What I'm thinking

As the Damodara-lila instructs us, Yoga practice takes effort and grace. You've got to give it your full effort with your body and mind, and leave a space in your heart for grace.

How do you do that in practice? Go hard out all day, except for a sacred time when you just stop, down tools, throw your arms up in the air and chant the Holy Name - "do nothing".

Yesterday I added a friend in Facebook who has the exact same name as me - at least first name and second name.

He added me as a friend, and queried: "Is your name Joshua or Sitapati?"

Of course the answer is: "Both"

My Christian name is Joshua, my Vaisnava name is Sitapati.

Back in the day, lving in an Anglo-Saxon or Germanic tribe back in the old country, my name would have been just Wulf [wikipedia], meaning "the son of Wolf", who was the strong, powerful guy in the village named after the animal. Then, when we converted to Christianity through the influence of travelling missionaries I would have been given a "Christian name", in my case "Joshua" (meaning: Yahweh is Salvation [ref], roughly analogous to Mukunda), giving me the name Joshua Wulf.

Even today the term "Christian name" is commonly used in Western countries to denote the forename, as distinct from the surname (sirename), or family name [more on surnames].

The perjorative term karmi name is philosophically incorrect and a manifestation of cult mentality, for all you brain-washed cult members out there mouthing it unconsciously. ;-)

So the next stage of cultural evolution is the arrival of Vaisnavism to the Western countries (pascatya desa-tarine), and the adoption of Vaisnava, or "devotional" (note that Christian names are already devotional) names, by bearers of Christian names.

My son's name is interesting: Prahlad Narasingha Wulf Felix (Aussie form: Prahlad Wulf). In South American countries, such as Perú, where he was born, and other countries influenced by Spanish culture, everybody has two surnames - patrinomical and matrinomical. His father's surname is Wulf, referring to the Wolf, and his mother's surname is Felix, the name of a famous cat. Felix means "happy" or "lucky" in Latin (Spanish felicidad = happiness). Prahlad is the name of a famous devotee, and it means "excess of joy" [ref] or "one who gives joy to others" (what else do you do when you have an excess?).

We gave Prahlad his name because at the time he was conceived and through the early months of Param's pregnancy we were absorbed in the work of publishing "Los Enseñanzas Trascendentales de Prahlad Maharaja", a Spanish-language edition of The Transcendental Teachings of Prahlad Maharaja. It was also appropriate because his arrival brought us a lot of joy, after Western doctors told us we would never have children without major surgical intervention (go the Ayurveda!).

And what does this have to do with foreskins?

Funny you should ask that...

2000 years ago, as Paul began to spread his particular doctrines based on the personality of Christ (as distinct from the teachings of Christ's actual disciples, who were in doctrinal conflict with Paul) he found an extremely receptive audience amongst Gentile communities that had developed on the fringe of ex-pat Jewish communities.

Many non-Jews appreciated and respected the moral standards of the Jews, their monotheism, and their community spirit. One of the things that held them back from converting to Judaism, adopting a Jewish name and joining the tribe, however, was the slight detail of the chop-chop. Maybe not such a big deal when you're a baby, but a different story as an adult male in a pre-anaesthetic/antiseptic world.

Then along came Paul with a new version of Judaism (Paulian Christianity) with basically all the good bits, and no need to lose any of your bits to join. The Jewish community fringe joined his new movement in droves, adopting Christian names, and he gained huge initial momentum. The rest, as they say, is history...

"Hello My Name Is" photo from red5standingby via flickr

I'm working on the follow-up to my bestselling book "On Leadership". It's called "On Rulership".

The extended title is "On Rulership and the Volunteer Varnashram Society".

• Understanding who you are and being more that, and helping others to do the same is the essence of Leadership.
• Engaging others in systems and arrangements that allow them to use their strengths and abilities cooperatively in service to the Lord is the essence of Management.
• Protecting these people and this arrangement is the essence of Rulership.

Here's one point that I'll be developing in the book:

Transparency and accountability are important in Rulership. The other day I had a conversation with a friend, and when I mentioned these values he said: "These are democratic values", and began talking about electing leaders.

