Swami Tripurari: Understanding the Role and Relationship of the Guru

Revelation offers a solution to the problem. A comprehensive way of knowing. A perfect way of knowing. How shall imperfection know perfection? If perfection wants itself to be known, something like that. It's not a dead thing, perfection. Faith in revelation, this is what gives us eligibility to tread the path. And so the guru...will answer the questions, the doubts, with reference to them. Not just some rote memory, but in an insightful way, employing spiritual logic, reasoning as to their implications, in different time and circumstance and so on and so forth.This is called sastra-yukti. 

Kevala-yukti, that will not help us...Logic unhinged from revelation, that will not be helpful to us...The sutras say...'For this kind of reasoning you never get anywhere. You never get any standing. There is always some other kind of reasoning that will come.'...He or she, the guru, reasons on the basis on the implications of the sacred texts and thereby answers our questions. So this is the basis of the relationship. We have come to the point where we realized, 'I'm bankrupt here', in terms of making a comprehensive solution. 'There's nothing I can do on my own strength to make a solution to the problem. But I have sense that the Godhead can make a solution, a supplication to him in the form  of the guru who represents by way of answering the questions and clearing the doubt' And the doubt will soon be cleared if you have faith in sastra. If you don't have the faith, then I quote the sastra and you say, 'Well, anyway'. Then that's your problem. And that's an unfortunate problem. 

So, we have to understand what is the task, if you will, of the guru. Of course she has to be acquainted with the text and acquainted in a substantial way. Now, as I say, not by mere memory but realization and experience. And sometimes, therefore, just experience itself, experiencing the experience, if you will-by sitting with the guru, we will have no questions... Some might think, 'Time for questions, I don't have any.' That might not be a problem. 

So to do Krsna bhakti, guru bhakti, take shelter of the guru, hear from him, and as the doubts are cleared our suspension, so to speak, that comes from our suspicions, is relaxed and we become animated. Our animation is no longer suspended. We are all moving according to some faith, obviously, faith in the mode of goodness, passion or ignorance. But here is an opportunity for faith beyond the modes of nature. And that gives us the ability to move in that arena. And so, hear from the guru, receive diksa, receive siksa-that supports the diksa-the imparting of the mantra and so forth. Rendering service affectionately to the guru. Serving the vaisnavas, and all these things are mentioned by Rupa Goswami in the context of Krsna-bhakti so they are very important. 

If we understand, this is important, the role of the guru, then if we don't we may think, "I've been abused or something, by the guru'. He may handle us roughly, that's possible...The story is Rupa Goswami was writing Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu, and one sadhu...disagreed with something Rupa Goswami had written. And so Jiva Goswami went and kind of called him out, so to speak, and said, 'You've actually misunderstood the verse. Here's what my Gurudev actually meant here.' Rupa Goswami has described the desires for karma and jnana as witches, like ghosts that haunt the heart. Make it like a haunted house. The disagreement was, 'You are calling karma and jnana witches', and these things are articulated in the scriptures. Jiva Goswami says, 'No, not that they are but the desires for them, they are.'

 And so, the story goes that he defeated that scholar and news of that came to Rupa Goswami. Rupa Goswami was very angry with Jiva Goswami for that. He might think, 'Well, you know, I didn't do anything wrong Gurudev. I told them what this verse actually meant. I defended you and explained it and he accepted the defeat.' Anyway, Rupa Goswami was upset with it. He wanted to teach something else. The humility of the vaisnava and the principle that argumentation may not always be necessary, helpful. It certainly plays out when the disciples argue with one another about how best to serve the guru...over relative issues. 

At any rate, the point is that Jiva Goswami was banned by Rupa Goswami...He could have said, 'I've been abused here. My intentions were good. My preaching was correct, and so forth, and Gurudev is upset with me.' ...There are many examples of this, so, we need to be careful about such and really try to put ourselves in the hands of the Absolute and as Mahaprabhu says, "He may embrace me, he may trample me.' That may be the case. See how Ram dealt with Sita. It'll break your heart, how could he do that? Of course the gopis complained about that themselves. But, at any rate, if we understand the relationship and so forth then there won't be much scope foe making offense by way of thinking, 'I've been abused by the guru.'

We want a guru who will pat us on the back and praise us. See how eager the great devotees are to be chastised by their guru. How Prabhupada took so much joy in the fact that he was singled out on one occasion, by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, and chastized by him, thinking, 'He cares for me." And Prabhupada wasn't even doing anything wrong, it was the other guy. There was a setting, many devotees, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur was speaking, and one other devotee was pulling on Prabhupada's ear, trying to talk to him while the talk was going on. And rather than criticize that fellow, Bhaktisiddhanta criticized Prabhupada. 'So, you know so much, you think you can sit here.' And Prabhupada was like, 'He cares about me so much. I wasn't do anything wrong.' He didn't go, 'Gurudev, I wasn't doing anything wrong. You were wrong.' No, not like that. So...if we better understand what the relationship is about; Guru is there for explaining to us the scripture, it's significance, its import, and setting an example of being absorbed in that himself, or herself.

Otherwise we also know from Rupa Goswami's teaching that sometimes great persons they may have some physical and bodily defect. They may be deformed. They may have a limp. Or this may extend to the subtle body. They may have some disposition that's not entirely pc or they may be a little bit psychologically out of balance, or something. You listen to the stories of Gaura Kishore and how he dealt with people and we might be a little shocked how he wasn't kind and loving. And he was cynical at times and dismissed people and so on. So, these types of things are to be overlooked in light of his or her real and genuine absorption in Krsna consciousness, if we see that.  Then the  other thing should be seen in light of that. The example is given that the Ganges is pure, many things float in it. Those things aren't pure, but the Ganges is.

Excerpt is from a lecture by Swami Tripurari, titled, "Q&A:The Fire of Guru-bhakti"

Swami Tripurari: To Always Feel the Presence of the Guru

Student: Prabhupada made the statement that he always felt the presence of his guru and that his guru was always with him. So I was wondering if you could explain what that means.

Swami Tripurari: Prabhupada once told me that on one occasion. It was in 1977. Prabhupada had fallen ill and he was in Mayapur where the festival was. And the festival was two weeks in Mayapur and two weeks in Vrindavan. Prabhupada couldn't come down and give the lectures and so at a certain point it became clear that he was not going to proceed on to Vrindvan for the rest of the festival.

