Category Archives: Reflection

For more than about four and half years, we have been involved in the translation of Bhagavad Gita As It Is into the lingua franca of Mauritius, a place where I was born. What follows is an interview as queried by Kovillina Durbarry, a Week-End Journalist. The latter then translated this into the Mauritius media lingua: French although readers will find that the last question is as per Kreol Morisien as is spoken by over 90% of residents in Mauritius and also widely spoken across the six continents where the Mauritian Diaspora exist.

To begin with when was the idea of translating BGKLE born? Did you translate directly from Sanskrit?

Translating began in December 2019 when the first words were written down following years and years of reading Bhagavad-Gita in English which was started using N/NN system from which we swiftly moved from later as we wanted to align with the orthography being taught in the Mauritian Educational system /the pioneering work of The Academy of Kreol Morisien (KM) and the monolingual KM dictionary of Professor Arnaud Carpooran.
The process of translating as mentioned above was done via the initial works of the Founder Acarya of ISKCON A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who did all the translation from Sanskrit initially in English. Later on, his English version was itself translated in 60 other languages either by his disciples mostly or with BGKLE done by his grand-disciple.

How did the translation process go?
First this involved the help of an editor, Raumesh Chandra Coceal with whom we worked incessantly on this project for over four years.
Working as a small team (including an anonymous personality) we kept to the spirit of adhering to the fideistic aspect as well as ensuring a flow in the way we use Kreol Morisien . As it is there is not much non-fiction literature to use as a bench mark in KM. If anything, BGKLE may well have set this standard in that we used several techniques to ensure that the literature we used make a reading of BGKLE with fluidity without having to unduly use pleonasm which may be easily done. To be precise, with BGKLE the aim was to also show that KM is as beautiful as a lingua as any established language whether English/ French/ Hindi or any other ancestral language.

You actually keep several terms in Sanskrit….why not translate them? Was it to maintain the sacredness of certain terms?
Sometimes it was almost difficult to translate a term directly: Take for instance ‘atma’ (soul) and ‘deva’ (demi-god) when initially done from the Sanskrit posed no problem into English but when tried doing so in KM poses all sorts of difficulties. So, the adoption of the Sanskrit terms was preferred in both cases, whereas a direct literal translation may have produced a negative connotation. Or we used the multilingual nature of the Mauritian entity by virtue of which we may adopt a term easily in our still evolving lingua of KM… as we venture more in the realm of literary/ philosophical/ theological exposure!
We may also point out that Sanskrit terms on their own may not reflect sacredness per se but only when associated with the Supreme Personality and in our case, this is Krishna to be precise.

In BGKLE, you speak of “laz de Kali,” referring to the modern age? What do you think of the current world?
In the age of kali, we are are all affected by the contamination of the material world as characterised by lust, anger and greed and how these may reflect in a person easily affected by these qualities. On the other hand, one always as a reflective being has a choice to move away from the contaminated nature of the world and the message of BGKLE for sure helps one to understand what to do and importantly what not to do. And one may easily learn how to move away from the state of this world by checking it all out in BGKLE!

Do you think that BGKLE belongs to just one group of people?
Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-Gita whether in its original version in English or in its 61st BGKLE translation clearly states “napa destine a enn dimounn, sosiete, ou kominote an partikilie me a tou antite.” Indeed, I recalled presenting an actual copy at the launching of BGKLE, noting that this was aimed at “the people of Mauritius or wherever the Mauritian Diaspora exists across the six continents.“

Can you talk about the universal appeal BGKLE?
Following from the earlier question, BGKLE makes one aware about the self, the other and the supreme and it is verily a question of exploring this relationship in question independent of religion or culture. This question is of understanding that aspect service of being at the centre of oneself. Transcendentally, life is not about outdoing of the other and the question of me-ism unlimited but that of realising that one is in relationship with any other in the mode of realising that “the constant companion of the living entity and the rendering of service is the eternal religion of the living being, “ as Srila Prabhupada puts it in its real sanatana dharma or realising one’s svarupa mode and eventually shifting this service towards the “Tou-Konple,” as in BGKLE.

Several intellectuals and scientists say they have been inspired by the Bhagavad-Gita. If you have to recommend, what would you tell others ?
“Size Bhagavad-gita inplik konpreansion sink verite debaz. Dabor, sians Bondie explke e apre pozision konstitisionel antite vivan, jivas klarifie. Ena Isvara, ki vedir saki kontrole, ek ena ousi jivas, antite vivan ki sou kontrol. Si enn antite vive panse ki li lib e pa sou Kontrol, savedir li napa rezone. Antite vivan kontrole dan sak fason, sirtou dan so lavi kondisione.
Bhagavad-gita baze lor isvara, siprem ki kontrol tou, e jivas, antite vivan kontrole. Prakriti ( natir materyel) e letan ( dire lexistans antite liniver swa manifestation natir materyel) e karma (aktivite) tou egalman diskite. Manifestasion kosmik ranpli avek diver aktivite. Tou antite vivan angaze dan diferan aktivite. Depi Bhagavad-gita bizin aprann kisann-la Bondie, Ki ete antite vivan, prakrti ki ete, manifestasion kosmik ki ete, kouma li kontrole par letan, e ki konstitie aktivite antite vivan.”

The word spirituality indicates at the outset that there is something more than just the merely material. What makes this term authentic is that it may not be a simpleton of espousal of a routine ritual as one may observe in practices of beliefs. For sure, the vulgar may believe that once a certain system has been adopted or a particular dress-code is adopted and or a certain religion followed it gives the practitioner carte blanche to pronounce that one is a saviour par excellence. In the process, others in the process are lesser beings.

