Remembering Padmanabha in New England

Some Padmanabha New England Remembrances

by Gargamuni das

I cannot possibly put into words the loss I feel with the passing of Padmanbha Prabhu. Before he moved to Germany at the end of 1983, he lived on this side of the Atlantic, in a place called New England. Some 27 years after his move, his departure from this world has sent shock waves to everyone who knew and loved him. And make no mistake about it- to know him was to love him- and there are many devotees here who dearly miss him. My remembrances are just one small account, and not from the very beginning of his Krishna consciousness, but from a period between 1981 – 1983, that have left an indelible mark on my personal life. I hope the devotees in Europe enjoy hearing a little bit about this rare soul before he blessed them with his association in Germany.

Around the time I joined the temple, he used to cook the feast by himself in the Providence temple. He was made the temple president by default because all the other senior devotees had moved to other temples. Although not a managerial type, he had all the other qualifications to run a preaching center- he could cook, perform bhajans and preach very well. He was a bit messy in those days but his feasts were spectacularly big and delicious. So much bigger than what most temples serve out today. Oh my god were they ever delectable. Pakoras, curded sabjis galore, savories, fancy rice pulaos, chutneys, puris and sweet rice were generally the bare minimum.

My brother, Kesisudana and I worked in the kitchen full-time just washing the dirty pots he created. It was hard to keep up with him. He would add the ingredients with his signature horn sounds "ba-doo-boo-boo" (he was a music teacher) without ever following any recipes. Spending time with him in the kitchen for hours everyday, and hearing all his Krishna conscious stories was the consummate bhakta program. Sometimes he spoke to us kindly like a loving uncle, and sometimes joked with us with his great sense of humor like a close friend.

When we cleaned up after the feasts, he would put the leftover prasadam in transfer containers. He made sweet rice so delicious that I still dream of it today. Whatever leftover sweet rice that didn't fit in the container, he would personally eat that night. The next day, Monday, he would always do a grapefruit juice fast, sit on the porch all day, chant japa, and answer all the philosophical questions my brother and I had. He would also preach to whatever guests came, or whatever neighbors happened to walk by. He was so laid back and so self-satisfied. He never seemed to be in anxiety about anything.

This was around 1983. He pretty much taught me to cook. He was about 37 at the time, I was 19 and my brother was 18.

Sometimes, we would chant bhajans for three or four hours at a time. He knew all of Bhaktivinode Thakur's songs on the harmonium. I would close my eyes and be transported into another world. After stopping, he would pause with his eyes closed also- then slowly open them with a smile on his face, look around the room and just say "Awwww Krishna." As one devotee put it, “He was always one of the good guys.” He put bhakti above all considerations.

For me, those days in his association will always be precious.

The first time I ever visited a temple was in Hartford and he was there. First my brother and I talked to the temple president Pyari, and then Padmanabha appeared. He had cooked the feast.

"I want to go to India this year," he said "But I can't." "Just go in your mind then," Pyari said jokingly. "Okay," Padmanabha said in his happy-go-lucky fashion. Since it was my first time, I thought he was serious and speculated they were talking about astral travel. I thought he must be a mystic yogi or something. It turned out he was even better.

I remember once, he, my brother and I all went to Boston to help cook for the Ratha-yatra and the Whole Life Expo, which went on at the same time that year. In addition, I think Janmastami and Vyasa-puja were all about the same time as well. It was madness. We served thousands and thousands of plates of prasadam and were working in the kitchen for 16-hours a day for about four days.

Padmanabha burned his feet straining a gigantic pot of boiling potatoes in the back parking lot but just kept on cooking with blistered feet, unfettered.

When we got back to Providence we were totally dead for the rest of the week. We would rise and Padbanabha would lead kirtan in a very hoarse voice for about 20 minutes and then we would all crash in our various rooms upstairs. Sometimes we would wake up, look at each other, say nothing and then just go back to sleep. Other times, we would come out and chant a few rounds and then just go back in our rooms and crash again. This went on for days until we finally recovered.

We were bramacharis when I knew him. He was older and had read all of Prabhupada's books before he finally joined the temple in his mid-30s. He was very mature compared to the young passionate bucks running around the temple in those days.

