -life

and so it became more storable. So we should not think that the early biblical prophets endorsed the use of

intoxicating drink. Wine, in those days, generally referred to grape juice.

Satyaraja Dasa:


16/69

So intoxicating drink was frowned upon in biblical times?

Rev. Hart:

Oh, definitely. We learn from the Bible that intoxicating beverages are habit-forming (Proverbs 23.35), result in

violence (Proverbs 4.17), and distract its imbibers from God (Amos 6.6).

Satyaraja Dasa:

That's really interesting...really...and I only wish that Christian laymen would learn about these things. But I want to

return to the subject of vegetarianism for a moment. In my research of the Christian tradition, I found that they,

too, endorsed vegetarianism, at least at one point in Christian history. This was certainly the case with the early

Church Fathers. But the part that boggles my mind is this: where did it stop? What were the circumstances

surrounding the popularization of meat- eating in the Christian tradition?

FAITH AND WORKS

Rev. Hart:

I think it is traceable to Emperor Constantine, in the early fourth century....Oh, yes, it involves the Edict of

Milan....You see, Constantine was nota theologian. No.

He was simply a politician, and a simpler Christianity was bequeathed to him just have faith in Jesus."

Satyaraja Dasa:

I think this was the Pauline doctrine.... he had the temerity to argue with the, Apostles over matters of doctrine.

Rev. Hart:

Well, you might run into trouble with this idea. This is a common misconception that Paul was in disagreement

with the Apostles, chiefly because he accentuated faith. But it should be remembered that Paul used the Greekword pistis, which means not only "faith" or ''belief, as is commonly supposed, but it also means " complete

surrender." It implies the practical application of faith. So Paul's "just have faith" was not so simple. His doctrine

was later distorted by politicians and rogues, but...

Satyaraja Dasa:

I see. So Paul along with the Apostles had claimed that one shouldfollow the old law, which included dietary

observance.

Rev. Hart:


17/69

Well, not justthe law. Paul did emphasize the spirit behind the law. This is quite complicated. Suffice it to say

that one could make a strong case for vegetarianism based on the old law, the Torah, as you do in your Food for

the Spirit. But some do say that Paul rejected it. Jesus himself, however, had claimed that these laws should be

followed, at least according to Matthew. But Paul, in a sense said "no"- the real thing is faith in Jesus.

Satyaraja Dasa:

So then, in a sense, my point still stands. Paul's doctrine was more appealing to Emperor Constantine, not exactly

Paul's doctrine, but the perversion of his doctrine that claims "faith" is merely "belief," and notthe practical

application of faith. It was this form of Christianity that was embraced by the Roman Empire, and the norms were

eventually set by those in power. Original, pure Christianity was eventually obscured by this perversion of Pauline

doctrine. Actually, I've even read where scholars of religion now laughingly refer to modern Christianity as

"Paulianity" or "Churchianity," but they rarely refer to it as "Christianity."

Rev. Hart:

Well, again, you say that "Constantine chose Pauline Christianity. I don't know if you could call it a conscious

choice. He was nota theologian. He and other politicians were s imply interested in making Christianity "socially

acceptable." And this, it may be said, is where the Christian tradition suffered most.

Anyway, it is certainly true that as history went on it was this type of "just have faith" religion that allowed

carnivorous Christians their indulgence, "Works" just didn't come into it. And so what you eat (which was

considered "works" or "acts" as opposed to "faith") does not really matter, it's what you believe in that counts.

Who would suspect that what one eats might effect one's faith, or vice versa?!

Of course, discerning Christians soon realized that faith without works is dead, as it says in the Bible. Again, this iseven implicit in Paul, when he uses that word pistis. So faith and works are related. And, I think it's clear, that if

you truly have faith in Jesus - if you love him, as he said - you will keep his commandments. These include all Old

Testament laws, such as Thou Shall Not Kill.

But this is down-played quite a bit. Protestants and especially "Born Again" Christians -whoever they may be,

emphasize faith over works, even though the Bible really teaches that these two must go hand-in-hand. The

problem began, I think, when Paul tried to preach to the Pharisees, who were extremely pre-occupied with works. I

think he went overboard trying to show them the importance offaith. And, as a result, the importance of works

was obliterated. A sort of beguiled faith is all we have left.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Incredible! Tell me, does this have a corollary in the tradition of the Old Testament?

VEGETARIANISM & THE OLD TESTAMENT

Rev. Hart:

Not really. In fact, vegetarianism is more eas ily endorsed through the Old Testament, especially when you


18/69

compare it to the New, which is relatively vague when it comes to diet. The Old Testament says that a man should

diligently guard his health and life (Deut 4.15). This might be taken as an endorsement of vegetarianism.