Transparency and Accountability are not exclusively democratic values. I work for a corporation where leaders are appointed (on the basis of performance). There are no elections - however, both transparency and accountability are core values of the organisation.

Varnashram society is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy. People do not become leaders through election, but through courageous engagement and demonstration of ability over time.

Even so, people do vote - with their feet. They can choose to participate or not. Therefore transparency and accountability are crucial to the volunteer varnashram society, and for there to be a balance in the system so that people are protected by rulers who serve them by serving the system that serves them.

In the mornings I am often visited by subtle entities. Sometimes they are malignant, taunting me or tempting me, sometimes benign, asking questions or offering advice. This morning I had an interesting conversation with an pious, inquisitive visitor.

This Morning's Visitor (arguing with friend and asking me for my opinion): Did God create man in a void, or was there something here already?

Me: The Bible at least tells us that there was something here, the Bhagavatam also. These things tell us something about the time of the creation of man. We may or may not believe these accounts. However, and more importantly, the creation of man definitely tells us something about the nature of the creator.

Gilbert Bilezikian, Wheaton Theological Seminary scholar and teacher of Bill Hybels, the founding pastor of American Protestant mega-church Willow creek, writes in his book "Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says About a Woman's Place in Church and Family":

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them."

- Genesis 1.27

Lesson: From intention (v. 26) God moves to action, as the moment for the creation of
humans arrives. The design calls for "man" (singular) made in His image (note the double parallelistic emphasis on the "image"). Then the divine decree crystallizes into action and (surprise!) the result is not one person, but two. The original order called only for the creation of "man"; but because the product had to conform to the specifications of the divine image, "man" inevitably came as male and female.

In other words, the male/female sexual differentiation reflects realities contained within the very being of God and derived from His image. Femaleness pertains to the image of God as fully as maleness. God is neither male nor female. He transcends both genders since they are both comprehended within His being.

According to the logic of Vedanta, nyaya, this is the "logic of cause and effect" - an effect must be pre-present in its cause. Since God is the cause of this world, and we see that a male and female dipolarity pervades it, this dual nature must be present in the Supreme.

Therefore the Hare Krishna maha-mantra is the best prayer, because it addresses both the masculine and feminine aspects of the Supreme. Hare refers to the feminine aspect, and Krishna and Rama to the masculine aspect. The two are both present and balanced in perfect harmony in this prayer:

The other day Krishna-kirti posed a polemic: "So, I think that women should be given the same opportunity as men to realize their full, human potential."

This is not simply the opinion of a limited, imperfect human being, it is an order of the Supreme Lord through scripture. Vedanta-sutra (1.1.1) states:

athatho brahma jijñasa

"Having obtained this human form of life, now inquire into the nature of the Absolute."

No distinction is made between persons of different genders here - all are commanded to do this. The full human potential means to reawaken our forgotten relationship with the Supreme Couple, Radha and Krishna.

OK, now off to Mangals and some hot yoga!

Re-presenting Srila Prabhupada involves tracking the current culture and keeping it real.

Good preachers present a timeless message in a timely and relevant fashion - mainly by using relevant cultural examples. Witness Jesus' use of stories of fishes and animals, lost coins and greedy farmers - all elements of the daily life of his audience.

Some of Srila Prabhupada's examples are dating and could use some brushing up to keep them, or make them more accessible to the mainstream.

We can make a humble contribution of re-presenting the essential ideas that he presented using contemporary examples and illustrations to help contemporary audiences engage with and understand them.

I'm working on a slide presentation to give next Sunday at the Sunday feast. I've got an updated version of the "Bird in the cage" example that I am going to use.

The "Bird in the Cage" Example

In the Bird in the Cage example an owner keeps a bird in a cage and dutifully shines the cage each day, but neglects to feed the actual bird. In this way an analogy is drawn between maintaining the body but not doing anything for the soul within the body.

No-one I know has a bird in a cage. It's the kind of thing I remember my grandparents having - is it an older generation thing, or just an older person thing?

Another analogy in this same line is the car and the driver. The driver may wash the car and put in petrol, but if he doesn't eat, he's in trouble. This one is closer to my daily experience.