After he moved to Germany, he married and had a son.Hanuman. It just dawned on me that it was he who got me saying "Hanuman Ki jaya!" anytime I had to lift something heavy. He was in the military before he was a devotee and was especially attracted to Lord Rama's pastimes.

I recently contacted a friend who had left the movement after living with Padmanabha for several months. He was deprogrammed when he was only 19-years old but he never forgot his older friend. Upon hearing the news, now 44, he wrote, “Is that the devotee the I lived with in Providence ? If so, it is very sad he passed away. He was like a father figure and a great Man.”

I wondered about Padmanabha's next destination as I checked out of my hotel room after hearing the news the night before. As I left, I did the once-over, checking inside the nightstand. To my surprise, there I found Prabhupada's Gita right next to Gidgeon's Bible in the drawer. I picked it up with one hand and the book opened to 12.6 -7. To my delight, I read the following-

"For one who worships Me, giving up all his activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, who has fixed his mind upon Me, O son of Pritha, for him I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death."

He left us in New England suddenly at the end of 1983. My brother and I went out for the Christmas marathon and he went to his guru’s Vyasa Puja in Germany. He was requested to be president at one of the temples and he stayed there for good.

Now he has also left this world suddenly, after a brief illness. I guess that’s his style- short and sweet. I also guess Krishna has other plans for him. I feel so fortunate to have known such a great soul.

Political Factions and Progressive Tax

James Madison was very much concerned with the potential problem of faction due to his perceived fear of the power of the masses to trample upon the rights of the individual as provided in the U.S. constitution and later in the Bill of Rights.

Before we can go further into the discussion, a basic definition of the word faction seems appropriate. According to Webster, one definition of faction is “a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking.” Another one reads, “party spirit especially when marked by dissension.” Thus a faction, in its basic stripped-down sense, implies a smaller group of people, within a larger group, whose inherent self-interest creates dissension, or some disunity within that larger group of people. In Federalist No. 10, Madison defined it thus, “A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Here, the phrase “adverse to the rights of other citizens” is significant. In its milder and smaller form, Madison saw a faction as harmless and part of the general diversity of a nation. In its larger form, however, Madison saw said factions, as a very real threat to the health, fabric and ultimate survival of a union and the rights of the individual.

In the realm of subject pertaining to faction, Madison felt that such arenas as regime and religion were vulnerable. He was most concerned, however, with “the various and unequal distribution of property.” He thought that according to whether you were a property owner or not, you had distinct and separate interests in the logistics of society. Property owners, in general, have much more of an economic control over a nation, and with such control, are much more able to tilt the playing field of a nation in their favor.

In Madison’s mind, there were two ways to limit the harm caused by faction. The first way towards such limitation would be to remove the very cause of faction from the start; the second way would be to somehow control its effects. In reference to the first way, Madison saw only two real possibilities- to either remove people’s liberties as fought for in the American Revolution (which essentially would result in some sort of dictatorship or monarchy), or, in a sense, create some kind of “utopian” society where people’s interests and opinions create a homogeneous harmony. Seeing the first option as counter-productive to liberty and the second as impractical, Madison concluded that the only practical way to deal with the danger of faction is by controlling its effects.

Towards that end, Madison saw a Republic, or representational Democracy, as a much more viable option than a “pure Democracy.” In an outright Democracy of vox populi, majority rules on all issues including the voting in of specific laws. Because of its concomitant nature, this inherently has the potential to eclipse the rights of the individual that Americans hold so dear. In a small state, or in a nation where states have too much autonomy, such a factional minority can become more of a majority to the point of dominating or downright taking over a state. In a more diverse and larger nation, where representatives are elected from a larger pool and associate with representatives from other states, such a phenomena is much less likely to occur. It is also more likely that such representatives will be more competent. Partly to achieve these goals, Madison took the Federalist stance and saw a strong central government as essential to the preservation of the union and more specifically, the rights of the individual.

It just seems to me that factions can certainly be a hindrance to society when they get out of control, but a society devoid of them, would also essentially be a telltale sign of a lack of diversity. Therefore, a balance must be struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of groups of people that form and create special interests. There is nothing inherently wrong with “special interests” as long as they don’t gain special privileges that trample on the rights of the individual. This is, of course, especially pertinent today where lobbyists wine, dine and influence representatives towards their aims, often not in the best interest of individuals who wield less influence. Citizens have a right to form groups and parties to make their voices more strong, but the unequal distribution of wealth which goes hand in hand with a capitalistic economic system, can extend its hand into the political arena and sometimes do harm to the individual.

