I have stopped writing this blog. Many posts are obsolete as I no longer subscribe to those views, but they provide a rudimentary idea of my spiritual and ideological inclinations.
Search This Blog
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Attachment vs Love
HH Bhakti Vasudeva Swami:
bird hashed her eggs to produce a very beautiful replica of herself. In
a few days, a hunter came by and the mother bird flew off to save her
life. Then the the hunter picked the "baby" birds and put them in a cage
with an opening to trap down the mother. The mother bird, being
attached to "her" kids, came to check the safety of her kids after some
time; without hesitation, she went into the cage, and its door was
automatically shut. The hunter's mission was accomplished. What
lesson(s) can we learn from this incident?"
Some of the replies are (no offense meant, just for education purpose):
"Selfishness (because the bird was attracted to her own images)"
"Natural behaviour in the material world"
"Maya is very smart"
"I and Mine"
"Darwinian world(my own answer)"
do the devotees think it was better for the mother to fly away, rather
than stay with her images in captivity? Are images illusionary? Are we
To die for her children would be an act of heroic love and surely the bird would attain heavenly planets.
seems like a Christian parable. That God created Adam and Eve in His
own image. Then the devil came and bewildered them. God abandoned them,
only to return later to die for their sins. I am sure the bird got
resurrected and the chicks would certainly go to Heaven if they have
faith that God entered the cage to die for their bewilderment.
Otherwise, they rot in Hell with the hunter. Amen.
story can have multiple interpretations: Mayavadi, Christian, Vaishnava
or Darwinian. What do you say? I feel most devotees have given a
Mayavadi interpretation. Can you give a Vaishnava one?
Vaishnava Interpretation: I
think a Vaishnava interpretation would go like this: The bird is a
soul, the chicks are its acquired karma and the hunter is Krishna.
Krishna bestows mercy upon the soul by taking away its karma, but it is
not ready to engage in devotional service, so it flies away to jnana
(liberation). But soon it falls down from that platform being attracted
to karma (sense gratification), since liberation without Krishna is
incomplete and gets trapped in Maya (cage). Now, the only way for the
soul is to recognise Krishna (sambandha), render service unto Him
(abhidheya) and when it develops love for Him (prayojana), it is freed
from the cage to enjoy in the pastimes of the transcendental hunter.
What a story?
Explanatory note: This
is the best I could do. Firstly, logic depends on the skill of the
logician. Secondly, some free hand is required in the interpretation of a
story. I am two minds about going further with this. Nevertheless, for
your sake, souls are trapped in the material world by Krishna (who
else?). Why? The acharays have explained it from various angles. In
short, some souls are alienated from Krishna, who manifests this
material world as a pastime to deliver these misguided souls. These
souls are eternally encaged in the material world.
or jnana have direct meanings. In that sense, both can be used in
bhakti, e.g., to serve Krishna (karma) or to know Krishna (jnana). But
in a special sense, i.e., in absence of bhakti, karma means ordinary
materialistic activities or a religion that asserts the material world,
and jnana means a negation of the material activities or worship of an
impersonal God. Jnanis are iconoclasts, i.e., they reject any
attribution of name, form, etc. to God. Adi Shankaracharya, of course,
played a balancing act by accepting two Gods, nirguna and saguna.
Mainstream Islam totally rejects saguna. Kabir accepts the Islamic
understanding of God and through him, many other Hindu gurus as well as
Sikhs. They are pure jnanis. For them, liberation involves running away
from the name, form, etc. of Krishna.
kills us again and again in this material world. In his interpretation
of the verse BG 15.7, mamaivamso jiva-loke, Vedanta Desika says that
Krishna has created death in this material world because He is a jealous
lover and He does not want His created beings (souls) to have any
permanent possession without Him. The hunter will kill the bird again
is no empty renunciation in Vaishnavism. Empty renunciation means
renunciation without any connection to Krishna’s business.
Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu
did not renounce because they were unable to maintain their families.
They renounced to expand the pastimes of Krishna. Indeed, they did not
renounce anything at all because they possessed Krishna who is
everything. So, what did they renounce?
That is all. I won’t wreck my head on this one any more.
Is it a happy ending?No,
not at all. The bird is released from jnana back into karma. She does
not know that she has to surrender to the hunter who created the cage.
You need to go there and preach.