The analogy that I am using, however, is one that is more geared to people of my generation in the culture that I live - it draws an analogy with online gaming. Here are a couple of examples:

• S Korean dies after games session - A South Korean man has died after reportedly playing an online computer game for 50 hours with few breaks.
• Man dies after 3-day gaming binge - Medics fail to revive 30-year-old man at cyber cafe in Guangzhou, southern China

In the analogy with online gaming we see what happens when a person projects themselves into the world of the sense objects, but neglects the senses (the body). Similarly, when we focus only on the senses we neglect the soul.

The bird in a cage example carries along with it the idea of imprisonment and lends itself to a follow up discussion of liberation. The online gaming example lends itself to a follow up revolving around the Matrix, or the Krishna's explanation of the relation between the sense objects, the senses, the mind, the intelligence, and the soul.

OK, so the Bird in the Cage example might be a little awkward or cause the audience to reach to grasp it, but it's not incomprehensible to people, so why use another one?

Good illustrations are accurate, relevant and engaging. Examples and illustrations serve at least three purposes:

• 1. To create an analogy that allows the audience to draw a parallel between something they already know and are familiar with and an as yet-unknown truth that is being communicated (accurate)
• 2. To create a bridge between the speaker and the audience, establishing some common knowledge and experience (relevant)
• 3. To add color and interest to the talk and vary the flow, as a means of stimulating and keeping interest and attention (engaging)

The Bird in a Cage example works here for point number one - it's accurate, but it's not so good at two and three, relevancy and engagement, in our environment. Analogies lose their power when you have to explain, or audiences have to grasp for both the point and the analogy. If it's not something within their experience it doesn't establish the bridge, and if it's not sensational then it doesn't stimulate. You don't always want to stimulate, but you have to do it periodically to maintain attention and interest.

Of course you have to be careful that your illustrations don't overshadow the actual idea. The online gaming illustration is potentially an epic one, as you can see from the picture above, and it will be the biggest one in the presentation that I'll give. I'm using it as the overall "engaging factor".

The "Ask Your Mother" Example

There are other examples, however, that are more problematic than the Bird in a Cage one, which is staid but still solid. Take for example this one, which I was reading to Prahlad last night from the Science of Self Realization:

If a boy wants to know who his father is, the simple process is to ask his mother. The mother will then say, "This is your father." This is the way of perfect knowledge.

This is actually a really good analogy, in the right setting. However, while it is great with the right audience, for a contemporary Western audience this example may introduce more problems than it solves.

There are two problems with this: relevancy, and accuracy.

First of all, relevancy. How closely does this map to the experience of the audience? Today the reliability of the mother's authority is not so clear cut. The mother may not give the correct answer, either because she is unwilling, or because she is unable.

Take for example the recent revelation that France's Justice Minister Rachida Dati is pregnant.

She declines to name the father, saying that her private life is "complicated".

We live in a world of infidelity, paternity lawsuits and multiple sexual partners. In France and the UK over 50% of children are born out of wedlock. In the US the figure was 40% in 2005. The analogy is no longer as relevant as it was in a previous social setting.

The example fails on accuracy too, and this is more serious.

Everyone knows today that the "way of perfect knowledge" in ascertaining the paternity of a child is through an impersonal, objective DNA test. "Asking around" is pre-scientific and inaccurate by modern standards.

Since the analogy being drawn here is that the "perfect way of knowing" about God is to approach a personal authority, and the analogy stumbles on this, the main point you are making is similarly compromised when using this illustration.

Your point becomes derailed when someone points out the flaw in the analogy (besides feeling that it does not relate to the actual social situation) - a DNA test is the way, not "asking a person".

Using this example risks giving contemporary audiences an impression of being pre-scientific and primitive, irrelevant to our modern, scientifically advanced reality.

Of course, it might also create a sense in people that we are coming from a different place socially than modern western society (and we should make sure that we are). However, the problem remains - today the way of perfect knowledge in ascertaining paternity is a DNA test, not a personal interview.

Any suggestions for a contemporary refresh of that example?

Phanisvara prabhu points me to this excellent page maintained by VEDA.