So I went to see him and I told him that I wasn't planning on going to Vrindvan for half of the festival. And he looked at me with rather large eyes and said, "Why not?" And I said, "Well, because you are not going to the festival and you are Vrindvan. You are the festival as far as I am concerned." And Prabhupada had told me personally there, in Mayapur, several years earlier during the first Mayapur/Vrindavan festival that, "You should travel all year long and preach and then spend one month with me in Mayapur and Vrindvan", I reminded him of that.

So he appreciated the sentiment, to be sure, but then he said, "No, you are a preacher and you should go and preach to the devotees there." And he said, "Practically I never feel the absence of my spiritual master." And then he said, "Just like in Bhagavad-gita. Krsna spoke in Bhagavad-gita many thousands of years ago. He's not here but if you read the Bhagavad-gita then we feel his presence there." He was emphasizing the point that presence is not necessarily dependent on physical proximity.

One day Sridhara Maharj was sitting on his veranda. After the discussion, and devotees got up to leave, one fellow from another institution who was there visiting made an effort to touch the feet of Sridhara Maharaj. There was a bit of commotion, a kind of falling over people and other stuff like that. And Sridhara Maharaj was like, "What was going on?" He was about ninety-percent blind at the time. And then it became apparent to him what was happening. And he said, "Oh, so that is what you think it means to touch the lotus feet of the guru." And then he elaborated that it was not necessarily a physical thing but that proximity is determined on the basis of consciousness.

Prabhupada used to give an example of an insect like a fly that might happen to land on his lap and how it was in much greater physical proximity to himself than those of us who were sitting at a distance but that we were closer to him by consciousness, hopefully. And lifetimes closer...

The dham, it is said, has this covering, prodamaya. So people stand on the covering. They really don't enter the dham. Therefore you go to the dham and you say, 'Who are all of these people? They are supposed to be in love with Krsna.' Some of their character might be questionable. I remember once going to Radha Kunda parikrama with a group of devotees and one fellow from Radha Kund came up to us and said, "I am vrijabasi." It is said in the scriptures that the vrijabasis are worshipable and so forth. His idea of, 'I am a vrijabasi. I am born in the vraj. Give me money. Otherwise you can't go around Radha Kund, it is quoted in the scriptures.' It was very unbecoming and off-putting and so forth. He was very loud about. 

So I said, 'Let me cite another something from the scriptures for you. Trinad api sunichena, trinad api sahishnuna...', Mahprabhu's third verse of the Siksastakam about humility, tolerance, not expecting honor for oneself, and so forth. But he had no ear for it whatsoever, he just kept going on and on. And so finally I called to one of my Indian disciples, he wasn't a vrijabasi but I pretended he was. I said, "So and so, come here, vrijabasi.", and I gave him a donation and then we went on. 

So, there's an example of someone who is standing on the surface but not entering in. It's a plane of consciousness, Vrindavan, it's not a physical location. There is a facsimile of a physical location. The earthly Vrindavan. But if we study about that we see that it is not a physical location, not just limited to a geographical area, it's a consciousness. Rupa Goswami says it's one of five very powerful limbs of bhakti; sadhu-sanga, nam kirtan, hearing the Bhagavatam, then to worship the deity, to live in Vrindavan. So of them, one of them is to live in Vrindavan. About it, in his commentary he says that if you cannot live there in a geographical sense live there in the mind...He means a meditative mind. 

If you want to call the mental world the subjective world, filled with approximations of what the objective world is like all jumbled together and so forth, beyond that is the super-subjective plane, which is the world of God. I would liken it to the daydream of God. This world is kind of the night dream of God. This is where Vrindavan exists. To go there is more than purchasing a plane ticket. Therefore, it is said also about visiting the dham, what constitutes  visiting the dham? The Bhavagatam tell us...that going there and not taking advantage of sadhu-sanga is to not go there at all. It is like to have the mentality of a cow or an ass. So to go there is to have sadhu sanga, in a sense. Of course the two are differentiated as well, sadhu sanga and to live in a holy place, but the two are co-related in this way. So, what the sadhus are speaking about, the environment that they create by their consciousness, this is what we want to enter into. That is what Prabhupada meant when he said that, 'I never felt the absence of my guru. I am following his instructions.' 

So he was telling me, 'You go there, you are a preacher. You should preach Bhagavad-gita. And what to speak of always feeling my presence, you will always feel Krsna's presence. And so there is no question of not being with me if you are involved in this type of enterprise.' He said, 'Your name is Tripurari so you have to defeat all the demons.' Tripurari is a name for Lord Siva. The Bhagavatam is powered by Krsna to deal with the very difficult situation created by...three flying cities that were defeating the gods. And when there was no hope, Siva was called. And by the power of Krsna he became the enemy of the three cities and prevailed. 'So,' he said, 'Just like that. You should defeat all of the demons by preaching Bhagavad-gita. And preach to the devotees. The devotees are going there, you should go. I will be with you.'

So, this is the idea. And that, really in one sense, is how Sridhara Maharaj schooled us on Srila Prabhupada's disappearance from the world. We were left there homeless, so to speak, parent-less in a way. And, fortunately by Prabhupada's grace, he had opened the door to the association of Sridhara Maharaj and we went through the opening. But he schooled us this way with regard to the disappearance of Prabhupada. On how it creates an opportunity to connect with the guru on another level. There is a necessity now that has arisen in that circumstance and what we have learned and gathered, now it has come to be tested. And so it is all part of the instruction coming from Krsna who arranges the guru, brings the manifestation of the guru and takes him away."

An excerpt from Swami Tripurari's lecture titled: Q&A: To Always Feel the Presence of the Guru

Swami Tripurari: Love, Reason and the Question Why

Swami Tripurari: Love, Reason and the Question Why

An Excerpt from a lecture titled: "Intoxicated by the Bhagavatam"

The end of knowing is loving. Love, it's said, knows no reason. There's good reason to believe that idea. We see it practically in everyday life. People fall in love and  they cast reason to the side. That's not usually a good idea.

But should we do away with love then altogether in the name of reason? Reason is such a stifling type of guide under which to proceed. If we proceed, that's to say, under the guidance  of reason then we proceed with caution. Do you follow? Just like now you listen to me with some caution. (laughter) Will I find it successful? That I will be able to arrest your reasoning power. That futile exercise, really, for arriving at comprehensive knowing. The knowing that will satisfy you.