This verily is far from what we are trying to explore. For sure, if anyone regardless of adherence, dress code, belief-system or none someone attempts to reach out to any other regardless of whatever entity, or life specie the other is for sure a commendable being. It is the parochial state of being that transform one into an automaton, nay a mere fanatic who simply may not see beyond ness but so quickly take to a form of immersing in opinions, beliefs-systems which denigrate some other.

To be able to see above and over is a state of moving away from negativism whereby no other may be denied a right to be. Is this state possible? Or does one have to be entangled in arrogance, hatred, violence and egotism?

Our comrade knows and the other is denigrated as a lesser being. The knower walks around with an air of self prestige with others deemed to lack any being. That one claims exclusivity of belief is seen almost everywhere. What is lacking with such views are that something is and that missing aspect is precisely suffering from the egotistical trap. When one falls victim to such a mode of being the subject further delves into espousal air of self-importance as if everything needs revolves around the latter in spite of noticeable contradictions. Whilst abominable are abhorred in any authentic quarters, our comrade justify his or her activities as being acts ordained around a particular belief-system. Mahatma Gandhi for his part clearly stated that there is no belief for which he was prepared to take any life and indeed to harm any other. It is a rare few may adopt the Gandhian model perspective but the point from this is that inherent in this is the aspect of respect for any other is firmly rooted.

This respect is not something that needs be earned as in materialism but needs to come as part of a usual mode of being. In this respect, Swami Bhaktivedanta Swami writes that in one of his purport in Bhagagavad Gita 9.11 that “ a devotee should see because Krsna is present in everyone’s heart as Paramatma, everybody is the embodiment or the temple of the Lord; so as one offers respect to the temple of the Lord, he should similarly properly offers respect each and every body in which the paramatma dwells. Everyone should therefore be given proper respect and should not be. neglected.

The point of espousal of a particular way of being or a dogma is that reflection is condemned at the outset. The call is adopt and abide and often one notices that one is no more than an automaton without realising it. The idea or the espoused-parochial takes precedence. Often there are some cliches thrown about whilst the living warmth of the type Albert Camus speaks of is non existent in the schema of our comrade for who it is a question of me and the other, with the latter just viewed as inferior and the ‘me’ being what matters.

In someways, it is no surprise that this is so as what one learns following the rude awakening is centred around outdoing of the other by whatever means necessary. ….where the latter is objectified for the benefit of the subject. It is all a fiercely competitive form which is at work. Therefore when the person even where a wholly authentic form present, fail to perceive this and abide by cent per cent by that. Rather, our comrade brings the crude form thereby polluting it. ….instead of being fashioned by it as what is promoted is indeed a truncated version of spiritualism…. which then begs the question: ‘ What is spirituality?”

For sure, we may easily say what it is not: Let’s try looking at this aspect. It is not of what is perceivable, the bodily self with its arrogance, ego and that one who knows everything and perpetually live in bad faith where there is a separated mode of existence where the person always remains on a crusade at seeking to outdo the other. One who identifies with the bodily self may not really understand or transcend materialism per se. And if one does not do that, spirituality proper remains aloof and one may be prone to fail since the subject merely revels in the ephemeral which verily is the opposite of our search into being.

Spirituality is certainly a movement away from the norm of materialism and may only be found when the subject no longer resides in the realm of materialism with its codes of hatred, jealousy, and relegating of the other, any other but rather it is all about acknowledging any other as a living warmth equally deserving one’s respect respect regardless of not only being human but even if the other belongs to a different specie. Is this possible? Or should one carry on with the usual trends of existence in separatism which brings further divisions and other non-warranted ways of being.

As I write, I cannot but recall a certain Francis of Assisi who even whilst saving animals from fire refers to even elements as equally deserving respect. May such a state be possible? Or shall we carry on with our prejudices and so continue existing as we have always done in similar mode where the other remains an object to be ignored if not quite ignored. Is it possible to have a shift of consciousness?

We always wish things to happen in a certain way. Or pray for the good things to come our way but this does not always follow as we wish. Sometimes events turn sour and we get overwhelmed by it all. And so come the sorrow, those deeply felt emotion which gets the better of us. That is where one has to be alert and not be carried away by emotions.

Equanimity of the mind or mindfulness is that state which is to stay calm even in happiness and in many ways becomes a training ground when the opposite emerges. To be able to keep calm whatever the situation is the way of wisdom as this ensures that the mind is not affected by the upturn of events.

In Buddhist terminology this is known as upekkha or the idea of ‘to look over’ ie to gaze and or to develop that sense of awareness or as Gil Fronsdal, a teacher at The Insight Meditation, California says that The Buddha described upekkha as being “ abundant, exalted immeasurable without hostility and without ill-will.” Barbara O’Brien (2019) on this topic refers to Bikkhu Bodhi, a Theravada Monk who says this equanimity of being is precisely not to be overwhelmed by “ passions, desires, likes and dislikes.” This is more to the point or as The Bikkhu puts it” It is evenness of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honour and dishonour, praise and blame , pleasure and pain.”

In that same article on defining this word, the author Barbara refers to Thich Nhat Hanh who in his …The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching mention that the Sanskrit word upeksa means ‘equanimity, non-attachment, non-discrimination, even-mindedness or letting-go.

What one needs doing is to be always alert to and realise that there is something higher than the mind which is always restless and turbulent in the world when faced with what is manifested. One who is able to train the mind takes shelter of the real self that essential being or atma as is referred to in Sanskrit.