I don’t think there are any easy answers to these questions. Ultimately, in a Democracy or a Republic, the individuals who vote or choose not to, only have themselves to blame for the state of the union and the protection of their individual rights- providing, of course, the elections are actually fair and free. I think that Madison was right in terms of the need for a strong central government to not only protect the individual rights of its citizens and the diversity of a nation, but also to make it more powerful and safe from the economic and defensive points of view. But no matter what system you have, let’s say a Republic, for example, if the hearts of the people are selfish and corrupt, they can ultimately expect nothing but corruption and self-interest on a wider scale from their elected leaders.

In Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man, Paine proposed a representational government combined with social programs to lift the common person out of the grip of poverty through the methods of progressive taxation. Paine was appalled by the glaring extreme between poverty and wealth in monarchies and wanted to ensure the colonies and soon the fledgling nation did not denigrate into what he viewed as an unjust state. He opined that progressive taxation be applied to “excess wealth” in order to level the playing field for all people. He felt that without such a progressive tax, no form of democracy could ultimately be maintained. In Paine’s later work, Agrarian Justice, he applied such an idea to the propertied paying a tax for the ultimate benefit of those who had no property.

Paine thought that property originally belonged to no man and since many who owned property inherited it or obtained it by special favors through an unjust monarchy, those who owned property should contribute to a fund for the common good of those who did not. He felt that those who had property had an unfair advantage over those who did not.

Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson discussed these notions at length- and Paine came up with the view that such a progressive tax was needed to ensure basic human rights to those who did not have property.

Whether you believe that no man originally owned all property, or all humanity originally has a right to all property, or God owns all property, Paine’s treatise in Agrarian Justice certainly must have some appeal on some level. It would seem to me that only those who are in possession of a large amount of land or hope to be some day might object. Even among those individuals, some may still agree on principle, based on utilitarian or humanity reasons. That principle being that no individual in a nation, despite his or her ambition, or lack thereof, should sink below a certain level of sustenance and maintenance is born of a collective consciousness that we are all ultimately in the same boat together. Even many of the wealthy who honor this principle agree with some form of progressive taxation.

Now, while one can easily understand how self-interest can make a wealthy person and property owner be against progressive taxation, it is a little more of a stretch to understand why someone who is not so economically endowed would be against it. But, there are also those who in principle, be they Libertarians (who may have some compassion for others but believe in individual charity) or simply envious self-interested people who may have some hopes of some day being wealthy, who are against the notion of progressive taxation on principle alone. They obviously believe in smaller government and are much more in favor of the rights of the individual, at least in the way that they perceive it.

It is, however, ironic that Paine’s whole idea of progressive taxation is spurned on by his sense of justice in defense of the rights of the individual as well. It appears that from an ideological point of view, both groups of political philosophies and factions, namely those that support some sort of progressive taxation and those who are vehemently against it, are acting out of the sense of the rights of the individual. So the question begs- is there more than one way to achieve the same goal or is one system inherently better than the other for achieving the same means? From Paine’s pragmatic point of view, there was really only one solution.

Paine was expert at explaining complex ideas in such a way to reach the hearts of common people. And as such, he was very much able to do something of lasting value for the common people- whom he felt got the short end of the stick. Particularly when he went to France- he saw first hand the dichotic disparity between the wealthy property owners and the common people and saw it as an abomination upon the very spirit of humanity. He wasn’t interested in big government getting its dirty paws on the wealth that the people worked hard for. Rather, he was concerned with those who monopolized wealth and property and used it to their unfair advantage to fuck everyone else over. He saw first-hand what it could do- so while he believed in Capitalism, he also believed that some sort of socialism must be there in order to ensure that the dream of Capitalism be preserved for all people into the future. In a sense, he was not a man prone to fanatical extremes, although it may seem that way because his views garnered so much controversy in Europe that he was just narrowly able to escape execution.

