Govindaji's mahaprasadam sponsored by prostitute not for the

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

> > Just a thought that came to my mind: how the maha-prasadam can get

> > spoiled if it becomes transcendental after Lord Krishna relishes it?

> > Possibly, the same logic can be applied in the above case: in the

> > material world nothing can escape the laws of nature, which are also set

> > by the Lord. So it is His arrangement that even the maha-prasadam can be

> > somewhat "contaminated"... Anyway, it's just my speculation.

>

> Here's another point which bears on this discussion: I can tell you from

> personal experience that if one eats too much prasadam, even if it is Maha

> Prasadam prepared (and funded) in an absolutely pure way, one will be

> affectd by the modes. So even though Krsna has accepted the bhoga, he

> still expects us to live very austerely and eat only a little prasadam.

>

> I was very disappoined to make this discovery.

 

It is, indeed, a very disappointing fact...

 

Ys, Gauridas

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, COM: Gauri (das) BPPG (New York - USA) wrote:

> > > It seems

> > > to me a bit philosophically incorrect. If Lord Krishna accepts

> > > prasadam, Srila Prabhupada says He replaces the bhoga with

> > > transcendental food - so how could it have anything to do with the

> > > offered food? Krishna either accepts or he doesn't - how could he say >

> > "Although I have eaten the bhoga, my remnants contain the prostitutes >

> > sins."

> > I wouldn't declare it wacky, but it does seem a bit dubious. I

> > too would definitely like to hear an answer to such an important question.

> > Can anyone explain how prasada can by all appearances become so

> > contaminated? Or did Krishna not eat what He personally asked for?

> > Perhaps the person who originally posted this story can explain more.

>

> Just a thought that came to my mind: how the maha-prasadam can get spoiled

> if it becomes transcendental after Lord Krishna relishes it? Possibly, the

> same logic can be applied in the above case: in the material world nothing

> can escape the laws of nature, which are also set by the Lord. So it is His

> arrangement that even the maha-prasadam can be somewhat "contaminated"...

> Anyway, it's just my speculation.

>

Right. Also, if the prostitute was initiated by a bonafide guru,

then wouldn't she have so been freed from her past sins anyway? So whence

the question of contamination?

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, COM: Balarama (das) LOK (Alachua, FL - USA) wrote:

> Here's another point which bears on this discussion: I can tell you from

> personal experience that if one eats too much prasadam, even if it is Maha

> Prasadam prepared (and funded) in an absolutely pure way, one will be

> affectd by the modes. So even though Krsna has accepted the bhoga, he still

> expects us to live very austerely and eat only a little prasadam.

That seems to be the main point; the delectables offered were

all very rich. We already know from guru, sadhu, and shastra that such

things are to be avoided by ascetics and those who wish to be more

sattvika. My doubt is about any sort of subtle contamination or karma of

the former prostitute, implicitly associated with Govindaji's prasada.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

PAMHO. AGTSP.

 

> > how the maha-prasadam can get spoiled if it becomes transcendental

 

> Right. Also, if the prostitute was initiated by a bonafide guru,

> then wouldn't she have so been freed from her past sins anyway? So

> whence the question of contamination?

 

My thoughts : why spoiled, sins, contamination ...?

If prasadam is without sins, it still does not mean that it is without

qualities. And qualities can be different, same favourable, some not ...

 

Perhaps it still carries the "aroma" of the lady's samskaras and not

everyone can deal with that "aroma" ?

 

ys Miodrag

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

> PAMHO. AGTSP.

>

> > > how the maha-prasadam can get spoiled if it becomes transcendental

>

> > Right. Also, if the prostitute was initiated by a bonafide guru,

> > then wouldn't she have so been freed from her past sins anyway? So

> > whence the question of contamination?

 

If it helps in anyway, once Tamal Krishna Maharaj also said "The Mahaprasadam

doesn't get affected, but we do". He was replying to a query by one of his

disciples about accepting prasadam at the house of non devotees.