Actually one does not quite take shelter of the real being which one is but verily sees that every other is in the same situation, in helplessness and being effected in many ways by the march of time. There is a sense of misidentification or trying to not really come to terms to the real being and so one remains confused by adopting a truncated form of being by believing that all one may be is the bodily-self which reveals itself and or perceived most directly which one may take as the real self. In many ways it is a question of perceiving that essentially being.

When the individual realises who one is then one witnesses with an equal vision any and every other regardless of specie that one is simply entangled in the web of desires which is without limit. The other likewise is in a similar position. Wisdom therefore entails that one needs develop a real sense of being rather than the partial format which often gives rise to problematic views. Or one may say there is more to oneself rather than what is most directly viewed.

Such a realisation that one is not an object to be moulded in shape or form often means that there is hope on the horizon as in someways this reconnects us with our being and so it does not waver about hither and tither in the world. It is not that one does not show emotion but it is a question of training and practice. Put it another way, this essentially means realising who one is really, truly and fully in that there may not be mis-identification with the deha or bodily concept of being. Or that one may not be mere thoughts when the mental element about us takes over. Even more to the point, the individual has indeed to truly come to its senses in that it is not being carried over by the whims of the mind. The training is precisely knowledge of who one is initially whereas the practice is to watch over the veil or barriers of the diktat of the mind but simply watching over rather being submerged either way in the extremes of contentment and or distress.
Verily, it is simply a question of being there and witnessing the outcomes to which one goes through.

Naturally, the murmurs about are that all this may be a per impossibile since one is by nature always in and somehow by being entangled in the world order, and this means one is subject to the norms of the way of the world.However our contention is precisely that at the superficial level this may be so but viewed from the transcendental platform, one who is not limited by the norm of the material may see beyond the confines or parochial of the obvious whereas what one may see with a clear vision is that which is not tainted by the superficial.

Arjuna points to Krsna in Bhagavad Gita that the mind is restless, turbulent, obstinate and very strong…..and controlling it,is even more difficult than controlling the wind…… to which Krsna agrees in his reply to his disciple that may be so but through training and practice it is possible to curb the frailties of the mind.

The call is to align with mindfulness of the form the Buddha refers to or as Krsna says one needs to learn to move away from the level of the mind which makes one realises that one is more than just what is perceived easily. The real me is often illusive.It is through the latter that one may find a way out of the maze. However, in life one remains within the realm of the mind which continually plays tricks upon us.

This equanimity may be adopted when one truly realises oneself or that one may not be a mere superficiality in that one keeps giving the self to that truncated form. It is about that Upekha, mindfulness, training and practice and a realisation of who one is. Is this possible?

We always suffer in the material realm as this is precisely what constitutes us as being in the world.As we have previously remarked to exist is to suffer in some ways or other. There is no such thing as having a complete freedom from suffering.That would not be the way of the world as one knows it.Either we are made to suffer via nature or be the cause which brings about suffering. It seems as if due to partiality, and ignoring or denigrating of the other, one is so subjected when there is direct human involvement mainly. Let’s explore this aspect.

As soon as one awakens, we espouse a certain way of being and with time this is taken as the norm and hence the beginning of existence as a partial view. This partiality makes one address the other often in derogatory terms as if the non-me is an an alien. That such prejudice is deeply rooted is all too obvious in the way one relates to others.It is very much that the other is seen as the problem whereas the I of one’s being has all the credentials to be whilst either denying the non-me having any such value in life. It reflects the way of one who may use condescending language to put it politely whereas one is only too aware that adopting a certain idiosyncratic view often would relegate the other to the dungeon in one’s view thereby a certain l self-imposed-do-what-one-wishes licence emerges for oneself whether verbally and or otherwise through actions. Needless to comment both of these are are not positive and if anything certain become the ingredients to keep downgrading and or doing anything within one’s power to subjugate the weaker party since the actor sees the self as the stronger one whether in thoughts or deeds.

Or there is no need for the other to be. The world view of such a partial way of being is precisely to keep placing oneself on a pedestal at the same time as denigrating of the other. There is a sense of forgetting essentially who one is. All is viewed as per a superficial way of being based on one’s partiality.

This partiality in practice may mean that one immediately sees oneself as black, white, Indian or other Asian or sees oneself as being part of a group due to a way of being seen based on physical appearance. Defining ourselves thus, the individual then develops attachment to that and verily lives as per the diktat which such a confinement imposes on oneself.

Another group happily sees itself as Atheistic, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Sikh or similar other. Seeing the self along these lines creates barriers without quite trying to understand the basic nature of one’s being….. in that one is simply human after all and the rest is imposition. Yet one happily lives in the way so described.

Another way of seeing oneself is to live as per the confines of nationalism where one sees the self as Russian, American, French, Indian, African or Japanese and so on. Again by doing so, one lives as if all the others within that group so categorised are homogeneous. This is verily far from reality since one only needs to consider the diverse political views within a nation to realise how divided one is anyhow.

Others sees themselves as young, middle aged, old and so lead a certain type of existence…. a mere acceptance as being part of such a group essentially reflect the way one acts whereas the fact always remains that one continues to adopt a certain lifestyle based on acceptance of one being so and so.

There are others who see themselves as women, men, gay, transvestite and happily lead a way of life based on how one sees the self via sexuality.

Likewise, there are other social and or cultural or educational divisions. In this way, we suffer from the social, cultural, educational malady or similar prejudice. Once, such a view is adopted, partiality in a negative sense may manifest itself based on an ism …..which may result in violence of the verbal, mental or physical type.