What is use of knowledge only as much as it makes us happy? Knowledge informs action, an action by which we can become perfectly happy, that's what we are interested in. Again, loving is knowing. But we listen without reason. If I can arrest your reason then I can go into your heart. A saintly person has to speak two languages. They have to speak the language of love and they have to be able to translate it into reason for our sake because as humans it is said  we speak the language of reason.

We are supposed to be rational animals. It's often thought that that is what distinguishes us from the less complex forms of life. Of course, from the school of the bhagavat and vedanta, gaudiya vedanta, this kind of love vedanta, bhakti vedanta, we think that human life is distinguished not from the less complex forms of life merely by the fact it has intellect and can reason but rather that it can love and it can reason... And it can engage in a methodology that transcends reason. A transrational method, if you will. It will afford a kind of knowing that reasoning never will. Just like if you want to analyze an apple and all that it is constituted of is your intellect. What will you know about an apple without knowing what it tastes like?

So love doesn't answer to reason. That's a problem in the world in one sense. But does that mean that we should forgo love and live a reasoned-ruled life alone? Should we erect an altar and place reason there? Certainly not...Rather we think that as there is love that is not well-reasoned so there is love that is well-reasoned. So, as I said, this book [Srimad Bhagavatam] in particular is a book about love, about intoxication. Love is intoxicating. But it has a foundation. a philosophical foundation, that if we look at it carefully we see that it is speaking about what we call wise love.

Love is so close to us. Our heart beats for that, we could say. And if our heart doesn't beat then what is our life? We move really in pursuit of love. We cannot rest until we find love. And when we find love, then, you can only rest for a moment. And love has a movement of its own. An orbit of its own, so to speak. That is also disconcerting, one that we don't want to get out of at the same time. It has its ups and downs like a roller coaster but you don't want to get off. It has a movement, as they say, of its own. And that movement serves to retire the necessity to think and to know with the head and to reason and so forth. And so we sense, as human beings, that if we look deeply at it I believe, that a reason-ruled life may be better than a life that's not ruled by reason at all. But the full exercise of reason leads us to believe that a reason-ruled life is also incomplete. Imperfect. It's a very stuffy kind of a life in which we would proceed with reason as our guide with caution.

I'll give you an example. Let's say you go to the store and you want to buy something to eat. Then sometimes you look at the label, right? Because you want to know what's in it. So before tasting it you are proceeding with caution and want to see what's there. Before letting your tongue go to taste it you want to know about it. Now when you are with friends, and people you love, and they offer you something to eat you don't question what's in it because you are at home and you are not proceeding with caution. The homeland of the heart is one in which we can proceed without caution. This is what is talked about in the Bhagavatam. This is what the book centers on. A land that is not ruled by reason, neither by senses.

We may differentiate ourselves from less complex forms of life because we find in addition an increment that is greater and noticeable of intellect then what we find in less complex forms of life, like among the birds and animals and so forth. They tend to be ruled, we see, by their senses. They don't have the problems we have. The philosophical problems we have. They don't have the question, "why".

Why is a terrible question. Why? Because it cannot be answered by the very thing that is troubled by it, by our reason. The "why" of ourselves is that unit  aspect of our being that gives value. Consciousness gives value and meaning to things that otherwise would have no meaning. Do you follow me? Matter wouldn't matter if it didn't matter to you. If matter mattered dependent of consciousness who would know about it? Who would care about it?

So "why" is a huge and troublesome question for humans. As troublesome as we try to answer it with reason alone. Reason is good but reason alone, itself, would be problematic. Why is that so? Well, in less complex forms of life this question "why" doesn't arise. The "how" question arises. How to eat, how to sleep, how to protect oneself, how to mate. These are questions in less complex forms of life, among the beasts. And we find that nature has an answer to those questions that is tailored-made for every species. Every species, for example, has a built-in system of protection. If you are a skunk you raise your tail. If you are a tiger you growl and pounce. Take the best defense is a good offense approach . So you know all the species of nature, other than the human species,  find built-in systems for protection. In other words, nature is answering a question that nature can answer. It's a natural question. How shall I protect  my  body and my biological sense of life? The question arises and it pertains to nature and biology and nature answers it. The other questions like, "what shall I eat?" "how should I maintain my body and be healthy?", these are other natural questions of the natural world. So nature answers that question. How about mating? That's also, as glorious as we think it is, a question of the natural world. So nature answers the question. We see in all species of life there's an answer when to mate, who to mate with and what are the consequences. And you got to deal with them...

We, on the other hand, as humans are very bewildered about these things but we call ourselves the more complex forms of life. (laughter) How to eat? How to sleep? How to mate? How to defend ourselves? These are huge questions for human society. But I would venture to say that the reason that they are such troublesome questions that are so easily and readily answered by less complex forms of life, they are more difficult and troubling for us despite our advanced intelligence in comparison, because our intelligence is meant to ponder another question that doesn't arise in the animal kingdom. That is the question of "why".

Our intelligence is meant to ponder why to a point and then short out, so to speak. Why means, "Why am I?". That is a different quality of question. "Why am I? What is the purpose? What is the meaning? Why am I here?" Why is a question nature cannot answer because nature is not asking the question. Who is asking the question? That is what comes to the surface, to the fore, in human life that really makes us different from the other species of life.

The fact that we are really a unit of consciousness rather than in a particular dress, if you will, of matter, whether it be an animal dress, or a bird dress, or a plant dress, or a human dress, according to the Bhagavatam, the book I am speaking on, it is said that matter steers consciousness but it doesn't give rise to it.  It is ontologically different. It steers consciousness means like if you are in a Volkswagan and you are in a BMW, then your car is different. The driver is the same, let us say. Has the same capacity to step on the gas, step on the brake, but the car limits how fast you will go. Or how well you will brake. So, in this analogy I am saying the self is a unit of consciousness and matter that surrounds it for certain reasons, I don't know if we will get to that but we call it karma, steers consciousness to some extent. So according to the vehicle that consciousness finds itself in it can go faster or it has to lag behind and go slower. To go faster here means it can understand itself. The driver can know itself.

Human life affords us that opportunity. Indeed, it's undeniable. We are talking about it. We are here gathered to discuss something along these lines. "Why am I? What is the meaning?" We think there is meaning and purpose to life. Indeed all human beings conduct themselves in this way. Even those who argue that there is no meaning to life, only atoms are bumping up against one another, strive to assert that this is the meaning of life. That life has no meaning. They are pressed to write books about it.

We are actually, according to the Bhagavatam, units of meaning and value. In other words we posit value on matter, otherwise it wouldn't matter. And value is a quality question it's not a quantity question. So, why? Is there an overarching purpose? These questions arise universally in human society. Freud, who was stunned by it, called it the "oceanic experience". 'My patients come and speak to me about the oceanic experience.', he called it. That they feel that there's more to life. He said, 'I can't quite get that.' I'm thinking he must have gotten a little bit.

We would say the more human we are the more this question about more, there must be more than what meets the eye in the mind, we feel that way. That's why in human life we try to do more. Fish don't try to fly in the sky too hard or too high. They do jump a little bit. And birds don't try to go to the bottom of the ocean. We try to fly high in the sky. We try to go to the bottom of the ocean. We try to do everything that every species of life can do. Because why? Because we feel we should be able to do all of those things.

The Bhagavatam says why you feel like that. Because those are things that consciousness can do and are limited to according to the steering mechanism they find themselves in. In other words, birds can only fly in the sky. They can do other things, but they can only fly in the sky because they are steered by their particular embodiment. And fish to the bottom of the ocean. But in human life, the fact that the consciousness that is the driver really is not the vehicle is coming to the fore and it feels itself. It feels like 'I can do anything'. There are no limitations. We feel that there are no limitations. It's not biologically correct to think that. That's erroneous. There's nothing in Darwinian evolutionary theory that says that human beings have unlimited exploratory power to understand everything. ...Biologically it is the opposite. We have limits. That's why we are humans. If there were no limits what would we be? There are certain limits that are packed into it that says, "That will be a human." It's going to have certain limits and a certain scope of possibilities and so forth.

So, biologically we are limited. We think that with the advent of modern science that we are now equipped with unlimited exploratory power but the history of modern science shows us quite the opposite. We are at a loss, really, to explain the natural world in the detail we thought we could.... For example in the scientific revolution there was mechanistic, objective, concrete thinking... The idea that motion requires contact. I touch something, it goes. Newton found out that large things attract small things, and people thought, "What are you reintroducing the occult?". There's no contact. It's called gravity. Large masses attract smaller masses. 'Well, okay, but why?' Why? That's not explained. He thought, "It will be, someday, later." But it never has been.

If you go through the history of science you find that on certain levels we just deny things and the machine of nature becomes more and more abstract and less and less concrete. And what we are left with really, in one sense, is what we really know, is that we are conscious. That we know. What else we know about the world, it's all a kind of intellectual exercise, but actual knowing that's another thing.

So, biologically we have limitations but we feel as though we have no limitations. That feeling is coming from the fact that we are not biological. Consciousness is not biological in its makeup. Do you follow me? One of the questions that modern science has been unable to answer by its own admission is-What is the biological makeup of consciousness?

From the Bhagavat we would answer that, first of all, there seems to be a bias to your question. Who says that it has to be biological in makeup? Somebody told me the other day, "The problem with you spiritual people is that you can't think freely." I said, "Why not?". He said, "Because first of all you start with a premise that there is God, or a soul, number one. Whereas in science, in naturalism, we don't start with any premise like that. And two, you cannot challenge authority. You have your guru, you have your texts, you have to follow it. So, you can't think freely."

I replied, among other things, that thinking has its limitations. There is no free thinking in its entirety, as I've explained. The capacity of the human, biologically speaking, is limited. Like every other species of life. Don't think that rats, or cockroaches, at some point are going to understand you. Something that is just a simple problem to humans, to them it is a mystery that they could not conceive because they are not biologically constituted in such a way that they can even consider the questions.

And so as I say, biologically speaking the same holds true for human beings. That's the reasonable conclusion. And so it is a folly to think that you can think freely in the full sense of the term and thereby know everything. That you have unlimited explanatory power. And secondly, ...naturalism, we call it metaphysical naturalism, it begins with the belief that there is nothing supernatural. We begin with the belief that there is something supernatural, and it's you. It's very complimentary.

You are not part of the natural world. You are supernatural. You have a role in the natural world and as a supernatural entity, consciousness, you have a role in the natural world to supervise, if you will, the natural world and tend to her in such a way that you won't be violating and pillaging her. And that she will then work with you in pursuit of your realization and experience of the theory in yoga, vedanta, of spiritual traditions worth their salt, so to speak. That you are supernatural, you are consciousness, you are not matter. It's a super idea. If there is anything in the world that most resembles God what would it be? It would be you. In terms of you being consciousness.

...We turn on material nature, we animate matter...Yes, biologically you have to die but luckily we are not biological in our makeup. To ask, "What is the biological makeup of consciousness?", is to begin with a prejudice. With a presupposition that everything is matter. The better question would be, "Is there a biological makeup to consciousness?" Let's think freely here. So there is as much free thinking in spirituality, theology in some sense but mostly mysticism. There is more free thinking or as much as there is in a non-theistic approach.

And, second complain was, "In your spiritual traditions you can't think freely because you have to answer to authority. The guru says no, you have to say no." That's not true. It's not true. What do I mean by that? You look and see, you take the sacred texts that I am speaking about, for example, vedanta, and there are many interpretations of that. Nuanced interpretations very rich in their differences. They are reading from the same authoritative texts,if you will, and drawing different meanings. There is a base agreement among the mystics.  Even within Hinduism there are so many different types of  approaches to transcendence and notions of what it constitutes that they think that's a problem. Who is right? What's our answer? They are all right. Such is the nature of the subject. If you look at it on one side like a valuable jewel, it has many facets. By different approaches, we look at it in one way and from another way and it shows itself in different ways.

They are all right if, that is, they stand on the common ground of the idea that consciousness itself is foundational and different from matter. That is the ground of being. We could stand on it, we could sit on it, quietly, shanti shanti shanti, and rest there and love to exist and know that I don't have to die. And have no fear, can you imagine having no fear? No anxiety? ...


We don't know the extent to which we exist if we don't all of that will end. So we can love to exist in the real and full sense of the term but there is also the possibility of existing to love. That means not sitting on the ground of being but dancing on the ground of being. This is what this Bhagavatam speaks about. Dancing on the ground of being...

We are talking about consciousness and the difference between consciousness and matter and the fact that human life is meant to explore the question why and human life is the question why. The answer doesn't come from nature. Where does it come from? It doesn't come from nature because it is not a question about our biological self, how to eat, how to sleep, how to mate, how to defend. It's, "Why?".

Why am I? The natural world says, "I don't have the answers but I can show you where you can get them." Material nature pushes us in the direction of our own consciousness source, if you will. And a beautiful manifestation of that is these sacred texts. They are called revelation.

...It is said about those persons who are intoxicated by this book Bhagavatam, and all that it says, it says about them that they forgot to eat, they forgot to sleep, they forgot to mate. They were preoccupied with "why". They reasoned about it and they came to certain conclusions based on their experiences. They came to the conclusion that reason has its limits. They came to the conclusion that experiential reality is diametrically opposed, or the antithesis, of non-experiential reality. Do you understand what I am saying?

Matter is a non-experiential reality. We are a unit of experiential reality. What is the difference between experience and non-experience? Can you measure it? Will experience come out of non-experience do you think? Is it logically possible that experience will come out of non-experience? Do you think that at any point while playing pool that eight ball will say "ouch"? Or say, "Could you put a little more chalk on that thing?" (laughter) We don't expect that do we?

You laugh at that. It is laughable but some people are teaching that by way of saying who you are and the feelings and experiences that you have, it's just something in the brain. We haven't found it yet but we are going to find it...You have to understand that neurons of the brain are made from the exact things that pool balls are made of. They are not made of anything different. There is no different

We are subjective, spiritual reality. Matter is objective, non-experiential reality. Don't try to objectify subjective. That's a folly  You can say, "I'm dead", but does it make any sense? Think about it. If I say I'm dead you say, "Yeah, you are ridiculous too." That's laughable. That is called in philosophy a preformative contradiction. You can't say that you are dead. That is not rational. So to say that consciousness is not foundational is the same thing because you need consciousness to say consciousness is not foundational. You cannot deny the primacy of consciousness because it requires consciousness to do that. You cannot get away from it.

The fact that consciousness is so difficult to define and explain is no reason to think that it is less tangible or meaningful. It is the very basis of all meaning. The fact that it cannot be defined is because there is nothing that it compares to. We define things by comparison. There is nothing it compares to because the whole of the natural world, if you will, is non-experiential reality. And experiential reality is entirely different than non-experiential reality. And the one experiential reality cannot come out of non-experiential reality. So they are ontologically different. This is the difference between your self and your brain. It is said in the Gita, it is said most things are done by the brain. That's what it says. But it also says, but you are not a brain.  Many things we think we do are actually done by the brain. But you are not a brain.

What the brain doesn't do is produce experiential existence which cannot be produced. Why? Because experiential reality cannot come out of experiential reality as we've concluded. And matter is constituted of non-experiential reality. We know all material things are governed by time and space. So if consciousness is ontologically different than matter, it doesn't arise out of matter which is constrained by time and space, it means consciousness is not constrained by time and space. That means it didn't begin at any point and it won't end at any point. And that's us. We better get used to one another because nobody is going anywhere. (laughter). It's a hard lesson to learn.

...So, the question why, these questions they can't be answered by nature. They are answered by consciousness. Consciousness means this form of revelation is an expression. The books are dealing with consciousness. These rishis concluded the thing worth thinking about, or pursuing, or reasoning about as far as reason goes, is "What is the nature of consciousness?" They were not very concerned about what is the nature of the natural world so they spoke about it in ways that appear to us in the modern time like they were uninformed about the natural world. No, they were not that interested in the natural world. They only saw the natural world as useful in terms of how you could interact with it or think about it such that it would help foster understanding of the subjective world. Consciousness.

We study, for example Bhagavatam, it speaks about the natural world but if you look carefully you will see it speaks about it in such a way that by thinking about it in that way it will help to understand and pursue the idea that you are not part of the natural world. You are supernatural. You could have a role, as I said, in relation to the natural world. It's a super role. As an overseer and so forth, and only as much as you understand and realize and experience you are supernatural.

Can you really be a steward of the world, which is such a popular idea today, and not exploit and be involved in the pillaging and raping of the earth, for example, which is a positive theme we don't want to be part of? Only as much as we've understood the difference between ourselves and the natural world can we be such a steward. To the extent that we are still identified with it is to the extent to which we are going to take from it. We feel we have needs and necessities that are not really intrinsic to ourselves.

So this book, the Bhagavatam, is about all these things. And it really is about thinking a lot to the point of, "Okay, I have to stop thinking." I've come in touch with a fact that thinking is not a way of knowing comprehensively. Loving is the way. That's irrational. What do I mean by that? I mean, not irrational, but it would seem that by giving you would end up with less. Am I right? If you have ten dollars and you give away one you have nine. By the math if you give what you have you end up with less. But our experience in life is that when we give we grow. We get. We cannot say, "I gave, look what I got.", but people will look at you and say you got something. "What is it? I want it." They want what they are, what they see in you that is arising from the giving.

...If you want to understand consciousness you have to be what you are. This is a great challenge. You have to extract yourself from your identification with the objective world and your tendency to objectify the subjective which is backwards thinking. That means that you have to become a giver, a lover, not a taker. As much as we are attached to a material sense of identity we are at a loss of the fullness of who we are. We want to be. We are trying, we are struggling, to be. But you are. But there is a perception when we identify with matter that we may not be if we don't take. We seem to be threatened with the prospect of non-existence so, therefore, we struggle with existence. "One living being is food for another."That's another way of saying that there's a struggle for existence.

We are struggling for existence but according to the vedanta, what we have been talking about, we already exist. Why are we struggling for existence? We struggle to know also. This thought that knowledge will set you free. But we are already a knower. And we are a lover. This is the conclusion of the Bhagavatam. The self, it's a unit of being, it's a unit of knowing and it's a unit of loving. Sat cit ananda. A unit of that. We know, from what we've discussed, that it exists without beginning.

Swami Tripurari: Changing Our Angle of Vision

Changing Our Angle of Vision

An Excerpt from a Lecture Titled: Q&A: To Take Out a Thorn With Another

By Swami Tripurari

It's about changing our angle of vision which means changing our self. Spiritual life is very much about change. You should be simple and should say it's not about remaining how you are. That's the problem. How I am is the problem. It's not just adding something more so I could be more of what I think of myself to be. It's changing entirely what you think of yourself. We look at the world, and understandably so, as a world of things that we are the master of, for our purpose, and have meaning only if we use them. And there's a lot of truth to that. 


