View source for In higher states of spiritual life, one can break even promises also, but they are devotees of comparative merit

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"In higher states of spiritual life, one can break even promises also, but they are devotees of comparative merit"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|22Jun13}}
{{last|22Jun13}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=0|Let=1}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Higher Stage]]
[[Category:State Of]]
[[Category:Spiritual Life]]
[[Category:One Can]]
[[Category:Break]]
[[Category:Promises of a Devotee of God]]
[[Category:They Are]]
[[Category:Comparative Merits of Devotees of God]]
[[Category:Comparison]]
[[Category:merit]]
</div>
<div id="Correspondence" class="section" sec_index="6" parent="compilation" text="Correspondence"><h2>Correspondence</h2>
</div>
<div id="1968_Correspondence" class="sub_section" sec_index="3" parent="Correspondence" text="1968 Correspondence"><h3>1968 Correspondence</h3>
</div>
<div id="LettertoSatsvarupaMontreal16June1968_0" class="quote" parent="1968_Correspondence" book="Let" index="203" link="Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968" link_text="Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968">
<div class="heading">Maharaja Dasarath, although he was a great devotee of the Lord, but because he was a Ksatriya king, keeping one's promise is inevitable for him. He preferred to banish Ramacandra on the request of his wife on the principle of keeping his promise. In higher states of spiritual life, one can break even promises also, but they are devotees of comparative merit.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968|Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Please accept my blessings. I thank you very much for your letter of June 12, 1968. Yes, I am getting some good opportunities to meet here several learned scholars. Last night we had a meeting in the house of Mr. Abdul Rabbi, and there were some University professors and a Dr. Abbot, a Dr. MacMillan, and many others, two clergymen, and their wives. One Father Lanlais was without wife. So there was very good discussion and by the Grace of Krishna, I was able to give them some impression of this philosophy, that it is nicer than anything. Professor Abdul is Mohammedan, and is writing a thesis of Sufi religion. And he was also impressed. Unfortunately, I had to eat there, but I accepted a little fruits only, while they were eating all sorts of nonsense, but at least they did not drink. We are the two persons only, Janardana and myself, we avoided all kinds of nonsense.</p>
<p>Brahmacaris and Brahmacarinis can live in the temple provided there is separate arrangement. The restriction is there because if they live together there might be sex impulses agitated. The whole principle is especially for the Brahmacaris to avoid causes which may give impetus to the sex desire. But in your country it is very difficult to make aloof the boys and girls because they are accustomed to mix together. So it is not possible for me to introduce this new system very strictly, because they are trained differently. Someway or other, if you are intelligent boy, you should make arrangement for the boys and girls to live separately; Brahmacaris at one place all together, and the Brahmacarinis all together at another place. We should always remember that sex life in spiritual advancement is great impediment. So keeping this point of view in front, we should intelligently manage things with great care. So that our aim of life may not be missed.</p>
<p>Maharaja Dasarath, although he was a great devotee of the Lord, but because he was a Ksatriya king, keeping one's promise is inevitable for him. He preferred to banish Ramacandra on the request of his wife on the principle of keeping his promise. In higher states of spiritual life, one can break even promises also, but they are devotees of comparative merit. In the case of Vasudeva, we find that he was spiritually more advanced than Maharaja Dasarath. Vasudeva was also in agreement with Kamsa that he would deliver all his sons to his hand, as soon as the child is born. But in the case of Krishna he broke his promise. The point is that Krishna appeared as the full fledged Personality of Godhead. But Ramacandra appeared as an ideal king. Therefore in the Lila of Ramacandra, principles of morality and ethics as they are to be followed by ideal king and ruler was followed. In the same sense, He banished Sita in order to prove Himself as an ideal king who wanted to make His subjects always happy. The whole program was on the basis of an ideal king. But in the case of Lord Krishna, He played as full independent Supreme Personality of Godhead. Apparently, therefore he transgressed so many moral and ethical principles. These comparative studies on the life of Krishna and Ramacandra is very intricate, but the basic principle is that Ramacandra appeared as an ideal king and Krishna appeared as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although there is no difference between the two. A similar example is Lord Caitanya. He appeared as devotee, and not as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is Krishna Himself. So we should accept the Lord's mood in particular appearances and we should worship Him in that mood. Sometimes Lord Caitanya, because He is Krishna Himself, somebody worships Him in the same manner as Krishna. But Krishna was in the role of enjoyer and Lord Caitanya is in the role of being enjoyed. So the party known as Gauranga Nagari, they are considered to be deviated from pure devotional service, on account of Lord Caitanya given the same facility of Krishna, which He did not like. Our service mood should be compatible to the attitude of the Lord. Not that we should overlap the attitude of Krishna to Lord Caitanya, or Lord Caitanya to Krishna, or Krishna to Ramacandra, or Ramacandra to Krishna. Therefore, in the Sastras, specific injunctions are there, just like to worship Lord Caitanya is by the method of chanting Hare Krishna.</p>
<p>Yes, it is true that Ramacandra banished Sita later on. Ayodhya is not bound up with any material worlds. Just like Vrindaban is not bound up by any material limitations, as much as Krishna is not bound up by any material limitations. So the kingdom of Ayodhya historically was a tract of land as we see at the present moment, but at that time the king of Ayodhya was the emperor of the world.</p>
<p>Yes, that is very nice, your statement that "I am offering special flowers and prayers to Lord Jagannatha every morning because I know He is liberal to crippled and mistake-making devotees of His Lotus Feet." If we are always afraid of our mistakes, Krishna will save us from all such misgivings and even imperceptibly we commit some mistake, He will forgive us. But we should be always very careful not to commit mistakes.</p>
<p>You are trying your best at that center, and Krishna will help you certainly. I am very glad to see that you are not disappointed. This is a good sign. One should work with courage and patience, and certainly Krishna will be pleased. For the time being you have four or five devotees there, so you try to maintain them there, so that you can carry on your program. Hoping you are all well.</p>
<p>Your ever well-wisher,</p>
<p>A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami</p>
<p>N. B. In the near future if I get even Canadian Permanent Visa, I shall go at least once quarterly to your place &amp; try to enlighten people there in Krishna Consciousness. Please offer my blessings to Jadurani, __ &amp; __.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>