OBJECTION: Madhva has said in his commentary to the Kathopanisad that there are nine types of offense to Lord Visnu, such as ascribing divinity to an ordinary mortal. You are guilty of this because you claim that Caitanya is an incarnation of God. The result of this is that you will go to the darkest regions of hell.

REFUTATION: There are many evidences to prove the divinity of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. First we will present those statements of sastra which are from sruti, and then those from the Puranas and other Vedic literatures....

- Sri Caitanya and His Divinity

Here's a chance for you to examine the underpinnings of your faith, or not.

Here's the question:

There was this great spiritual personality who preached widely about love of God. He inspired many people to reawaken their dormant love of God, and explained that we are all servants of God. He always presented himself as a servant of God, and denied it whenever anyone claimed that he himself was God.

Later on, however, a follower who had never met him personally wrote a book about him that became a major lens through which he was viewed and interpreted by people in general. A doctrine developed that deified him, and people began to worship him as God Himself, although he himself always denied that while present, and never taught or instructed that he should be worshiped in that way.

Who am talking about? Did you guess Jesus Christ?

I'm talking about Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

The pattern of deification of Caitanya Mahaprabhu closely resembles the deification of Jesus Christ.

Think about all the philosophy and historical analysis that you have to deconstruct the deification of Jesus Christ. Now apply that same critical view to Caitanya Mahaprabhu. What happens?

Krishna tells us to worship Him as the Supreme. He says "I am the source of all material and spiritual worlds".

Caitanya Mahaprabhu says: "I know no-one but Krishna as my Lord."

So where does the idea that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is God come from?

I know that Krishna das Kaviraja claims it in Caitanya-caritamrita, and in there he also has Rupa and Sanatana Goswami's proclaim it.

However, do we find Rupa Goswami proclaiming this prior to this in his own voice, in one of his books, for example?

So I am thinking about Rupa Goswami. Krishna das Kaviraja claims that Rupa Goswami accepts Caitanya Mahaprabhu as the Godhead Himself. Is this true? And if so, what is the source of Rupa Goswami's conviction? I am going back to study the writings of Rupa Goswami in more detail to detect this.

This was the discussion between Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya and Gopinath Acarya. According to Caitanya-caritamrita, Sarvabhauma accepted Caitanya as a great devotee, but Gopinath insisted that he was the Godhead Himself.

Of course we have this whole philosophical argument or position that incarnations must be scheduled and foretold in scripture, which is why Hare Krishna's don't accept as God either Jesus (who they accept as a saktyavesa-avatara or empowered son of God) or Sai Baba (who they regard as a fraud).

Gopinath Acarya makes a weak argument around this, which essentially just establishes that the Gaudiya Vaisnavas are willing to put this idea aside when it suits them. Twisted and stretched interpretations of standard scriptures fail to convince Sarvabhauma, who points out that the Lord is known as "Tri Yuga", one who appears in three yugas. That precludes His appearance in this Kali Yuga.

How that meshes with the prediction of the Kalki-avatara I'm not sure...

Gopinath Acarya ends with: "Because you don't accept it, it is to be understood that you don't have His mercy".

Essentially this says that the very tenuous and indirect sastra-pramana ("what it really means is...") is secondary and post-facto to understanding Mahaprabhu as God. Gopinath Acarya is saying that it is his direct personal experience of Mahaprabhu that has convinced him that Mahaprabhu is the Godhead, and his scriptural arguments are an attempt to reconnect this direct mystical experience with an established exoteric tradition.

In Bhagavad-gita Krishna says that direct perception by realization is the perfection of religion (pratyaksavagamam dharmyam).

Whether this was actually going on (people proclaiming him as God in this way around him) while Mahaprabhu was present or became a later doctrinal development is not clear. The stories in the Caitanya-caritamrita are either selected or developed (or both) to support the doctrines of the author.

Even in the Caitanya-caritamrita it is recorded that Mahaprabhu would deny it and cover his ears if someone tried to proclaim Him as the Godhead.

Is he the Godhead or just a great devotee - a saktyavesa avatara?