Especially today, when it has been thoroughly documented that vegetarianism is definitely healthier than meat -

eating.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Of course, there are those who will argue that vegetarianism is not really healthier. They say that only cranks and

loonies support this view. But then let them study the convincing work of the late Paavo Airola, the world's leading

authority on nutrition and natural biology. Or let them review the more orthodox, Journal of the American

Medical Association, or, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or even, The Borden Review of Nutrition

Research. All are powerful in their support of vegetarianism as a healthier diet than such, containing meat.

Rev. Hart:

Anyway, if the mandate to guard one's health is not enough, there is another Old Testament command which is

even clearer: 'tzarbaalay hayyim. This is the original Hebrew and it translates like this: Man must have

compassion for animals. So if we take these two commands together, vegetarianism seems like a natural

conclusion. Unfortunately, too few see it that way...

Satyaraja Dasa:

The Old Testament tradition seems to have a profound view of animal rights. The Talmud, for instance, says,

"When a man shall become proud in his heart, say unto him, 'the little fly has preceded you in creation.."' Butlet's return to Christianity for a second...

Rev. Hart:

Yes, I want to answer your initial question. I think the rationale for meat-eating really began, at least in Christian

circles, with Aristotle. He, of course, was Thomas Aquinas' main influence. The Aristotelian -Thomistic view, which

is almost Cartesian in scope, basically assumes that animals are here for our pleasure, with no purpose of their

own. Modern Christianity largely embraces this more or less egocentric world view.

Now, there's another stream of thought in traditional Christianity, and this might be called the Augustinian -

Franciscan view. This school is Platonic in scope and basically teaches that all creatures are brothers and sistersunder God's fatherhood. St. Francis, it might be remembered, is the Patron Saint of Animals, and he taught the

intimate relation of all things under God. Also, I think, along these same lines, if Jesus is to be truly known as "the

Prince of Peace," then the Augustinian- Franciscan form of Christianity is to be considered more authentic, for it

more fully displays the qualities of universal mercy and compassion. This fits in very neatly with the vegetarian

way of life.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Thank you. I deeply appreciate that explanation. Otherwise, Christianity appears to be a rather heartless religion.

How can one, with a clear conscience, ask God for mercy if he is not ready to show mercy to those who are weaker


19/69

than he is? It's downright hypocritical! If we pray for God's mercy and we will not show mercy to those who are

weaker than we, then we are nothing more than hypocrites. Isn't it so? Violence begets violence. If we don't show

mercy, why should we receive it? We won't. Rather, divine justice will be shown. As we sow, so shall we reap.

This is called karma in the East.

Rev. Hart:

Ah, the universal law of cause and effect. I fully believe that there is a tragic reaction for the eating of meat.

Christian love should be all embracing, extending even to animals.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Throughout Christian history, there have been others...

Rev. Hart:

Yes. In the early days of Latin and Byzantine Christianity, as well as in the period of its full bloom in the Middle

Ages, Christian art loudly proclaimed the importance and beauty of the animal kingdom. Animals are

compassionately represented in Christian sculpture, in illuminated manuscripts of the Bible, in stained-glass

windows, and in tapestry, too.

One of my favorite quotes is attributed to St. John Chrysostom, of the fourth century, who said, "The saints are

exceedingly loving and gentle to mankind, and even to brute beasts," and "Surely we ought to show them great

kindness and gentleness for many reasons, but, above all, because they are of the same origin as ourselves." This

vision of common origin was especially stressed by St. Francis, and was adopted by those who emulated him, manyof whom were vegetarians.

And many Georgian saints, hundreds of years before Francis, were distinguished by their love for animals. St. John

Zedazneli made friends with bears near his hermitage; St. Shio befriended a wolf; St. David of Garesja protected

deer and birds from hunters, proclaiming, "He whom I believe in and worship looks after and feeds all creatures, to

whom He has given birth." Early Celtic saints, too, were in favor of compassion for animals . For instance, Saints

Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany of Ireland in the fifth and sixth centuries after Christ, went to great pains for their

animal friends, healing them and praying for them as well.

These, of course, are the good examples. There is no doubt, however, that Christianity as a whole has failed to

construct a satisfactory moral theology in relation to animals. The Vedic saints and prophets, on the other hand,

would have allendorsed vegetarianism and kindness to animals. But that's because, once again, you do have a

very developed moral theology in relation to animals.

RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION FOR ANIMAL ABUSE

Satyaraja Dasa:

Why do you think such an important part of moral theology would be lacking in the Christian tradition?

Rev. Hart:


20/69

Oh, there is a whole range of specifically religious justifications for animal abuse. I would summarize these into

three distinct categories:

(1) the animals "belong to us" and we can "do with them as we please";

(2) since they are "non-rational," they do not have a soul; and

(3) they cannot feel pain.

A close study of the Bible reveals quite clearly that these arguments carry no substance. The Vedic literature, as

you know, is even clearer on these points. People should think about these things, however, and decide for

themselves.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Still, I think that whatever conclusion one comes to, one inevitably must come to terms with this: that Christ's loveand compass ion is universal, and that it naturally extends to animals, for they are also the Fathers handiwork. A

true Christian must come to this understanding. He must develop this level of religious sensitivity

Rev. Hart:

It goes beyond Christianity, as you say, it is simply non-sectarian religious sensitivity. If one is going to call himself

a "Christian," especially, he should at least consider the doctrine of extending Christ's love to all of Gods creatures.

If he does any less, he's hardly a Christian.

Satyaraja Dasa:

The "dominion" concept is the one that is most often thrown in my face. I think you listed it as the first of the

three rationalizations for meat-eating in the biblical tradition: "they are ours to do with as we please"

Rev. Hart:

It's actually a shame. The Hebrew word used in the Bible comes from the root radah, and is extracted as yirdu,

and connotes a sense of stewardship or guardian-ship. In other words, the Bible asks us to care for our more

humbly endowed brothers and sisters, not to kill them.For instance, a king is said to have dominion over his subjects. But that doesn't mean that he should eat them, or

abuse them. No. He must care for them, help them, and even love them. This is the type of dominion the Bible is

referring to.

I would also like to point out that the biblical verse, which gives us dominion over animals, appears in Genesis 1.26.

Only three verses later, in Genesis 1.29, a vegetarian diet is recommended. In other words, God gives us dominion

over the animals and, only three verses later, prohibits their use for food. Implicitly, the dominion He gives us

cannot include using animals for food.

Satyaraja Dasa:


21/69

Yes, that is covered in my book. Also, in the very next verse-Genesis 1.30-God makes it clear that animals do have

a soul. So rationalization number two is debunked as well. God says that all creatures, whether on land, in the sea,

or in the sky, have a "living soul" within their body. He uses the words nephesh for "soul" and chayah for "living."

These are the same two words used to describe the soul in human bodies. So animals and humans have the same

kind of soul, at least according to the Bible.

Rev. Hart:

Yes, it makes one wonder why Aquinas was so confused about these issues. Could you tell me a little more about

the code of ethics delineated in the Vedic literature? I love the way these things are crystal clear in the Vedic texts.

One could not have an Aquinas, that is to say that one could not have the confusion and trouble associated with

Aquinian doctrine, if one studies the Vedic literature in a scientific way.

LORD CHAITANYA

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes. That's true. In connection with vegetarianism and the plight of animals, the Vedic literature is particularly

clear. This is important. Unless one can understand that one is not the body and that one should not

unnecessarily harm living creatures, these two basic points, there is no question of going any farther. It is a

spiritual dead-end, progress is improbable without being clear on these two points.

Five hundred years ago, Krishna Himself descended in the form of His own devotee. This was the confidentialmanifestation of God known as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Remember that book I gave you a couple of weeks age

India's Spiritual Renaissance: The Life and Times of Lord Chaitanya?

Rev. Hart:

Yes, I'm just finishing it now...

Satyaraja Dasa:

Well, there's one chapter that describe Lord Chaitanya's interaction with Chand Kazi, the Muslim leader in

Navadvip, West Bengal.

Rev. Hart:

I remember the incident. They discussed the importance of vegetarianism in the Koran and the Vedas.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes, and this was extremely important. Chand Kazi was trying to obstruct the sankirtan, the congregational street


22/69

chanting of the holy name. Lord Chaitanya used to take His devotees into the streets, chanting:

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.

When Chand Kazi forcefully objected. Lord Chaitanya could have given a detailed exposition on the holly name.

His understanding was scientific, and He had elucidated these points of divine chanting many times in he past. But

in this case He did not. Rather than explain the divine name that Chand Kazi was so much in favor of deprecating.

He gave His enlightening soliloquy on vegetarianism. What was the relation? Why speak on vegetarianism if it was

the chanting of the name that the Kazi objected to?

Rev. Hart:

I see. Since one cannot understand deeper subjects if one does not have a full grasp on the Lord's compassionate

ways, Chaitanya started His lecture with an explanation of vegetarianism.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Exactly. The Chand Kazi could not understand love of God and the importance of chanting His name with love and

devotion. Therefore, Lord Chaitanya took great pains to explain the importance of vegetarianism, its underlying

compassion and expansive spiritual vision. To substantiate His views, He used both the Koran, the Kazi's own

scripture-and the Vedic literature.

My own spiritual master, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, also emulated this approach.