 

YHS

 

VPD

[Guest guest]

On 10 Feb 2000, Miodrag Milosavljevic wrote:

> > > how the maha-prasadam can get spoiled if it becomes transcendental

> > Right. Also, if the prostitute was initiated by a bonafide guru,

> > then wouldn't she have so been freed from her past sins anyway? So

> > whence the question of contamination?

> My thoughts : why spoiled, sins, contamination ...?

> If prasadam is without sins, it still does not mean that it is without

> qualities. And qualities can be different, same favourable, some not .

Sure, I can see that. Some things, like rich foodstuffs, aren't

generally very favorable; others are. It doesn't matter whether you offer

them or not; they're still rich or whatever. But that's different from

alleged contamination associated with impure people.

 

 

> Perhaps it still carries the "aroma" of the lady's samskaras and not

> everyone can deal with that "aroma" ?

Aside from it being fairly vague, this is the part that also seems

inconsistent to me. Again, what are the prostitute's "samskaras" still

hanging around for, if they were indeed burnt in the fire of her initiation

and her guru accepted her past sins? Secondly, assuming that Krishna indeed

accepted her offering, is the mahaprasada contaminated or not? It would seem

that someone thinks so, unless he's able to supply an explanation of how these

things can occur despite the philosophical truth that mahaprasada remains

always pure. As I've always understood it, prasadam is Krishna, who is

absolutely pure and prophylactic; like the sun, which can purify even

excrement, Krishna purifies any filthy element by His own limitless and

inconceivable potencies. Sometimes it is said that once even gutter water

flows into the Ganges, it too becomes the Ganges. But if I've been holding a

misconception about this for so many years, I'd really be grateful if someone

can authoritatively relieve me of my illusion. Thanks.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

PAMHO. AGTSP.

 

> > Perhaps it still carries the "aroma" of the lady's samskaras and not

> > everyone can deal with that "aroma" ?

> Aside from it being fairly vague, this is the part that also

> seems inconsistent to me. Again, what are the prostitute's "samskaras"

> still hanging around for, if they were indeed burnt in the fire of her

> initiation and her guru accepted her past sins?

 

It is vague, indeed. I am merely speculating, while waiting for the

authoritative answer. I don't know if samskaras or anarthas are burnt, if

so what is left for us to deal with on our path of yoga ? I understood

that samskaras are "imprintings" in our mind. Like a memory, it is not

destroyed that easily. Like a vinyl record has channels through which

needle is riding and picking up informations, thus samskaras are

'imprintings' through which our mind is riding. We can make new

impritings over the old ones, but hardly we can erase old samskaras and

burn our personal history.

 

> Secondly, assuming that Krishna indeed accepted her offering, is the

> mahaprasada contaminated or not?

 

I mentioned "aroma", having in mind a parable with the air - being not

affected ( contaminated ) by aroma, although carrying it. So perhaps

there is a mechanism by which prasadam still can be a vehicle, without

being affected ? Like the case with prana and breathing - prana is not

the same as breathing, but those two seem to go along. So what if one's

personal history, the pattern through which mind is riding, is an

information that goes along with the prasadam, although being a

completely different thing ?

 

Again, just a speculation and a temporary theory, trying to find a

mechanism and make parts fit.

 

ys Miodrag

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, COM: (Bhakta) Miodrag Milosavljevic (Belgrade - YU) wrote:

> > > Perhaps it still carries the "aroma" of the lady's samskaras and not

> > > everyone can deal with that "aroma" ?

> > Aside from it being fairly vague, this is the part that also

> > seems inconsistent to me. Again, what are the prostitute's "samskaras"

> > still hanging around for, if they were indeed burnt in the fire of her

> > initiation and her guru accepted her past sins?

> It is vague, indeed. I am merely speculating, while waiting for the

> authoritative answer. I don't know if samskaras or anarthas are burnt, if

> so what is left for us to deal with on our path of yoga ?

Good point. I don't think our samskaras are destroyed at

initiation; at least I'm not aware of any such statement, which is why I

put the word in sarcastic quotation marks. I'm just trying to identify

the real culprit of this alleged contamination of mahaprasada.