From, 'I am the subject', in command of the material objects, which is the illusion, to, '... I'm a subject but that's the  Supersubject.'  So in the relation to the supersubject I have meaning and value as much as he thinks about me. Cares about me. And of course, it's through the agents of divinity that Bhagavan shows his caring. They are the krpa sakti of Bhagavan. Krpa means mercy. The krpa sakti of Krsna is manifest in his devotees. In his sadhus. That's where it's manifest.


But looking at the world is not the only place to look. We should look at our self and realize we are not of the world. So then what is our source? Then we have to look at the other side. As much as I'm the subject and material things are the objects that I may use to my purposes, materially speaking, when I really think about that I realize, 'Here I am. I'm the subject, these are the objects. I'm using them but for material purposes.' I'm being used by them, in other words. Do you understand? I'm not material. I'm not an object. I am the subject. And I think I'm using the things but they are using me. I'm becoming an object...This is visnu-maya. This is very powerful. The illusion is very powerful. 


So if we look carefully on that side we say, 'Oh, hold on a minute here.' And then, 'I am not matter. It's limited. There's no life, it needs someone to animate it. I don't want to become like that. I'm different. So, I am consciousness, what is my source? If I am not derived from matter what is my source?'


The jiva, the atma,  has a natural affinity for its source. It's mentioned in Paramatma Sandarbha as one of the qualities of the atma. It senses that it exists, has a sense of 'I am'. It's a unit of enduring existence, knowing and bliss...And it has a natural kind of bond with, or affinity for its source. It's source is the paramatma. The mahavisnu which is a particular manifestation of Krsna for the world with the lila of creation. It has a natural affinity for its source. That's very understandable. It's like you have a natural affinity for your parents. You have a natural tendency, even, to search it out. 'Where am I from?' It's part of the question, 
'Why am I? What am I about?...From where do I derive?" 


It's inborn in the self to search it's origins.It has a natural bond for its source.And so as it looks to its source it sees from a different perspective. What does it see? 


He was looking at matter and seeing material objects as objects that I am the subject of, I'm in control of. Of course it has just been explained that that's an illusion controlling us. They are controlling us and we are becoming more like them. And that's a problem. 



If we look to our source we find, 'Oh, I am consciousness but I am like a spark of the fire of consciousness. So, in relation to my source I am somewhat like how the objects of the world are to me. I'm like an object. A thinking and feeling one.' You understand? But nonetheless, I am a dependent entity. In my ability to know, my ability to love is derived. I derived ananda. Derived sat, Derived cit...Not independent but its derived from the source. And so, this is the changing of the angle of vision we were talking about.


Krsna, himself, he's lost. He's trying to find whether Radha loves him or not. He knows no suffering except for that. But sadhus, they know something. They've been in the world. It's like a dream, 'Oh, I know what that's like.', so they can be empathetic with us. 'Yes, I remember. That was terrible.' 

Pujyapada Sridhar Maharaj once described our material existence like mushrooms-it has no roots. We are rooted in brahman. We are rooted in paramatma. Material covering is just like that, it's like moss. Moss, it has no roots. It can be swept away very easily. That may seem to us to be very difficult but for someone that can see, that is a small thing. We are too close to it, it looks too big to us. 

...Our spiritual life looks like a great mountain to climb, but it's not...My godbrother Visnujana Maharaj used to say, 'The distance we have traveled thus far before meeting our guru is far greater than the distance we have from this point on.' ...You've come so far, the distance is very short from here...

Say you want to build a house and you commission me to build your house. I have a designer and an architect and a contractor. So you give me your money and I will build you a house and you want to come out and see it...The house is going to be three stories tall but you come and look and there is just a hole in the ground. You think, 'What is going?'So our spiritual life's beginning is something like that. We need a foundation. We need to get some things in place. The progress does move in an interesting path. Like with the highest Mt. Everest, you have to go through the foothills...So, at some point it looks like,  'I'm going down!'. (laughter) But the one who is standing back can see, "It's going up..."...

If you chant harinam with the blessings of Sri Guru, then certainly Krsna is your life. We should think like this: that somebody of spiritual consequence thinks about me. That should be my only concern. That someone of spiritual consequence is actually thinking about me, caring about me, concerned about me. Then I am okay.

Swami Tripurari on Reading Devotionally and Submissive Hearing

The following was transcribed from a weekly conference call where Swami Tripurari takes questions from disciples and spiritually inquisitive participants. You can find this call as well as previously recorded calls here. This particular conversation took place on 1/1/17.

 

Swami Tripurari On Reading Devotionally and  Submissive Hearing

Swami Tripurari: You want me to talk about the discipline of devotional reading? How to read a book devotionally, I guess that's what you mean, right?

Manohara das: Yes. Yes, Guru Maharaj.

Swami Tripurari: There are some things that could be said. Once Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaj said that, 'If you read the Srimad Bhagavatam but if a vaisnava, an advanced devotee, has not asked you to read it then it is simply an intellectual exercise, whereas, if a devotee asks you to read it then it's actually bhakti.'  He was emphasizing the point that in Vaisnavism we serve and we serve under a vaisnava. Similarly when Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswami Thakur was traveling in India and he would come to a village they would often present the local mystic and say, 'Here is our leader', and so forth. He would ask them, "What vaisnava are you serving under?' And if they would say nobody, everybody serves me, or whatever, then he would dismiss the person.

So, very much the spirit of raganuga bhakti-anuga means to follow, so we follow the ways of the ecstasies of Vrindavan. Of how they serve Krsna in Vrindavan and how that's represented in the chain of disciplic succession and through the saints and so forth. The whole spirit is one of serving under the guidance of someone of spiritual consequence. And that should be our healthy anxiety. 'Is there anyone of spiritual consequence that knows what I'm doing or I have a connection with?' That...ties us in, if you will.

That's the overarching spirit and Sridhara Maharaj applied it to this idea of devotional reading. Obviously in a general sense the vaisnavas want you to read the Bhagavatam but I think what Sridhara Maharaj also meant was that you are reading it with the view to apply ourselves then in service. And practically speaking, the advanced devotee is the object of service in as much as he or she represents Krsna in a prominent way in our lives because we come to know about Krsna through such persons and what he means and what the implications are, of his teachings and so on and so forth.