One may become racist, a few ageists, some sexist, one or two turned into fundamentalists whilst others just carries over their prejudice as a barrier or simply not according being to the other with the latter objectified in essence. There is a sense of forgetting how one has emerged in this world. Not as a controller but of one who cries out for help from the other in the first instance and verily relying on goodwill of others. Yet through the passage of time, that same person who once was the mercy of others albeit one’s parents suddenly seek to impose and nurture negative vows based on some ism of any form.

It is not a question of realising of the the fact that there are inherent problems in adopting a view or an ism. It is to be alert that in spite perhaps of espousal of a certain mode of being, one begins to see the defiance in being so. More importantly is it possible to be move above and beyond the limitation of a certain view to just see?

Is it possible to do so? Or is one a mere victim of being in the world in that whatever one does, there a every chance to succumb to the idea of partiality unless one seeks to develop authenticity and verily prepares to be in dialogue with the other rather than creating barriers?

The question remaining to be asked is who am I finally? What this ‘I ‘ of my being? That is why we keep saying that a realisation of who one is remains a primordial query whilst trying to query on the who am I? And more importantly, what is my relationship with the other? Is it possible to get out of this mode of partial thinking or is it the case that we are condemned for ever. Who knows?

A new year around the corner. Almost two years on. All is back to square one. It seems that little has been learnt on aspects of what to do or not to do. One still carries on with superficial exercise of throwing about verbal garbages based on one’s frailty of being and or idiosyncrasy. It is still very much all a la superficial, as all still based on the corporeal aspect of being. The search for that elusive happiness however momentarily, still remains the measure of being. It is the standard set by each and everyone in that we carry on leading a mundane way of being… where the belief is that by a mere adjustment or doing a few things here and there contentment will be here for ever!

It has mostly been so at all times generally as far as one may remember. It is not fun adopting a way of life which questions the fabric of the search for happiness as being the measure of everything through which one needs to exist or adopt. Try breaking this mode of being and one is classed as being a weirdo in the eyes of those who have espoused that superficial way of being. Yet all that were halted when the world was forced to surrender and reconsider. …. But all lasted for a while only……

The call for reflection is not an option, not yet. That we were pushed to sit back, take stock of the way we have led our lives may never be considered at least not yet as one forges ahead in life as we may continue with our controlling nature in attempting to subjugate nature in its animate and inanimate forms. After all with such a logic, it is for every question of putting the me-ism aspect over and above each and everyone. …. which links in many aspects to seeing oneself as that which is directly visible. It is only time before one gets back to so-called normality or so one may think..

On another note, the person remains a closed entity, carrying the seeds of hatred about oneself to the exclusion others. That the ‘me’ knows it all, a sadistic self which denies the other or more precisely puts the latter into subjugation or keeps putting the non-me down as if by such a process one achieves grandeur. On such a crude view, the agenda is all about oneself that being who knows it all and follows a set pattern whereas any other not associating with ‘me’ is subjected to be put down, negated and in many cases abused whether verbally or otherwise. In such a state, all is about oneself, the me, me and me.

Therefore, in some ambiguous ways that this needs be so as one gets identified through association and or being linked with that body in which one is. However, to make this the be and end of everything is the problem as all that one witnesses about is that sense of myself and others is what the reminder that who one essentially is. Or that one is the body and yet it is frailty of existence. It may not be at any moment. In the first wave which harnessed fear into us, we somehow developed this fear of not being. A reality that life is fragile and that one may or rather reflect on one’s nature. This non-being is not simply something that a certain aged group may worry as traces that one may be hit regardless of age, is about us. Frightening that this so in that the individual for a little begin pondering on life and and the bigger question. …. But then after a while all is back to normal as we revert to crude ways with our malady not being questioned!

To put this differently, that one may no longer be is about us was there at all times. The tune has again changed. Perhaps one may still by pass the warnings and carries on with the so-called normal life. The obvious egocentric approach will simply not do and yet still one notices pockets of separatism sometimes in its violent aspects surfacing here and there.

The crude culture is that one needs to belong to some thing, a particular ideology or a way of life which essentially denies some other, which becomes exclusive. Where this is so, there is a problem and that problem is one of seeing the other as an enemy or someone lesser due to a particular approach. It is also about having a condescending view that one is better. In this way, it is about right and wrongs in that ‘my’ belief system is better and yours is a lack. In some ways all that existed and requires a reality check so to speak in order to be there in the midst of the world.

Then came that invisible enemy to borrow a phrase from President Macron of France where in some ways there is a called on humanoids to unite rather than divide. With lesson not-learnt, one still still struggle on what to do or not to do. How may one really fight that enemy which is around and about us? A deeply rooted malaise.

The warnings of Covid 19 has not quite filtered through since one carries on naively thinking that there is no need to reconsider one’s ways as all will be back to so-called normal way of being. Or that is really above and better than others and that the other is a lesser being and that one is on a pedestal, whilst the not- me being at best someone there but for one’s own benefit. The ways of the crude or vulgar does not end there. The point being that one needs to from then onwards forcefully or otherwise tries coercing others into subjugation. To be in the world is to make others subservient to oneself regardless. If a little coercion, force or even violence is required, one is prepared to follow such a route as it embellishes the false ego which associate the self with the crude bodily being.

Ultimately the question remains not of being or not being but that of how to be in the mode of authenticity. Is this an option if at all or should one espouse the way of hatred, anger, lust and violence, not necessarily of the physical form and adopt an conceited approach. Who knows?