A person with extraordinary vision is often not very much appreciated when he or she is alive. They may be dismissed as a crackpot or even worse- seen as a dangerous radical. Or they may be honored all over the world in time, while contemporaries from the same town or village will see that person as ordinary. Sometimes they come from humble backgrounds and are people of modest means for most of their lives. But despite the shortage of accolades and remuneration they may receive for the service they do for society, they ultimately go down in history as great individuals. Thomas Paine, although he certainly did strike a chord in pre-revolution America and gained some prestige and honor for that, died pretty much in obscurity compared to the great wealth of writing and influence he left for the betterment of others in the sphere of political philosophy. Whatever your political philosophical beliefs and methods to achieve and preserve liberty may be, although you may not agree with everything Thomas Paine said, you almost have to acknowledge his place in American history in helping to achieve a freer life for all individuals.

Rock 'n' Roll is Rock 'n' Roll

I was born in 1964, the year the Beatles came to America, and as they really were the most influential band going into the 1970s, in so many ways they shaped my life. I was a bit precocious as a kid and as a result, most of the friends that I hung out with after school were often four or five years older than me. Imagine, if you will, being 8-years-old in 1972 in northeastern Connecticut and having friends who were just becoming teenagers. What kind of music do you think I listened to?

I remember hanging out in Wayne Sperry’s basement. All the kids in the neighborhood did. While they smoked pot and made out with their girlfriends, I was allowed to stay there if I was quiet. As a result, I just sat there silently and listened intently to the music they blasted. At the time, I think, Black Sabbath’s “Paranoid” and “Deep Purple’s “Machine Head” got a lot of spins.

One friend, named Joe, used to take me to his house and play me what he called “the real good stuff.” He turned me onto Dylan, Chuck Berry, the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, and the Beatles. I poured over the albums and memorized all the lyrics. By the time I was 10, my younger brother Kevin and I started collecting our own records.

Now, I don’t know why, but I have always gravitated towards the past. I think it is partly because I like to see where things come from, partly because I have certain since of gratitude, and partly because I always disdained the “unenlightened masses” swarming around the latest trends, even if it happened to be what I would later concede as good music. In short, I became a bit of a music snob, albeit, with pretty good taste.

Sure, I liked some of the newer groups that were hitting it big by the mid-1970s, like Boston and Queen, but if I had my way, I would have been much happier to turn the clock back to the 1960s.. By the time I was a teenager and my friends were listening to Blondie, Devo, and the Talking Heads, I was smoking reefer and listening to Steppenwolf, the Youngbloods and the Beatles’ “Revolver” over and over again.

Many of the popular artists of the late 1970s, who I love now, like Billy Joel, the Bee Gees, the Clash, the Ramones, or the Police, I resisted then. It wasn’t until I heard the song “Refugee” from Tom Petty’s “Damn the Torpedoes” album on a Saturday Night Live episode in 1979 that my attitude started to change.

When he hit the stage, I was startled. The energy was raw, rebellious, and electrifying. The hooks were magnetic and the lyrics were clever. And that voice- like a modern Dylan and Roger McGuinn, but with a fucking attitude. Not as angry as Elvis Costello per se, but a presence not to be denied. And not clueless and stupid like a Johnny Rotten or a Sid Vicious. “Who the hell is he?” I thought. Later, I heard the story of determination and defiance against the record industry behind “Damn the Torpedoes” and it dawned on me how Petty was carrying the torch of the truly thoughtful yet irreverent attitude of rock ‘n’ roll from his idols, like the Beatles, Dylan and the Byrds onto the next generation, while flipping the bird to the proverbial “man.”

It was Petty who opened up the floodgates of my mind for me and allowed me to accept new music as viable and not reject something simply because the crowd was into it. While that’s harder now, considering the sorry state of mainstream music, I have continued to keep an open mind because of Petty, who himself has continued to make great relevant music and sell out arenas and amphitheatres around the country as he pushes towards the age of 60.

That raw, defiant, and thoughtful music is what to me, rock ‘n’ roll is all about, no matter what era it is from. It is a music that honors the past and stays fresh and relevant into the future, whenever and wherever it is recorded. To me, that is the real spirit of rock ‘n’ roll, no matter what sub-genre you may want to classify it as. It is as Jerry Lee Lewis said in the film “History of Rock & Roll, as shown in class, “Rock ‘n’ roll is rock ‘n’ roll.” How could it be put any better?