Does it make a difference? Generally we are happy for people to understand Jesus as God, as long as they follow his instructions. Mahaprabhu's instructions are definitely beneficial for all people (and they don't include worshiping him as God).

Thinking deeply about that statement of Gopinath Acarya, that by the mercy of Caitanya Mahaprabhu one can understand that he is God, I am thinking now:

Suspended disbelief is no longer sufficient for me. Accepting an official doctrine, taking someone else's word, riding on someone's realization is not enough. I want to know for myself.

So now I am daily praying a prayer written by the great devotee Narottama das Thakura: "sri krishna caitanya prabhu, doya koro more"

"Sri Krishna Caitanya, please give me your mercy."

So if you made it this far, here's your chance: examine the underpinnings of your faith, and preach! Can you say something to help me out here?

My thought this morning:

Preachers should be compassionate. Administrators should be just.

When mercy replaces justice in a land, the people are left unprotected by the rule of law.

One of the great things about our modern political systems is that they are based on the idea that everyone should be protected by the rule of impartial law. There are no favorites, no elites who can act with impunity.

Of course the real deviates from the ideal in a number of cases, such as police violence, or political corruption, but these are recognized as deviations from the system, not part of it. Police are prosecuted, politicians jailed. No-one is above the law. We no longer have as a given "the divine right of Kings" - the idea that the King (or someone) is above the law, that the King makes the law, rather than that the law makes the King.

That system lead to many abuses of power, and continues to lead to abuse of power whenever it is implemented in an organization, whether it's a country or a cult.

When we suspend the fair and impartial rule of law, whether it's in the name of mercy, favoritism, or corruption, we remove this protection from the society and it's back to the bad old days of "it's all about who you know".

So by all means preachers, be merciful. But if you play the role of an administrator, be just. That is mercy.

Back in the day, shortly after Srila Prabhupada left this world, when the GBC found out that Jayatirtha Swami was taking LSD they went to Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja. Srila Sridhara Maharaja told them: "This is your first test, your first decision, your first pronouncement. People will judge the tenure of your administration based on this decision. Will your administration be characterized by justice or mercy? That you must decide."

The GBC decided on "mercy", and rather than applying an impartial and just measure they opted to cover up what was happening and try to restore Jayatirtha. The result was a disaster, and the reverberations of that decision are being felt even now.

Perhaps the GBC members were thinking: "What if that were me? What would I like to receive? Justice or mercy? Of course I'd like the mercy, so I'll give that."

Whether they were thinking that or not, this interpretation is inevitable.

When we look at advanced devotees such as Pariksit Maharaja, however, we see something else. When he was cursed to die he accepted this as his destiny. Due to his karma he had become implicated in the situation, and to get out of his karma he had to surrender to the Lord, not try to fight his way out.

Administrators administer justice for the purification of the individual and the protection of the social body. As an administrator as you do that you accept that in the same position, having performed the same actions you deserve and must receive the same treatment.

One of the big problems in ISKCON is that as a society it is not run on the impartial rule of law applied justly across the board. Its management structures are more akin to feudalism or tribalism.

Recently I've been discussing the role of the GBC (as both a global body and a local managerial person) with a friend. He expressed to me that it depends on the person in the position.

That's backwards. The person should perform the duties of the position, the duties of the position should not match the person. It is not a hereditary position where you're stuck with whoever you get, or a reward for long service where it gets given to anyone who sticks around long enough to get it.

At least not if it's meant to be a serious organization.

What do you think? Am I out of it, or on to something?

Today's "Daily Insight" email from Zig Ziglar:

It doesn't matter how strong your opinions are. If you don't use your power for positive change, you are, indeed, part of the problem.

- Coretta Scott King

In our strategic planning for Atma over the next three years I noticed that we will have spent half a million dollars in rent over six years. That's a huge outlay. The money that is generated and spent is a side effect of our main activity, which is sharing our spirituality and lifestyle knowledge with others. Atma is a state audited incorporated not-for-profit association. However, we need to be responsible stewards of even the side effects. That's Krishna's energy that we are leaking there.

Also, it makes no sense to continually start from scratch with each new place that we get. Here are some preliminary thoughts on how we are going to approach this: