The Lotus
Debate Continues
from Locanananda Das
It was quite an honor and a delight to hear from my dear godbrother Umapati Swami on the
subject of lotus flowers. He and I used to preach together on the streets of Paris back in
1970 when the only temple in France was in my tiny apartment. He was my spiritual mentor
then and I continue to offer him all respect as a member of the sannyasa ashram. I pray
that he will not take offense at the comments made in this or previous correspondence
since such friendly discussion of our Krishna conscious philosophy is solely intended for
the purpose of mutual enlightenment.
Upon the recommendation of Dravida Prabhu, I have researched the tradition in our line
regarding the practice of showing an acharya standing on a lotus flower and I would like
to report my findings. First of all, there are many instances in devotional art where the
Supreme Lord and His eternal consort are depicted standing on the lotus flower to
illustrate Their confidential pastimes. The four-armed form of the Lord as the Supersoul
also stands on a lotus flower, as previously noted, as does Lord Caitanya's six-armed
Sadbhuja form. Sometimes Lord Krishna and Lord Caitanya appear individually standing on a
lotus and, finally, the members of the Panca-Tattva appear to be standing on lotuses when
They are being worshiped together simultaneously. One might also consider that those who
reside on the topmost planet in the spiritual world are standing on a lotus because
Krishnaloka is shaped like a lotus flower, but they do so in their eternally perfected,
eternally blissful siddha-deha bodies. Nowhere, however, did I find an example of a
vaisnava acharya standing on a lotus flower. Neither Lord Brahma, nor Madhavendra Puri,
the Six Goswamis, Bhaktivinode Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati or, in any of his vyasa
puja books, Srila Prabhupada, are shown in this pose. It is quite obvious that this
fanciful creation of your artist's imagination does not follow our Vaisnava tradition and
is clearly a product of unbridled speculation.
To avoid the fatal defect of mental speculation, philosophy must precede art. A work of
art must therefore be based, either on a description given in the scriptures or a
precedent formally approved by the spiritual master, to be considered authentic. Chakra's
depiction of Srila Prabhupada standing on a lotus flower does not adhere to either of
these criteria and can therefore not be considered bona fide.
It was Srila Prabhupada himself who personally established the tradition in ISKCON to not
concoct via artistic expression. The training ISKCON artists received from Srila
Prabhupada was that they should be atttentive to every detail of their work and not allow
anything unauthorized to appear on their canvas. He would comment, for example, that Lord
Caitanya looked too muscular, or that the gopis who were engaged in the rasa-lila looked
too much like hippies. His meticulous care in presenting our philosophy through the use of
art was another unique symptom of his unalloyed devotion to Krishna.
Art must follow philosophy, and one's creative ability should be expressed within the
parameters accepted by our tradition. Because Chakra is not an official ISKCON
publication, perhaps you are not limited by these traditions and choose instead to express
your creativity more liberally. But there is a real danger in setting such a precedent.
Your faulty line of reasoning is that if Locanananda Das cannot find an explicit
prohibition, then your concept must be accepted as bona fide. Where does the sastra say
that whatever is not explicitly prohibited is bona fide? If this continues, then your next
trick may be to depict the acharya riding on the back of Garuda and then challenge me to
find a verse that explicitly states that Lord Visnu's carrier never gives anyone else a
ride.
My suggestion is that it is wiser to err on the side of caution. If there is the slightest
possibility that your presentation of Srila Prabhupada standing on a lotus is a breach of
etiquette or is tinged with impersonalism, it is certainly preferable to adjust your
illustration. If there is any chance the innocent reader might conclude that it would be
proper to glorify gurus in general in this unauthorized way, then it is wiser and safer to
alter your picture of His Divine Grace. If the editors of Chakra want to be recognized as
adherents of Vaisnava tradition, they should admit they committed a faux pas and then make
the necessary changes. This is known as taking a clump of straw between one's teeth or,
more colloquially, as eating humble pie—a very purifying experience.
If you find it necessary to respond to this letter, I hope you will include in your
response the passages from sastra that describe an acharya standing on a lotus flower,
since philosophy must precede art. Or, perhaps you have discovered a reasonable facsimile
of your portrayal of a Vaisnava acharya in the archives of published artwork approved by
Srila Prabhupada. Let us now see what kind of evidence you have come up with to argue your
case. If you can conclusively show either a verse or a precedent in Vaisnava tradition to
substantiate your argument, you would have proven your point and I will withdraw my
objection with a full apology. If not, then please do the needful and make the required
adjustment without further ado.
Begging your forgiveness for any offenses I may have committed, I remain faithfully
Your servant,
Locanananda Das
© CHAKRA 4-Dec-98 |