 

 

> > Secondly, assuming that Krishna indeed accepted her offering, is the

> > mahaprasada contaminated or not?

> I mentioned "aroma", having in mind a parable with the air - being not

> affected ( contaminated ) by aroma, although carrying it. So perhaps

> there is a mechanism by which prasadam still can be a vehicle, without

> being affected ?

Here's where we need to define contamination. Some would have

your statement here as tantamount (at least) to contamination; I'm not

entirely sure I'm not one of them, but your logic seems fairly sound. The

important question here is--how is it that mahaprasada which has fallen on

the dirty ground in India is accepted unhesitatingly and relished by those

who are advanced (cf. Krsna book quote, below), because it can't be

contaminated--if it "carries" such contamination.

But in a letter to Caturbhuja prabhu on 2/28/72, Srila Prabhupada wrote:

"Krishna Prasad is always all right. The consideration of spoiling

foodstuff after 3 hours, that is ordinary or it is so for persons who are

not advanced in accepting Krishna prasada as transcendental, just like

Ragunatha Goswami: he was collecting rejected rice from the cooking of

Lord Jagannatha and he was eating only that. So this is a higher stage, so

for the time being you should know that Krishna prasada is never

contaminated by any material source."

 

Similarly, in Krishna Book (Ch.24), while discussing Annakuta, Prabhupada

says:

"In all the temples of Vrndavana or outside of Vrndavana, huge

quantities of food are prepared in this ceremony and are very sumptuously

distributed to the general population. Sometimes the food is thrown to the

crowds, and they enjoy collecting it off the ground. From this we can

understand that prasadam offered to Krsna never becomes polluted or

contaminated, even if it is thrown on the ground. The people, therefore,

collect it and eat with great satisfaction."

 

 

> Like the case with prana and breathing - prana is not

> the same as breathing, but those two seem to go along. So what if one's

> personal history, the pattern through which mind is riding, is an

> information that goes along with the prasadam, although being a

> completely different thing ?

An analogy I've been thinking of is chanting--which is offensive,

clearing, or pure. We know that those who are impure cannot contact the

shuddha-nama; they get namabhasa. In fact, Mayavadis don't get Harinama

at all, even if they appear to chant it. And we're advised to avoid

hearing Hari-katha from nondevotees.* Their chanting is like milk touched

by a venomous snake. That also sounds like contamination to me. Does

anyone else have any comments on this? I'd like to hear about the

original source of the story, if anyone knows it.

 

 

MDd

 

 

*Defined in two ways (Cc., Madhya-lila, 22.87, etc.):

1) Those dedicated to other paths and unconcerned with Krishna.

2) Those who may or may not be vaishnavas, but who are too materially

attached, usually by dint of their bad association.

[Guest guest]

PAMHO. AGTSP.

 

Before I speculated about mechanism. But there is another point also:

interpretation.

 

> An analogy I've been thinking of is chanting--which is offensive,

> clearing, or pure. We know that those who are impure cannot contact

> the shuddha-nama; they get namabhasa.

 

Good, this was an eyeopener. Perhaps this time I will get closer :

 

Let us accept that prasadam is never contaminated... affected in any way.

That is a perfect information from authority. And let's admit that I will

anyway get sick as hell, changing my colours and suffer from diarrhea, or

something, if I honour a "rotten" prasadam. That is a plain observance.

And let us live peacefully with both this points. For, what another

devotee would usually say when seeing my trouble is not a sickness, but -

purification. And that purification I may interpret as contamination. So,

why just not give up thinking like: 'either this or that', and accept

both points 'cum grano salis' : prasadam is always auspicious and

transcendental, but we should still be carefull how we take it, until we

also become transcendental.

 

ys Miodrag

PS. Am I good or what? ;-)

[Guest guest]

i was just following all this discussion about prasadam. quite interesting.

what i have heard is that effect of prasadam depends on cook's mental

condition, pujari's mental condition and mental condition of the person who

relishes prasadam. if all 3 of them are kanisthas, what quality can be there?

i think it's not just black and white - material or transcendental. i suppose

there can be different levels of transcendence as well...

