- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hare Krishna prabhuji
Thank you once more for the service you are rendering. So beautiful blogs, books and so many questions which you have answered.
I was meditating on the points of this article. How to see this in the light of pure love which Krishna elaborates in answer to the questions posed by Gopis regarding his reciprocation of love. Krishna and His devotees at various places condemn a business like mentality of give and take. Yet Krishna also reciprocates our bhav, how can we harmonise this.
An understanding of unconditional love suggests that you love a person even if he is not reciprocating (because love is not about receiving only).
Especially these lines of the articles “His omnibenevolence is showing concern without emotional attachment. The emotional attachment exists only when there is love. If love doesn’t exist, then there is no emotional attachment, even though the soul is technically God’s child. Hence, because there is no attachment, we can say that God is indifferent. However, there is a tinge of concern even in that indifference, where God wants to get the soul back, but He is not going to force the return.”
The situation is always tit-for-tat. ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajami aham. As they surrender to Me, in the same way, I am worshipping them. There are different aspects of Krishna that deal with different types of souls. For example, one aspect of Krishna is death. In this form, Krishna has no mercy. But even the lack of mercy is just, moral, reciprocal, and proportionate. It is not an infinite punishment. It is not vengeance. It is not retribution. It is a precise and proportionate punishment, such that we can call the working of time to “law” as if it is certainly preordained.
Indifference equals impersonal, which equals laws. Whenever we can make a law about some activity, then God has become indifferent and impersonal toward us. Everything that is law-governed is still governed by a person. But it is governed as if an impersonal law is working instead of a person. Time is a good example of this. Time works impersonally. So we can call it a law. After so many years, this age will come. Then after so many years that age will come. This is seeming impersonal activity. It is also being done by a person. But that person has become so indifferent while doing the job of time that time has become an impersonal law.
The tinge of affection in the law is the morality, justice, and proportional response of the law. If the law was immoral, unjust, and non-proportionate, then we could call it vengeance, retribution, etc. Then it would not be impersonal. Anger and retribution would be the traits of a vengeful God. But God is not vengeful. His worst response to the worst deed is never more than the harm done by the deed. It is as if He is working like a numerical calculator with no emotion involved during the calculation.
The love of God is personalism and the absence of love is law. When a person works after calculating profit and loss then there is no love. Those whose hearts have no love, always think that reality is working due to impersonal laws. Their hearts are so stone-cold that they can’t think in terms of a person doing something voluntarily. It has to be precise input for precise output. The absence of love makes God operate like a machine. Thus, Krishna says that material nature is a yantra or machine after saying that this nature is daivi or divine. The person becomes impersonal due to the absence of love. It is the cold-hearted indifference of the law of morality and justice.
The science of astrology is one such impersonal science. It is the study of the lawfulness of morality and justice. But we can draw a chart of a person and predict impersonally. If you see a chart, then you don’t need to know the person. This is impersonalism. The chart is not working automatically. It is also the work of many persons. But the whole thing can be depersonalized as if it is a law. This is because morality and justice is an impersonal law. Thus God is understood as a person in the spiritual world and God seems like laws in the material world. That seeming impersonal lawfulness is also the working of a person. But if we are stone-cold in the heart then the law applies. If we become personal, then the law applies less and less. Ultimately, the law stops applying and that stage is called liberation. It is the point at which the impersonalism has been fully destroyed. It is the point at which we have understood how to behave just like God, namely, tit-for-tat.
It is very understandable when looked from the moral and fair point of view. But looking it from a point of understanding Krishna’s love I have this question. As you say “..Those whose hearts have no love, always think that reality is working due to impersonal laws….” and Krishna is acting like impersonal laws for few souls, even if the soul turns towards Krishna and both love each other, how is that ‘love’ if it depends on the reciprocation of the other, it is the precise mentality which Krishna condemns in love talking to Gopis and Prahlad condemns to Nrsimhadev when asked for a benediction.
The concept of “love” is quite misleading. It comes from the Christian concept of benevolence which is a one-sided love of God for the soul. In Christianity, God is so benevolent that He forgives the sins of the sinners without punishment. In fact, due to benevolence, God sacrifices His only son for the sins of sinners. No such love exists in actuality because nobody sacrifices their only son for the sins of the sinners. It is an imaginary construct in Christianity to avoid the purification of the soul by the false promise of forgiveness. There is no such forgiveness in reality.
The correct concept is devotion. The translation of bhakti is devotion and not love. We cannot be devoted to a thief. We can show some love by trying to correct the thief. But that love is limited. If the thief doesn’t want to be corrected, then devotion will require us to never stop trying to correct the thief and love requires us to stop trying after some time. Therefore, love is always limited. Devotion is unlimited.
Our relationship with God is that of devotion and not love. However, since most people keep thinking that bhakti is love therefore bhakti is not understood. God is unconditionally devoted to us if we are unconditionally devoted to Him. God is conditionally loving if we are conditionally loving. This is tit-for-tat. Devotion is a precondition for devotion. Love has supposedly no precondition. We are not talking about love. We are always talking about devotion. They are not the same.
The confusion is created by the English translation of bhakti as “love” which comes from the Christian concept of benevolence which is a one-sided love of God for the soul. Even in Christianity, one-sided love is not upheld because God sends people to eternal hell. If it was truly love, then the question of hell should not even arise. But it arises because if love exists then justice doesn’t exist. However, if devotion exists then justice also exists. Hence, love and justice are contradictory. But devotion and justice are compatible. Hence, the concept of benevolence and love are false concepts even in Christianity. They are just upheld to assuage the fear and guilt of sin. There is no rational foundation for these concepts. Hence those who talk of love are talking about a cheating religion. The Vedic system is not a cheating religion.
Try to understand the difference between love and devotion. Then try to contrast justice with love and devotion. Then understand that love comes from the Christian theology of benevolence. Then know that this theology of benevolence is violated in Christianity. Hence, the concept of love is refuted by the same religion that created it. Then understand that justice and love are incompatible. Finally, understand that devotion and justice are completely compatible. Then everything will be clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