As one goes through life there is always one or other form of transition which happens. Even the temporal is subjected at all times in that there is a movement. Nothing is static. Everything is a flux state. Only the naïve may think that the nature of what unfolds in front of oneself with its glamour and its relative peace has an existence in itself and that of its durability.
The Buddha sure, warns us about the impermanent nature of being. Whilst observation of the nature as it is from this perspective, is obvious that this is so.Or there is nothing which is so potent in itself from the material aspect that makes one verily absorbed in itself.or when one does so, then of course dukkha or suffering kicks in with a relatively non comprehension of a attempting to give essence to being a la non transcendence. For the naïve, sukkha or happiness is also embedded herewith. Sure, this is our point of divergence from the Buddhist perspective whilst we carry on our search onwards.
That the temporal poses a threat to the real is obvious. Jesus also directs his followers towards a realm which calls on adherent towards the kingdom where moth does not gather.Likewise, in his moments of reflection, the revered Prophet Muhammad would move away from the madding crowd and search for a way of being which shows a way to be shared until revelation was bestowed unto him. More recently, Guru Nanak likewise was reputed to also have visions of transcendence which he shared too with others about him.
Throughout history, we continue to observe such rare moments where a few rare souls arrived and changed the course of history with a different message not readily generally accepted by people about them initially but nonetheless recognise with the March of time. Somehow though what we are attempting to convey is that some had impact and it appears if there is a togetherness in those apparently conflicting messages from at least an academic or other similar observable viewpoints it is verily on the fact of the strengths of the pronouncement which attract and or attracted at least many, some or a few others towards researching and or questioning the obvious into which one is embedded. We co-exist in an arena where messages are thrown around and about so freely with social media that one has to be of course vigilant at all times and not be mesmerised by popular trends. Krishnamuti would often make others realise on the why of acceptance of something as opposed to others. Sure, he challenged foundation of everything. Trying to make sense of it all in the world arena may be baffling. Where does one go?
Well part of the problem of being is that one keeps being baffled by the obvious. The search for being is an old one. The crux of the matter is that may one actually see the frailties of the material which somehow these proponents says are there and when one does so what? It is then obvious that one goes in the realm of choice and on our choice depends how to be.
The choice that we have adopted and would explore further is linked with vaisnavism in that it is linked very much which what Srila Prabhupada attempted doing when he reached out to the west and eventually as one knows there is a world wide active community of devotees about and verily living a Krsna Philosophy.
That our transition will take this route and so we propose in future to explore Vaisnava concepts and or personalities and ideas throughout our future bogs generally as a deliberate moving away from the material and remain with our mantra for being blog onto transcendence. That our blogs has been been Inspired by Vaisnava philosophy may be obvious to some and not so to others. What it will provide is a forum where we shall attempt to explore in a more explicit way subject matters which otherwise would have been impossible to do.
For sure this is another challenge when we started a few years ago and 108 blogs later it is about time that one moves along from the temporal proper and remain more focus on transcendental matters which are beyond the obvious and the known particularly in the realm of thinking.
Hopefully all this will makes one reflect on being and at the same time create challenges for the reader to explore together a lifestyle which for sure affects millions around the globe and which started by a single effort of one elderly gentleman by the name of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Obviously, the latter arrived with a form message of Krsna consciousness to the western world armed with Bhagavad Philosophy relating to the transcendental. Prabhupada’s message is never his own as he reminds others but what has flows down from the origin, that source proper tracing back towards not what one may say have its roots in the annals of history as one knows it but essentially revering at the beginning of time towards the Supreme Person from whom everything originates. Refers to as the parampara system, this therefore is the beginning of it all.
The message was clear. It was never about him at all but of pointing out how one misses an important element referred to as aspect of duty that is one’s eternel duty in life. …in that one has failed to cognise our quintessence of being as well as realising the link to the eternal. When this is so, the subject runs here, there and everywhere in search, a mundane search and in the process is entangled in the world and so divert one’s duty towards the temporal notably that of serving others around and about us.
In a way, here the proclamation is not about what traditional religions may pronounce in that there is a way which some may say goes parallel with one’s normal life or attempt to be pious as a way of being. It is a little bit more, and the more being verily it is for one to cognise that what is being propounded is one’s nature with life itself. It is cognition of what Prabhupad calls sanatana dharma or eternal occupation or duty and for sure not to be confounded by the appellation of a particular group which may try to get exclusivity based on dogmas. Verily Sanata means exactly what it says the idea of being transcendental and the other bit of dharma refers to duty. Or what is one’s duty in the midst of confusions, conflicts, hatred, hypocrisies, despair and violence.
A clear apprehension of life is a realisation and once the student perceives that this be so, there is onwards turning towards the Supreme. Verily that was A C Swami Bhaktivedanta Prabhupad’s message to the world. Hey guys try and realise that either you are serving material culture and so entangled. Knowing that this be so, what next? This is precisely our starting o towards transcendence!

Life always throws a choice at us, regardless of who one is, whether one is big, small, rich, poor, man or woman. There is never an excuse of shifting the blame on any other whether animate or inanimate. The choice to be is of one’s making particularly where one leads a life thinking that the one is a knower: a malady of the modern mind who by doing so merely refuses to seek ways at correcting the self in that there is a proclamation that one knows what one wants and or wishes to. This means that the subject is on par with what needs doing rationally or what needs not doing. A simple formula to moves onwards with the only problem being that the person after acknowledging that is so then shifts onto a mode of excuses and irrationality of looking at other underlying reasons for a personal frailty. This is also where impulsiveness emerges where the subject believes that one knows it all and that one is a complete absolutely regardless.
The problem with such an attitude is that the proponent is a mere reactionary , nay a victim of circumstances. Or let’s remark that the subject never approaches life as per the dialectics of being with weakness of heart which indeed is the cause of underlying issues. This weakness of the heart is based very much on the superficial way of being where one is addicted to life via one’s fixation and that is giving into one’s vanity. That vanity makes one takes irrational steps in trying to seek a solution. Rather, all is problematic rather than a cure. There may never be a cure but the subject feels that one’s approach of impulsivity is the way forward. Just like Schindler, one is closed to all possibilities. Rather, one becomes the measure of being. Whatever one reactively think may be the answer. The resultant of all that means that one becomes no more than an unbalanced and perpetually weakened person. There is never an acknowledgement that this is so as always the individual remains in a ghetto of pettiness where one’s world view is a battered one or fails to reach out. Content that one knows, the vulgar lives in its encaged world where one is trapped in isolation. There is a paranoia of seeking to reach out. One remains aloof and content with one’s idiosyncrasies and therein lies the problem when the subject aims a dig about and around in that the subject only knows and everyone else needs be subservient to even one’s irrational approach of being. Truly the person lives in a different world, a world that demands manipulation of others about for one’s frailty. Clearly observable by everyone else except the subject and the latter then becomes a liability for every other except that the subject never realises that this is so.
It is my life and I can do whatever ‘I ‘ want. And so the manipulative person tries and sees what is best for oneself. The only problems of being so is that in the process the former drags along others to one’s ways and kind of makes the irrational appears rational and inversely goes on a crusade of attempt making the irrational an authentic way of being. On this very subjective view all it means is that whatever one pronounces needs to have viability. That is is a manipulation of being never occurs to the arrogant, vulgar and the crude. The idea being whatever, ‘I’ think, feel and do is what others needs to follow. That one has verily got the dialectics upside down may never be realised by the subject who feels that one is right. The other problem of such an attitude is that slowly such types of manipulation slowly creeps around and about and there we have it, a society of ruffians who feels that their way is the approach to take. A kind of arrogance of being where the spirit of seeking to derive from the common element of actual and real authenticity becomes victim to the parochial opinionated verbosity becomes the measure of being.
Arrogance arises because the subject feels that she or he needs to be in control of everything. Where this is not so there is almost a rebellion on the part of the subject usually the person taking shelter of rudeness irrationality and sometimes violence to gets his/her ways. The problem with violence is that there is never an excuse to be so. It is like inviting a free for all, or bringing in the law of the jungle.
Or that is the part of the choice in that one may choose either to act rationally or irrationally. And inversely for us to support the non rational which lots of people tends to do everywhere. How does one breaks free from all this. What is the way forward? Or should one content to be so? Or accepting nonsense as a norm. What to do or not to do? How does one know that one is treading a path as advocated by a sense of rationality par excellence rather than be victim of the other who is manipulative.
How does one recognise authenticity of being as opposed to crudeness? The question is, is it simply a question of comprehending what needs doing and not doing. We all know all that and yet one choose the irrational, the manipulative and also abide or side with a terror approach. How may one be free of all that and lead a pure , simple and untainted life away from the arrogant? Is this possible if at all or is one condemned to be into a simpleton of either or. More to the point as this blogger has previously remarked… To be or not to be is no longer the question. The question is how to be. It is therefore not a simpleton of refraining from action and or doing something in the mode of engaging in one’s activities. More to the point how does one do so, not mechanically but perhaps coining the term pro-active transcendence as opposed to reactive transcendence which makes one arise over and beyond the temporary, that futile way of being, that arrogance and or those modes which breeds fears, hatred, envy and in the process violence of being. There is always a choice. That’s why one is blessed with the faculty of rising beyond the frailty of being.

The mind in a sense still wish to stick around and remain at a point where things are or should be how they are. That this should be so is a far cry of romantics and dreamers, the creators but not those who realise that a life is a movement, nay an going continuous one of always being in flux of the type Buddha observed following his enlightenment. In some ways entangled in the current dilemma has forced world leaders in trying to do everything so that the situation will get to normality and in some sense the way it was.In some ways it is wished that this be so, yet if this were happening in made up motion movie, one would have happily sit and just enjoyed the 100 mins or 180 hours of excitement as it unfolds in front of our screen….depends whether Bollywood or Hollywood.The point is that one needs to see the reality of where the world is at this juncture where it is facing an unprecedented challenge affecting the way life has always been but for a threat which clearly is not over by any means.

Somehow the truth of the matter is that more than a year from what hit the world as a phenomenon there is still a continuous outcry that one needs to get back to that point where normality would resurface the way it was and riding of the this temporary hitch in the way that the invisible enemy found a way in our midst. Or that somehow it has to be so surely…..

The sooner humanoids begin to accept that there is no way at getting back to the way it was, the sooner one would have comprehend this problem and move onwards. All a question of seeing what lies ahead in the horizon taking note of what our actual situation is. In many ways life is not simply about removal of the disease and living free it completely. Not do so do would be to plunge further and further in darkness in that there would be no way out. The fact is it is a clear matter of all this being our new way of life.

Problems are part of life. Not to recognise that this is so is the main problem and so there may be attempts to simply delve on self pity as a society or a world at large. The point about life is that challenges will always be there. If seen as a mere problem one is simply stuck at the base and so invite aspects of plunging into sorrow and with it will arrive discordance. Finding ways around may mean also not to grapple with it from the merely traditional. That effort are made around and about to seek a way of the dungeon of being a world order brutally shaken is around, about all of us.