Whenever he was involved in inter-religious dialogue, he very consciously kept the conversation on two main

points: "You are not that body", and "Thou shalt not kill .

Rev. Hart:

Very interesting... Im just curious, later, when Lord Chaitanya went to Orissa, did He receive the same kind of

opposition - was there a Chand Kazi in Jagannath Puri?

Satyaraja Dasa:

This is not widely known. Of course, He received more popularity in the later pastimes, and so He was met withless opposition from the common people. He was amass ing thousands upon thousands of devotees. Still, there is

always opposition in this material world, especially for those who are trying to preach the message of Godhead.

There was one, Govinda Vidyadhara, a political leader who was against Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's mission.

Historical accounts compiled in Jagannath Puri give documentary evidence that this rascal politician had tried to

assassinate King Prataparudra. Lord Chaitanya's dedicated follower. Some reports from the Archeological Survey

of India state that although Govinda Vidyadhara did not kill the king, he was successful in killing the king's son.

But, in any case, this in no way obstructed Lord Chaitanya's mission....But, then, we are getting ahead of

ourselves....We were discuss ing vegetarianism.


23/69

VEDIC LITERATURE AND COMPASSION FOR ANIMALS

Rev. Hart:

Yes, I did want to hear more about the Vedic literature and compassion for animals. It seems that there is a code

of ethics in this regard that allows followers of your tradition to be very clear on the importance of animal rights.

You were going to describe this for me...

Satyaraja Dasa:

The Vedic tradition promotes sarva- bhuta- hita ("devotion to the good of all creatures") over loka-hita ("devotion

to the good of humanity"). The first ethical system, according to the Vedic tradition, includes the second. And it is

therefore more complete. If one cares for all living creatures, then one naturally cares for humanity as well. The

converse is not necessarily true.The Vedic viewpoint is that one should see the same life force in all living entities, regardless of outer dress (the

body). Those who cannot understand the principle of life in animals might then eventually misunderstand what

the life force is altogether and lose their sense of humanity. Accordingly, sarva- bhuta- hita, or the desire to good

for all creatures, is the superior code of ethics that is delineated in the Vedic tradition. And this is extended to the

point of vegetarianism by all followers of Vaishnava dharma, or the original Vedic way.

It is, of course, our contention that all of the major world religions must graduate to this all-encompassing code of

ethics if they are to understand deeper spiritual truths. If one still identifies with the external body, and if one

identifies animals with theirexternal bodies and thus eats them, one can never progress on the path back to

Godhead

Rev. Hart:

So followers of the Vedic literature see all things equally?

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes. Krishna confirms this in the Bhagavad-gita(5.18): The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with

equal vision the learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater [outcaste].

Rev. Hart:

Ah, this is real spiritual vision.

CHAPTER THREE

CHANT THE HOLY NAME

Rev. Hart:


24/69

When we call on God - and we should learn how to do this at every moment, even in the midst of our day to day

work - we should be conscious of Him, and then our prayer will have deeper effects, deeper meaning. This I know,

is the basic idea of Krishna consciousness. In the Christian tradition, too, we are told to pray ceaselessly. This is a

biblical command (1 Thess. 5.17) We are also warned, however, to be on guard against "vain" repetition. And I

know that Krishna devotees are also on guard. Your scriptures instruct you to chant "attentively" and in Krishna

consciousness.

Satyaraja Dasa:

This is the essential process for God realization in this age: "Chant the holy name! Chant the holy name! Chant

the holy name! In the age of Kali there is no other path for spiritual realization. There is no other way! No other

way! No other way!"

Rev. Hart:

In a sense, this could also be considered the heart of the Christian process as well. For instance, in the Latin Mass,

before the Gospel is read, there is a prayer spoken by the priest: domimis sit in corde meo et in labiis meis, which

means, "May the Lord be in my heart and on my lips." What better way is there to have God on one's lips than by

chanting the holy name? Therefore, the Psalms tell us that from "the rising of the sun to its setting," the Lord's

name is to be praised. And Paul echoes this idea by telling us that: "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will

be saved." (Romans 10.13)

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes. This is Krishna consciousness.

Rev. Hart:

But to be conscious of Him. This is an interesting concept. He is the Creator, the Maintainer. He is our most

immediate experience. Yet still He is elusive. To be conscious of Him sounds a lot eas ier than it is. At first, it is

actually impossible to be truly conscious of Him, for our conditioning has us in a state of spiritual amnesia, so to

speak. We do not even know who He is. We have forgotten our original Father. I have had a difficult time

explaining this to my seminary students.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Naturally this would be difficult. In the biblical tradition there is not a great deal of information about the

kingdom of God. What does it look like? Where is it? What does God look like? Does He manifest in various

forms? One form? No form? How do you meditate or call on God if your concept is nebulous? If your information

about Him is vague, how can you expect to develop an intimate relationship with Him?