 

just tell me if i'm completely wrong, i have been thinking like this for

years...

 

ys bh. didzis

[Guest guest]

> i was just following all this discussion about prasadam. quite

> interesting. what i have heard is that effect of prasadam depends on

> cook's mental condition, pujari's mental condition and mental condition of

> the person who relishes prasadam. if all 3 of them are kanisthas, what

> quality can be there? i think it's not just black and white - material or

> transcendental. i suppose there can be different levels of transcendence

> as well...

>

> just tell me if i'm completely wrong, i have been thinking like this for

> years...

>

> ys bh. didzis

 

We have 3 persons and 3 stages (kanistha,etc) and 3 gunas influencing mental

condition. So, looks like we can have so many varietes of prasadam.

[Guest guest]

that was my point - that things are not just black and white. yes, i guess

there is some variety

[Guest guest]

Danadavats. Jaya Prabhupada!

Thanks for the many thoughtful answers on this topic by various devotees.

 

On 14 Feb 2000, Miodrag Milosavljevic wrote:

> For, what another

> devotee would usually say when seeing my trouble is not a sickness, but -

> purification. And that purification I may interpret as contamination.

 

One scholar coined the term, "multi-level reality;" and that might be

applicable to some extent here, though I think his view sounds a bit like

theological relativism.

 

 

> why just not give up thinking like: 'either this or that',

Good point. After all, our philosophy is chock-full of apparent

contradictions, which is naturally expected in a school that sees the Absolute

Truth as an achintya-bhedAbheda tattva. Still, sometimes it's entirely

appropriate to recognize a hard duality.

 

 

> both points 'cum grano salis' : prasadam is always auspicious and

> transcendental, but we should still be carefull how we take it, until > we

also become transcendental.

 

We've seen that advanced transcendentalists can perform actions that would

severely harm or even kill any ordinary person. Likewise with devotees. As

Prabhupada often said, purity is the force. So in this sense, when we get

sick from eating old, dirty, or poorly prepared prasada (assuming here the

crux of the matter--that it is truly Krishna's prasada*), then contamination

is clearly ours. Thus, Prabhupada also said that corporeal existence is

basically an embarassment for the soul.

 

* Gaurakishoradasa Babaji would sometimes refuse to eat even the temple

prasada; implicit in this is that Krishna didn't actually eat such offerings,

that those responsible for them were somehow impure. He may have even said

this too, I don't remember now. But Prabhupada also made it clear to us that

Krishna doesn't have any obligation to eat what we offer Him--even if we are

pure--what to speak of if we aren't. Prasada isn't always so just because

people think or claim it as such, just as it is with so-called gurus.

 

I've repeatedly asked about the original source of this Jaipur story, because

only a bonafide authority with aparoksha vision can really know when Krishna

actually accepts offerings and eats. The rest of us simply have to pray as

follows (Ramanuja, quoted in Padyavali, 117), while hoping against hope for

some small fraction of the desire of those who can sincerely think like this

while they do so:

 

dvija-strINAM bhakte mRduni vidurAnne vraja-gavAM

dadhi-kSIre sakhyuH sphuTa-cipita-muSTau mura-ripo |

yazodAyAH stanye vraja-yuvati-datte madhuni te

yathAsId Amodas tam imam upahAre 'pi kurutAm ||

 

"O Lord Muraripu, just as you delighted in the succulent meals

offered by the yajnik brahmins' wives, the foodstuffs of Vidura, the

dairy products of Your cows in Vraja, the puffed rice in the fist of Your

friend (Sudama), the breast-milk of Your mother Yashoda, and the sweets

given to You by the young girls in Vraja, so I hope You will accept even

this offering."

 

Often enough, it just isn't so easy even for those with the highest

qualifications to get Krishna to eat (cf. Bhagavatam, 10.11.13). But just

imagine if we can succeed!

 

MDd