So what do we do or not do as a way to find away out of this maze? Verily that is the challenge. Does one still carry on seeking ways of working all out to find a solution as per a a return to the way it was or should one move ahead. To simply work seeking to reach a certain point free of the invisible enemy may not do. It would be a failure to apprehend on how things are about us now. It calls for a shift in paradigm and appreciating life as it fully.

To appreciate this fully verily means that it is all a question of acceptance of that phenomenon: Something which is here, a part of life and that one may have to death with this and sought ways round it. Just like the thousands of problems one deals with as a nation, society and world at large the invisible enemy has hit us in a way from which there need be a concerted united effort rather than being complacent. Try the latter and you are put backwards, way back with the possibility of being literally overwhelmed.

What need doing is to move away from that kind of naivity which is crippling that all may return at a point in the past and that one may easily revert to it based on our genius ability at solving problems which is no more than patching a bit here, there and about and hope via a reactionary way things will be back to where it was.

The reality is that one has to be frank and with a question of moving onwards and trying to resolve the mess that has been created. Sooner this is apprehended the world will find a solution and try living taking note that it is question of wising up. Problems are, there, and everywhere. All a question of approach. What does one do? What is the most challenging of one’s problems? Upon acknowledging the what is one perhaps would find a way out of the conundrum. The point is to envision the way ahead which is never moving backwards in time but seek to move onwards. This may mean putting things in perspective or looking at real alternatives or perhaps after all one needs to see everything as perhaps after all there is point in finding solutions not via the common materialistic perspective but loo beyond. Perhaps on the way we relate. Perhaps how one should really be as often been pointed out by those transcendentalist who does not denigrate any other but seek a way out of a hitherto failed attempt at living in a way based on the superficial and temporal. Perhaps there is case to ponder on the idea of philosopher kings and away from that roguish trend which always which puts not opposition but often plain enmity even within same society. Or a cut throat attitude that of outdoing of the other as success entails figuratively shooting down of the other.

And even in that clear episode one is living through again there is a lack of cooperation as all hinges on trying to convince the other at accepting whatever way one believes to be the norm . Sure in this process there is always a failure of demagogy instead of attempting to seek out a way out, but for which requiring a clear insight into the dialectics rather than be overwhelmed by the frictions and thereby missing the point altogether as the zen proverb puts it do not mistake the finger for the moon. Or one needs not be overwhelmed by the means and so falls in the trap of the reactionary . It is always important to see The whole as opposed to the part and in so doing one may make sense.

In summary may we rise beyond the mere frictions to actually see and perhaps from then onwards seek a solution which is always a praxis but never a mere passivity. What does this mean? Is this possible?

To have a vision or a goal is what makes one see clearly on what to do do or what not to do.It is to be clear what direction one may be heading. Rather than being cornered in at the whims of others and simply just simply react and so live in the world of regurgitation one becomes proactive in that there is a a meaningful approach of moving forwards not undermined by the frivolous but verily seeking a way out of the conundrum of being through a clear view ahead, that clarity which may or may not be perceived.

In some ways one has perceived that way ahead or a goal then one needs making leaps forward in this direction rather than be left bemused by it all. In some ways it is never simply a question of the what and what not but more importantly on the how. That is a quintessence of the way forward as the call is to expertly try to reach there towards that goal or is never a simpleton of arriving there.

The vulgar view is that one may reach whatever or however whether one walks on the heads of others translated as trampling on others may not do if only from an ethical perspective. The point about life is that in some ways both the means and end needs be synergies in a way of being where there is no friction or bickering but importantly that one is an expert at envisioning also the way ahead accomplishes in such a way that one becomes in many ways an paradigm of being . The call therefore is very much about being an expert at moving onwards or forwards so that appreciation may emerge almost naturally rather than be caught up in the ways which lacks that element of apprehending reality as per a way which somehow does not denigrate any other but rather showing and or clarifying a way ahead which appreciates instead.

This makes the vision ahead differ from the vulgar or crude who though seeing a goal ahead lacks those finesse of approach. This is precisely what one needs doing in that world of a way ahead where one often is entangled in the means rather the end. Or we may observe that some sees the goal and yet the reaching there leaves little to be desired and so although seeing the goal ahead are in many ways not quite an epitome of being. Others simply fail to apprehend as they are content at just engaging in life in a goalless mode or simply drifting about and around and so have simply a lack of vision. To say that most of us are in this category may be appropriate as there is always a genuine attempt forward to seek to be but one may have not even have been so exposed at seeing that what makes one focus on a certain way of being.

The subject is contented with just living and or so mere existing as life is an ongoing struggle which the person just merely about seek coping. As such all life is kind of upside down with a relentless ongoings to make ends meet financially leaving the person with little or time to really be what one wants or most of the time one happily leaves things onto the others and in the process one simply drifts along and remains as happy with one’s frantic style at the mercy of others. In other words, here we have it. Most of us are a wreck moving around and about without a goal ahead….

And so one comes to having a goal. Just as in different sports there is a goal likewise there is a choice of what and how to proceed after first uncovering a goal. Life also throws in front of us goals that are as wide and varied and it is to be sure for the seeker to work through the conundrum of what to select and one e this is done to move forward. This is where one differs from the others in that it is never a question of imposing but of exposing. When choosing the latter way the other is free to see the way ahead rather than be forced into subjugation. One may choose a way which puts envy, hatred and blatant bickering as the way ahead. It is for the expert within us to verily see the logistics of a particular way. Definitely the call needs be on the person, on the individual to move and move onwards towards that choice. The vulgar once sets a goal cares little how it is achieved as long the objective is reached as in crusade materialism which has no concern at all for any other. On this view it is fine traumatising the other as long as the subject is fine or as long as the end is achieved. We are certain that there would be others who would vehemently opposed such a strategy which is taken from the ways of the mundane, a far cry from the idea of how.