Analogically, this "amnesia" business is actually quite accurate. We have forgotten our eternal relationship with

God. And just like ordinary or conventional amnesia, it is best cured by taking the patient to his original

surroundings. This will jar his memory. But in order to take him to his original surroundings, you must first know


25/69

where those surroundings are. You must know his family, friends, and entourage. Then, by exposing him to these

things, he gradually becomes cured. And he remembers his real life.

Similarly, in Krishna consciousness, all the details of the Kingdom of God are revealed. It's actually quite a mazing.

All of God's intimate associates in His kingdom - those who have never fallen away...we learn of their existence and

whereabouts... Also, it is taught in the Bible that God is all pervading, but only in the Vedic literature is it taught

exactly how this comes to be. How He expands into His quadruple forms, and then into the three Vishnu (purusha)

avatars, entering into every atom. All the details are there. It's more than the mind can accommodate. It jars the

memory, piercing through our materialistic conditioning. We are cured. Even the sound of the chant - the Hare

Krishna maha-mantra - it is imported from the spiritual worldd. When we give submissive aural reception to this

chanting, it is like hearing someone scream while we are sleeping. It wakes us up. At first it may cause some

uncomfortable sensation, but then it is like waking up to a new day. It is refreshing and invigorating. We are sorry

we spent so much time under the covers.

Given these details, it becomes almost easyto meditate on God as one chants, or prays, to Him. In addition, one

becomes quickly cured of one's spiritual amnesia...

DESCRIPTIONS OF GOD

Rev. Hart:

I am also amazed at the details, which abound in Vedic texts. We are also aware of God the Creator, Maintainer

and Well-Wisher of all living beings, and we know Him as the Son, who died for our sins...

Satyaraja Dasa:

But if you listen to your own descriptions of God, you will see that they are primarily egocentric. That is to say that

they center around you and the rest of your kind. He is the Creator and Maintainer-of whom? You. Jesus died for

whose sins? His own? Of course not. He died for your sins - mine and yours. But what about God in His own right?

What about Him?

Does the biblical tradition hold any information about His self- existent nature?

Rev. Hart:

Christian philosophers would say that such knowledge is beyond the grasp of man. God's self-existent nature isunlimited, and as such, it cannot be grasped by limited beings.

Satyaraja Dasa:

I say that this is just a rationalization because the information in question is not found in the Bible. Consider this: If

God is unlimited, as you say, then He has the power of making Himself known, in full, to a limited being. And if you

deny Him the power to do so, then you are limiting Him.

Rev. Hart:


26/69

So, logically, we can know God's self-existent nature...hmmm....But it must be by His prerogative. He must take

the initiative...it can't be any other way...

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes, of course. By His own prerogative, He takes the initiative and reveals Himself to us. This is revelation.

Rev. Hart:

I can accept that.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Of course. And He does so when we please Him....So by sincerely chanting His name and spreading the message to

others...

Rev. Hart:

Yes, I see, but it is s till an abstraction...

GODS PRIMARY NAMES

Satyaraja Dasa:

That's alright. He will remain an abstraction until you learn to chant His primary names under the direction of a

qualified spiritual master,

Rev. Hart:

Primary names?

Satyaraja Dasa:

The subject is explained very clearly by Bhaktivinode Thakur, a great Krishna conscious saint in the late nineteenth

century. In his book, the Hari Nama Chintamani, he explains that there are primary and secondary names for God.

While he admits that the foremost thing is sincerity and attentiveness, he also asserts that one should chant God's

primary names.

Now, which names are primary and which are secondary? How is it judged? This is very interesting. Bhaktivinode

Thakur describes as secondary those names of God that are ordinary, abstract, or representational, the kind to

which we are commonly accustomed in this world.These names describe God only as He relates to us. They are external and certainly less intimate. Creator,


27/69

Maintainer, as you have described. These are distant and abstract and largely impersonal. They have little to do

with God's self-existent nature.

His more intimate and primary names, however, deal directly with His self-existent nature. They describe who He

is in relationship to His eternal associates in the kingdom of God. They are not necessarily connected to His

interactions with the material world.

Rev. Hart:

Can you give some examples?

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes, but if you are not familiar with the details of God's internal nature, as revealed in the Vedic literature, they

will naturally sound alien to you. For instance, names such as Yashomati-nandana, Nanda-kishor, Damodara. These

describe Krishna in relation to His eternal, confidential associates, in His original kingdom. They have virtually

nothing to do with our world of relativity. These types of names are primary, and they are very confidential and

dear to Krishna. Such names are also dear to pure devotees, who know Krishna well.