I've often said, 'Why do we bow our head before the deity of Krsna?' Because some vaisnavas told us, 'This is Krsna'. So, Krsna is obviously in the vaisnava. For example...you mentioned in your question that you had been reading Sridhara Maharaj's mangalacarana, the auspicious invocation of prayers that he cites before the commentary itself, and that's traditional. So your question, as you presented it, came in the context of seeing his auspicious invocations, seeing some different prayers there that you had seen in different places, and so forth. And so, before I speak I cite a verse, offer respect to the guru. I cite a verse that's generic with regard to showing respect to my guru because I know there are people in the audience that have different gurus, at times, and I want to honor all of them, rather than just a verse glorifying my guru. But then I also sing two prayers that are glorifying Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Nityananda Prabhu. One by Vrindavan das Thakur and one by Krsnadas Kaviraj Goswami. And while I'm offering my respects to...Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityananda, the more inside track of what I'm doing is I'm offering my respects to the vision of Vrindavan das and what was his experience and Krishnadas' and seeking their blessings for speaking about and understanding the teachings of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Nityananda Prabhu.

...So that is one comment I would say, in regards to devotional reading and the need to invoke the presence of and blessings of saints, that our reading might be fruitful. And with that spirit in mind there's another term, or phrase, that Prabhupada coined which was, 'submissive oral reception.' It's mentioned in the Bhagavad-gita...Before the guru we make inquiries. We should show respect. We should make relevant inquiries and render service. That is what the Gita says. And Prabhupada would often render the word...as submissive inquiries. So we inquire submissively. 

I think that the spirit of that submissive inquiry is it's an inquiry not aimed at just titillating my intellect. Satisfying the appetite of my intellectual curiosity. And people do fall into this. That's why we have to learn to read, hear, chant with our heart, not with our head, and use our head as a tool to soften our heart. To sort out with our head something in the teaching that rings true to our heart and then use our head to put it in our heart and make it a foundational stone for the temple of Radha and Krsna that we're building in our heart.

To read devotionally would be to try to read and hear in such a way that you get some point from it that you know is true and should be part of your life. And then you make it part of your life. Or you really make an effort to make it a part of your life. In other words, you get get an epiphany when you read, 'Oh that's a really good point', 'Yeah, I should do that.' But then if you don't try to follow up and make it a part of your life, the epiphany kind of goes away and , 'Well, maybe it wasn't as good as I thought.', and you rationalize it and so on and so forth.

You want to read in such a way that such epiphanies come and you don't allow your mind to rationalize them away. That you actually integrate them into your life. Now, there are points that stand out, there are points of tattva, points of philosophical truths, that you didn't know previously and you go, 'Oh wow, I didn't understand it like that.' Okay, then you want to make that understanding something that, again, is a building block for the temple that you are building in your heart. You want to gather those kind of gems like you are going to build a temple and the foundational stones are like pearls and diamonds that you mine from proper reading of the scriptures. So you are looking for those kinds of points. And you are looking more so even for points that apply to how you need to change. So that's what I would call submissive hearing. That hearing that's not, again, just for the gratification of the voracious intellect. Because if that's the way that you're hearing, in due course the intellect will become bored with the subject because it's not able to penetrate into an experience unto itself. What is being offered through the sound, through the text, That can only be experienced by the atma, not the dull intellect. 

So, that's what you find sometimes. Devotees...think they understood it with their intellect but they never sufficiently allowed it to go into their heart and bring about change so that they could experience the truths in there and begin to find gems even in places where they thought they already mined. They've gone back to an old vein and found more valuable jewels than were there before, even. And you can live in a book that you are entering into the ongoing conversation with the Godhead, so to speak. That's how I look at revelation. It's a conversation. An answer to the question that human life is.  Of "Why am I? What am I? What is my purpose? What is the meaning?' That is what human life is. It's an existential question and the scriptures are an answer coming from beyond nature which includes intellect. And so that's how I would think about submissive hearing, the spirit of it, and so forth.

I, myself, as a younger devotee would have the opportunity, I don't have the opportunity as much now, to hear others give classes. And not everyone was great at giving a class in those days but my spirit of hearing was that if I could hear one point, just one point...that was valuable and I could take advantage of it then my time was well spent...The hearer can make something out of nothing. The devotee can make spirit out of matter. Caitanya Mahaprabhu saw a mound of sand on the beach on Jagganath Puri and he thought it was Govardhan Hill. And it was. He actually experienced Govardhan Hill.

So, with the right hearing, with the right spirit, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you can draw out even from anywhere. Mahaprabhu was singing a cinema song in a ratha yatra and from it he was drawing the deepest meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam. So, that kind of hearing, that's how we want to orient ourselves also. And if we are in that spirit, also I am saying, you can draw from other devotees, even you can draw examples of how not to be from others and think, 'Wow, that was just great hanging out with him. I learned not to be like this. It was a really good lesson.'...That's the power of what I'm talking about. The right spirit. And it's the spirit to hear with, the spirit to chant with, even to speak with. We speak with the spirit of learning something, and so forth. Does that help?

Manohara das: Yes, thank you so much Guru Maharaj. Happy New Year.

Swami Tripurari: Happy New Year.

White Elephants

The birds sound their calls as they swoop and dive from branch to branch, sometimes a field apart from one another. Nature sighs, her cool breath passing over me as large cumulus clouds effortlessly sail by, like giant white elephants. They remind me of the early volumes of Srila Prabhupada Lilamrta, where it was described how Srila Prabhupada, while in India, would refer to his Western disciples as white elephants. 

Srila Prabhupada's disciples would dance in bliss on the dusty streets, surprising the local Indians who had never before seen such a sight. Rekindling spiritual interest throughout a land who, though the birthplace of God, now found itself largely inhabited by a people whose affectionate glances had turned away from the deep well of spirituality in which their bodies had appeared in this lifetime. Instead ghost-like eyes, void of devotion's spark, cast themselves towards their present object of affection-the cheap and superficial glimmer of materialism reflected back at them from the Western world. 

Jolted from their maya-induced stupor some would come to view firsthand the miracles bhakti was capable of producing. For in their midst a fellow denizen brought back with him American "hippes" he had transformed into "happies". Anyone who makes just a cursory study of Srila Prabhupada's example soon comes to see how Krsna lovingly reciprocates with the desires of his pure devotees.

It's as if my heart opens just a little bit more when I am reminded of Srila Prabhupada. His dedication in serving Sri Guru and Sri Krsna brought Krsna consciousness around the world and directly into my own heart. It was his translation of the Gita that dramatically shifted my worldview from that of an impersonalist to one who aspires to become Krishna conscious. I had never anticipated such a transformation to occur when first reading the Gita As It Is. Or even when I began to chant. I thought chanting would help me learn to be more mindful. Little did I know that it would entirely redirect my spiritual course forever. 