Expertise is required to have that goal which in the first place is not spurious but more of ongoing towards an authentic one where all has been thought of instead of just drifting along as the superficial reactionary does with no clear way ahead and all submerging in an arena of discordance.
The emerging questions out of all this is how does one get a vision ahead which is not vulgar, neither is it inappropriate or that it follows a pattern which is aligned to an authentic way of being where one although seeing what needs doing also is conscious that one may not be a rogue per sea thereby respecting others fully and adequately regardless. Or let us observe that it is to be sure never just simpleton of reaching a set goal but verily and importantly how does one gets there. Or perhaps precisely retort that the process is as equally rewarding as the goal. Or indeed without going through a finesse of being the goal sought may never materialise in any case encompassing both the end or goal and the means or process adopted requiring a praxis or a linked synergy of being.

One who claims expertise within the conditioned world verily walk about and around claiming that the subject knows it all and that life should be so fashioned as per their whims of oneself. In that state, they pronounce on any and every other caring little that what they have in front of them is a similar being with equally as powerful but the former may still choose to advocate the principle of authority in that they are the one who know and the rest needs to be subservient.
Trying to control each and everything thing is nothing new. Society at large has its own rules and regulations and within each society there are also opponents who have an equally different perspective on life and or to be. At the personal level and or within a nuclear family to be precise, often there are frictions and bickering so in that one lives within contradiction often marred with anger and hatred. And so the world goes by both at the personal and impersonal level.
Conditioned life is just an arena where one freely seems to be given a licence to pour scorn on any and everything and so lots of verbiage are regurgitated based in a spurious way. That one knows . That one pronounce freely and throw garbages figuratively speaking where aiming to belittle or downgrade the other. As if there is quite a clear cut way of being in that the proponent is the only one who knows. The art of living is as per a way and being the only way. The vulgar may never pause and check one’s way of being. It is a clear question that the subject has the feeling that one is the measure of being in that whatever is said and thought of needs be the way forward whereas keep looking at any other as being the source and cause of every malaise about whilst one knows. That arrogance of the self coupled with pride and harshness is sufficient to make others realise in spite of their so called care, there is a lot of lack of being which the subject never apprehends due to the conceit aspect in their way of being. As theirs is always about perpetual downgrading of the other .
Mundane living is the arena of negativism where one is prized over and above any other and the latter becomes the subject of one’s lack in being but the subject always feels that oneself is always right and kind of a circle of ongoing drama as each and very one may have such claim but one who adopts the path of adjusting and creating disharmony merely feels that they wish to control everything. At no time the subject will stop and pause reflecting what if the other is to state similar things towards one. What may be the reaction? In society at large there we have parties with diverging views and seeking control and it is a question of seeking to convince others about.
The appreciation that there need be agreement to disagree at the base is never quite apprehended with the subject seeking to keep control amid denigration of the other even to the point of anger resulting in violence verbal or otherwise where there is trend at belittling of the other as of by so doing success may be achieve by the petty self.
At the personal level if there is no reaching out to the other one may fall in the trap of remaining a lone figure and should one be prepared to carry on as sooner or later even within close relationships such extreme forms of disagreements may lead to people calling time and moving on. And for sanity’s sake that is how one falls out with others and by so doing what was once an object of love transit as quickly into that of its opposite or hatred. With hatred emerging, one falls into the trap of the insane and duplicity forms of existence is observed.

To be sure, each and every single entity has been given the opportunity to live and lead an existence where they may grow as the choose fit to be and not live within the shades of any other who may proclaim that they know it all. That one has the right to be and seek a lifestyle unperturbed from any form hindrance. One needs to respect that the other is as free as oneself and that must be at the forefront of respect. The point about living within the mundane is to try and develop humanness at an unparalleled peak. Or one falls astray in the realm of the superficial.
That one chooses the realm of an authentic transcendental way is no surprise as there is always a lack in material living. The latter merely proposes a way based on the crude senses seeking ultimate pleasure based on the me, me and me and all life is such intentioned towards maximisation of a pleasures to the denial of its opposite. Elsewhere, we have pointed out that may not be since problems are inherent. Happiness within the realm of the mundane is merely temporary. They are her and all our adjustments will somehow be frustrated at the base. That is verily the problem of our comrade who feels that they should try and be the measure of everything. The dialectics are turned upside down in the way of the corrupted self. Rather than taking one’s strength from acknowledging from life, the subject tries dictating onto it seeking to impose.
Let’s be clear:It is always a question of exposing and not imposing. With the latter one transit into the realm of the superficial with its bickering, anger, envy, pride, arrogance, conceit, hatred and never quite appreciating oneself let alone any other as one is govern by the whims of the reactionary way. All is simply jettisoned into a way where the forces of negative are clearly encircling the subject except that one does not acknowledge one’s lack or ignorance. Rather there is a pretence that one is in full knowledge and that life should be so so fashioned as per the whims of the crude self. A sad state to be except due to arrogance and ignorance one fails to perceive one’s own lack of being which only those rare few may truly endeavour to address.
The question emerging herewith what are our lack in terms of qualities which are positive and bring togetherness? How may one know and so leave that road to despair and destruction and away from negativism? Is this possible? How may one find out? Who knows?