The secondary names are more like descriptions of God from ourperspective. And, remember, our perspective is

divorced from reality. We have spiritual amnesia. But the primary names are like descriptions from His inner

circle.

For instance, if I refer to you as "the priest," your seminary students would probably know to whom I am referring.

But if I called you by your given name - this is more intimate - and there would be no mistake.

Now, to extend it further, if I were to call you by a pet name-say a name that only your parents and good friends

know about - this is even more intimate. Such a name is analogous to the names of God revealed in the Vedic

literature, such as "Krishna" or "Govinda." These names are more intimate and thus accelerate the process ofcuring spiritual amnesia. What's more, these names very easily situate one in love of God.

Rev. Hart:

I think I have it now. The name "God," for instance, is certainly a secondary name. We call Him "God" because He

is good to us. The word is of Germanic origin and means "the Good One." It's a description of how He interrelates

with us.

What about "Awoon"? This was the Aramaic name Jesus used for God. It means "Our Universal Father." Is this...

RASA

Satyaraja Dasa:

Again, it is simply how He relates to us in the material world. Jesus sought to show his followers that we are all of

common origin. We all come from the same universal Father. This rasa, or relationship, however, is non-existent

in the spiritual realm.


28/69

Rev. Hart:

God is not the Father in the Kingdom of God?

Satyaraja Dasa:

He is always our source. So in that sense, ....but the child is always out to take something from the father. "Please

give us our daily bread..."

"What can my father do for me?" the child always asks. 'He must take care of me." This mentality is natural for a

young child, but when one matures, he wants to do something in return. Similarly, when one is spiritually mature

and goes to the kingdom of God, he does not hanker after this rudimentary relationship. Rather, he wants to

render service, not take it. Actually, Jesus merely used this "Father" concept as a catalyst for us to remember our

dependence on the Lord, especially in our neophyte state.

But the kingdom of God is the land of dedication and love. We are not out to extract anything from Him. We are

there merely to renderdevotional service. In this supreme abode, there are five primary relationships (rasa): one

can serve in a neutral mood, or in the mood of a menial servant, a friend, a parent, or even as a conjugal lover. But

one never sees God as one's father, at least not in the Christian sense.

Rev. Hart:

Conjugal love?

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes, Krishna is a person, and all inter-personal relationships have their origin in Him. Of course, love in the

spiritual realm is divorced from the carnality and impermanence of the mundane sphere. It is of a whole different

nature. It is wholesome and pure. It is spiritual. The Deity is never contaminated by material conceptions.

DIETY IDOL WORSHIP

Rev. Hart:

Oh, that reminds me. You were using the word diety" in a generic sense, to refer to God. But I have question

about Deity worship. You know, of course, that idol worship is condemned in the biblical tradition. There are

strong Old Testament proscriptions against carving an idol - these were mainly to keep the followers of Yahweh,

the One Supreme God, from bowing down before the Baals and Ishtars of their neighbors. In other words, there

was a lot of demigod worship at that time, and so, in an attempt to avoid this, there were strong proscriptions

against worshipping "lesser" gods, this included various forms of idol worship.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes. And then, as usual, the proscription got out of hand. And so even the Deity of Krishna, God Himself, would


29/69

be desecrated by those who considered themselves "believing Christians."

Rev. Hart:

Oh, no. I disagree. I think you mainly have your Jews and Muslims who would take a strong stance against Deityworship...

Satyaraja Dasa:

Actually, you are right. Historically, it was mainly the Muslims who desecrated the Deities. Jews are also against

worshipping a divine form, but as you mentioned, this was mainly because they received strong prohibitions in the

Old Testament.

Rev. Hart:

Yes. And the interesting thing is that it never actually says not to carve a form of God! First, it says: Thou shall

have no other gods before Me (Exodus 20.3).

Okay. I think you would agree with that. The Supreme Godhead is speaking, and He is basically condemning

demigod worship. Next, and this is the key verse against idol worship, God says, "Thou shall not make unto thee

any graven [carved] image of any likeness of anything that is in the sky above, or that is on the earth beneath, or

that is in the water under the earth....Thou shall not bow down to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am

a jealous God." (Exodus 20.4-5)

I find it truly fascinating that followers of the Judeo- Christian culture would have developed such a strong

abhorrence for idol worship, just based on this text. After all, I'm sure you would agree that it is repugnant tocarve, bow down, and worship a "lesser god" than Krishna. But you are worshipping the Supreme Godhead.

Obviously, this Exodus text is more against worshipping lesser gods than carving forms.