I shift myself on the rock beneath me that serves as a seat overlooking a small pond. Its edges are ornamented by white lilies and its waters reflect a sky of blue displaying those white elephants again. They call themselves to be noticed. So seemingly graceful and buoyant they are. I begin to find myself sinking into thoughtful reverie, considering views from both the trenches and vistas of my journey so far.

While a lot has changed since I first began reading about Krsna consciousness and eventually practicing it, a few things have remained fairly constant. Regular reading of the sastras (even if just a verse or two) and chanting, my connection to serving at my local temple and my seeking to develop as much association as I can.

One thing that has changed is that I've learned to refine my sense of association. I've come to value like-minded association greatly and make cultivating such association a priority. By doing so I began to become more attune to my own spiritual compass. A compass that began to point towards the necessity of having a clear understanding of guru-tattva.

In Swami Tripurari's new book Sacred Preface, he writes:

"Diksa without siksa may be likened to a seed without water or sunshine, and siksa without diksa to water and sunshine without a seed." (p. 6)

There was a time, not too long ago, where my mind and heart feasted upon the nutritious spiritual diet of siksa relationships and yet my soul was void of the transforming nectar that diksa offers. The very seed needed to fully utilize and augment what siksa offers and yield tangible spiritual fruit.

Words from a recent lecture by Swami Tripurari that resonated with my own experience play themselves back in my consciousness.

"You have some feelings about your life and then you hear from a sadhu and she speaks in such a way that it confirms the things that you were thinking about, feeling about, but you couldn't quite articulate. She said it, or he said it, better than I could say it and so that person knows my heart. They're not different from me. He or she is a manifestation of my heart developed, my heart's prospect coming out. 

This is the idea of guru. That kind of feeling. Not some external oppression. You know it is said in the Upanishads, "One must accept a guru." It sounds like a law, "Oh God I better find a guru or I'll be breaking a law." But the spirit of it is more, "I must take shelter here because I'd be crazy not to." My interests, my own heart is going to be forming and it's being voiced in a way that I haven't been able to voice it but it's not unfamiliar entirely. It's not a new thing, an artificial imposition. It's like going home. An all knowing person is required for home going. As I said before...home is in the heart. This is a very extraordinary thing that's coming before me." (From the lecture: Braindead Bhakti)

Years ago I would have thought the idea of surrendering to any sort of spiritual teacher as intellectual suicide. How one's mind has a way of changing when a more informed spirituality beings to develop! One based not only on reason but also transrational thinking guided by a realized source. It's a humbling thing to admit to yourself that you have no chance of realizing the answers on your own but, as humbling as that is, it is even more liberating a feeling when you find a source that you know can help you find the answers and realizations you seek. A source that speaks to your heart. A source that you know can guide you Home.

"The disciple's realization of all that guru-tattva constitutes is in no way better facilitated than by association of such devotees, in whose company one finds one's guru." (Swami Tripurari, Sacred Preface, p. 24)

I think once again on the subject of association. How I not only feel so incredibly fortunate to be receiving guidance and inspiration from Sri Guru but how I have come to enter into association with devotees whose hearts are warmed by light from the same fire. Yes, like-minded and association and guru-tattva are probably the two most important areas in which I've developed a fuller understanding since I began pursuing bhakti. And I find them to be indispensable.

As my heart proceeds it becomes more inspired to dance with the spontaneous joy of devotion. It begins to feel incredibly light. Much like the white elephant clouds that drift before me. And like Srila Prabhupada's white elephants from the West that blissfully danced through the holy streets of India, singing out the Holy Names and seeking to serve their beloved Guru, I pray someday to feel such surrender and come to fully serve mine.  

Navigating Through Obstacles: Encouragement From Srila Sridhara Goswami Maharaj

"Of course, even if we are going the right way, it is never certain that the path will be free from obstacles. Even if we are making progress, unexpected hindrances may trouble us and delay our advancement. Though we see many around us falling or retreating, we must go forward. We should have the conviction to think that although many began with us on the path and are now going back, we shall have to go on. We shall have to strengthen our energy and go forward alone if necessary. Our faith should be so strong that we have the conviction to go on alone if necessary and by the grace of our Lord cross whatever difficulties we find on our way. In this way we must make ourselves fit. We must develop exclusive devotion. Of course, we shall always try to find good association. Yet sometimes it may seem that there is no association, that we are alone. Still, we must go on and search out the beacon light of the truth."

"The calculation of Prahlada's demonic father about the environment was falsified, but Prahlada's deeper vision saw reality correctly. He saw that Krsna is everywhere. And Krsna consciousness is commanding the whole.

So we must not allow ourselves to be discouraged under any circumstances, however acute they may apparently seem to us. Krsna is there. As much as the circumstances appear to oppose us, it is really not so. If only we can develop the right vision, the smiling face of the Lord will appear from behind the screen. That is Krsna consciousness. Krsna is beautiful, and He is eagerly awaiting to accept our services."

 

"Our march towards the infinite is a long journey, not a journey to be finished within a few hours, a few days, or a few years. And we have to adjust accordingly. It is not that we shall run quickly to make progress and then stop and sleep. It is a long way we shall have to go. We will only be successful if we develop humility - trnad api sunicena.

We should not create any circumstance that invites resistance. Still, if any resistance unexpectedly approaches us, we should try our best to forbear. And we must always be conscious that our guardian's eye is always over us, eager to help us in our campaign. We are not alone. We may go on confidently: there is a person above us to redress the wrong that may be shown to us, so we should not take the initiative.

We must not allow any ulterior purpose or temptation to induce us to give up our search for Sri Krsna. Let the satisfaction of guru, Gauranga, Krsna, and the Vaisnavas be our only objective. Let no other element enter upon our path. Our purity of purpose must always be very scrupulously maintained. We should think, "Alone I shall go on with my duty. I won't be always searching for someone to come and help me. Let them do their own duty. This is my duty."

With this attitude we shall go on. With this sort of adjustment our concentration may become more intense, our confidence in Krsna will be increased, and our duty will be pure and clear. We should be conscious that hindrances and obstacles are almost sure to attack us, but we must deal with them with humility and forbearance."

Excerpts Taken From: The Loving Search for the Lost Servant, Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Deva Goswami Maharaja