Krishna is not a likeness of anything on land, in the sky, the sea. He is transcendental. Therefore, in fashioning an

image ofHim, you are not breaking the command- against idol worship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but lesser gods,

indeed allliving beings, are modeled after Him. Not vice versa and if this is true, then carving a form of Krishna and

then worshipping it, according to the strictures of the Vedic literature, would then definitely notqualify as idol

worship.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Right. Another, related point is this: If we say that Krishna's form, which appears human, is human-like, they

accuse us of being anthropomorphic. And this would be correct. But we are made in the image of God! So there

mustbe some similarity. Consequently, we like to say that our form is theomorphic. We look like God. He does

not look like us. I guess that sounds confusing...[laughter]

Rev. Hart:

Well, the main point is that His form comes first. Ours is fashioned after His.

Satyaraja Dasa:


30/69

The form of Vishnu, especially, with His arms, is certainly not a likeness of anything on earth, sea, or in the sky.

Rev. Hart:

[laughter] Right. Right. The Exodus quote loses meaning in this case.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Anyway, not to get too far off the track, we were explaining primary and secondary forms and names of God. The

Bible is replete with secondary forms and names...

Rev. Hart:

What is an example of a secondary form?

Satyaraja Dasa:

A form that merely represents God. The burning bush, for instance...

Rev. Hart:

Ah, yes. This is a peculiar manifestation. In Deuteronomy(4.24), when God is described as a consuming fire. Isthere a similar representation in the Vedic literature?

Satyaraja Dasa:

Hmmm?Ishvara tattva-yena jvalita jvalana. This wordjvalana means "fire." Thus the Lord is compared to a

blazing fire in the Chaitanya Charitamrita (Adi-lila 7.116). But, again, these are representational forms of God.

Krishna is the Supreme Lord Himself.

DOES GOD WEAR A HELMET?

Rev. Hart:

Yes, I know. But these manifestations do interest me, especially when there is a connection between biblical and

Vedic writings. Tell me, is there a manifestation wherein Krishna is known to wear a helmet of some sort? I ask

you this because Yahweh, the God of the Bible, is described as wearing "the helmet of salvation" (Isaiah 59.16-18).

Aside from the usual metaphorical interpretations, some believe that God actually wears such a helmet. After

reading some of the Vedic texts, it would not surprise me if much of the biblical symbolism - or that which we

traditionally take as symbolism - had a more concrete basis in reality.


31/69

Satyaraja Dasa:

Well, believe it or not, as I recall. Lord Hari (Krishna) is sometimes described as wearing a helmet. Yes, in the

Srimad Bhagavatam (6.4.39) there is beautiful description of Krishna. Among His ornaments, His head-dress is

described as a maha-kirita, or an extremely large and gorgeous helmet.

Rev. Hart:

Such parallels are amazing. I really enjoy these comparative studies. Traditions that are today geographically and

culturally at odds, at least to some degree, have more in common than most people would assume. To me, it

hearkens back to a time when we were all worshipping the same one God, before the artificial separations which

today engulf us had a chance to take over. Before Kali -Yuga, the age of quarrel and hypocrisy, had a chance to

develop.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes, I like this eclectic talk as well. It gives us an appreciation for all cultures, and ultimately how everything is

traceable to Vedic culture. In fact, I've researched this subject quite a bit...

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DESCRIPTIONS

Rev. Hart:

I know. You are definitely the person to be discussing this with. You once told me that you have found many

correlations between descriptions of Yahweh in the Bible and Vishnu in the Vedic literature. Could I hear them

now?

Satyaraja Dasa:

That was a long time ago. I only remember a few of them off hand....hmmm...Yahwehs voice is described to be

like thunder (Job 40.9); Vishnu has a voice like thunder (Srimad Bhagavatam 4.30.7). Yahweh is described as having

a rod (club) and a staff (Palms 23.4, or 89.32); and it is well-known that Vishnu, depending upon which expansionHe manifests, has a club (S.B. 6.4.39) and a trident (S.B. 4.30.7). A fire is sent by Yahweh to burn up His enemies

(Psalms 97.3, or 50.3; also see Deut. 9.3); the chakra of Vishnu is as destructive as the fire of devastation and

burns His enemies to ashes (S.B. 6.8.23).

Yahweh, at times, carries a shield (Deut. 33.29; Psalms 84.11); so does Vishnu (S.B. 6.439). The comparisons are

endless. And the central point to understand is that God is one. When we speak of Krishna, or Vishnu, or Yahweh,

we mean God.

Rev. Hart:

In connection to our discussion, there is another common factor, something that gives additional emphasis to


32/69

Vishnu and Yahweh being one and the same.

In theJewish Encyclopedia, under a section on cherub etymology, I found the most fascinating information:

Dillman, Duff, and other prominent scholars stil l favor the connection between Yahweh's cherub and gryphus

[Garuda].

Satyaraja Dasa:

That's incredible. And if I remember my Bible, although there is sometimes a description of many cherubim,

Yahweh rides upon only one, as Vishnu rides only upon Garudaji.hmmm....Both concepts of God include bird-like

carriers, even though these concepts were greatly separated, as you noted, both geographically and culturally.

Well, we're talking about the same one Supreme Lord. I'm convinced! [laughter]

THE LORDS BACK

Rev. Hart:

This may be a l ittle off the subject, but s ince we're talking about God as a person, and also in His representational

forms, I was wondering what you'd have to say about a certain episode in the Bible. If you read Exodus (33.18-23),

it is clear that God does not easily reveal His glory, or His form. Of course, I know you're something of a

fundamentalist, and so you probably take the various biblical statements about the form of God quite literally-and

I'm not sure that I would in all cases agree with this. But in this particular section ofExodus, it mentions that God

was willing to show Moses His "back." He would definitely not show His face, but His "back" was shown to Moses.

I know, in your view, this definitely confirms that God has a form, a "back" and a "face." But I wonder, do you see ametaphorical interpretation in these particular texts?

Satyaraja Dasa:

First of all, it is clearly indicated in these verses from Exodus that God has a form, you are correct. Ask yourself this

question: Why would the biblical prophets repeatedly use a personal metaphor to describe God if He was indeed

impersonal? It is a dangerous proposition. Misleading. You may say that these personal metaphors are used just

to help us relate to God. But what is your evidence that they should not be taken literally? Why assume that it is a

metaphor? Anyway, food for thought...

Now, in regard to Moses seeing the "back" of God. The emphasis of God's "back" is related in Srimad Bhagavatam,and, yes, there is a sort of metaphorical interpretation. More accurately it is an "inner" interpretation. According to

the second canto of the Bhagavatam (2.6.10), the Lord's "back" (paschimah) represents frustration and ignorance.

More importantly, it is said to be the seat of impersonal realization. Those who are fortunate enough to be graced

with the vision of His "front," in other words, will pursue God realization in its highest, personal feature. But the

impersonalists must resign themselves to God's "back" only.

Of course. His "back" is also transcendental, and so impersonalists may gradually evolve to the personal

conception realizing Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This, of course, is a far way off for

impersonalists. Traditionally, then, one can understand the plight of Jewish philosophers, for their leader, Moses,

was only given knowledge of the back of God. If you want to understand this biblical idea from the Vedic

perspective, you can see it in this way.


33/69

Rev. Hart:

Extremely interesting...You might be interested to know that there have been elaborate studies undertaken to

compare Christianity and Vaishnavism.

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes, I noticed John Plott's work in your office. This is an important contribution, where he compares the teachings

and theology of Ramanujacharya to St. Bonaventura.

Rev. Hart:

Yes, but this is academic. I would be more interested in your work, or in the work of someone who is actually part

of the tradition...

DISCIPLIC SUCCESSION

Satyaraja Dasa:

This is very important. Vedic knowledge comes in disciplic succession. Your intuition is correct. You cannot delve

into these truths without learning from a spiritual master in one of the genuine preceptorial lines . The Apostles

studied under Jesus. Even Aquinas studied under Albertus Magnus. There is an esoteric link between guru anddisciple that is essential.

There are four genuine sampradayas, or lines of disciplic teaching. The Padma Purana, part of the Vedic canon,

mentions these four sampradayas by name and even predicts the four prominent teachers that these bona-fide

disciplic chains would give birth to:

sampradayavihina ye mantras ie viphala matah

atah kalau bhavishyanti chatarah sampradayinah

shri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaishnava kshitipavanah

chatvaras te kalau bhavya hy utkale purushottamah

ramanujam shrihi svichakre madhvacharyam charurmuhashsrivishnuswaminam rudro nimbadityam chatuksanaha

Rev. Hart:

That was beautiful. That's the original Sanskrit?

Satyaraja Dasa:

Yes. It loosely translates like this: "One who chants a mantra, or prayer, but was not given that mantra in one of

the four bona-fide disciplic successions, is more or less wasting his time. Thus, in Kali-yuga, there will be four


34/69

important teachers representing each of these sampradayas, known as the Shri, Brahma, Rudra, and Sanaka (or

Kumara) sampradayas. Shri (Lakshmi, Vishnu's consort) chose Ramanuja [to establish her sampradaya]; the four-

headed Brahma chose Madhva; Rudra (Shiva) chose Vishnu Swami; and the four "Sanas (Sanaka, Sanatkumara,

Sananda, and Sanatan) chose Nimbarka." In this verse is the secret of Vedic knowledge, for the esoteric truths of

the kingdom of God are passed down in disciplic suc

Documents

East West Dialogues - Steven Rosen (Satyaraja dasa) and Rev. Alvin V. P