[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Followers of Sankaracarya, please take note
Ken Stuart writes:
>>However, let me say that I think that your interpretation, and similar
ones>I have read on the Internet, differs from that of Srila Prahbupada.>
I just want to make one thing clear before I go on. I am not presenting my
interpretation of this verse. I do not feel I am qualified to give a
commentary on the scripture. All I can do is to present the commentary given
by a bona fide spiritual master.
>Here is his commentary on the exact verse above:>>"To the impersonalist,
achieving the brahma-bhuta stage, becoming one with>the Absolute, is the last
word. But for the personalist, or pure devotee,>one has to go still further
and become engaged in pure devotional service.>This means that one who is
engaged in pure devotional service to the>Supreme Lord is already in the
state of liberation called brahma-bhuta,>oneness with the Absolute. Without
being one with the Supreme, the Absolute,>one cannot render service to Him.
In the absolute conception of life there>is no difference between the served
and the servitor; but the distinction>is there, in a higher spiritual sense.
In the material concept of life,>when working for sense gratification, one
perceives misery, but in the>absolute world, when one is engaged in pure
devotional service, there is no>such thing as trouble. Therefore, the
devotee in Krsna consciousness has>nothing to lament over and nothing to
desire. Since God, the Supreme Lord,>is full, a living entity who is engaged
in God's service, in Krsna>consciousness, becomes full in himself.">
Thanks for posting this. As you can see, I believe Prabhupada's commentary
explains what it really means to be one with the Absolute. Traditionally,
the advaitist school of thought holds that the oneness is absolute, and that
there is no variegatedness in that oneness. But the meaning of oneness as
this verse implies is to be so devoted to Krsna that there is oneness of
love. That is, the living entity becomes one with Krsna's desire, and is also
one with Krsna in the sense of residing always with Him in the spiritual
world. It does not mean that the jivas and Krsna become quantitatively one.
There can only be devotional service to Krsna in the brahma-bhutah stage if
the jiva gets a spiritual body with which to serve Krsna.
Of course, Sri Sankaracharya knew this, being both a personalist and a
devotee of Krsna in secret. But he could not very well teach that as that was
not his mission.
>This should give one some inkling that oneness of atman and Brahman does
NOT>preclude a position of devotion. Indeed, Krsna himself was devoted to
his>Guru, and was/is devoted to his devotees.
Yes! That is why I posted this verse from Sankara's Gita. It shows that the
Gita is unequivocably dualist. The oneness aspect is certainly a part of
Vaishnava dualism. But, and this is the most important thing to remember,
oneness is NOT the complete story. There is more. Krsna clearly says in this
verse that at the brahma-bhutah stage, or the stage of oneness with the
Supreme, one wins devotional service to the Lord. Therefore, we cannot
speculate that oneness with the Supreme involves something else, or that
devotional service is just an optional extra.
You bring up a good point when you mention Krsna's devotion to His devotees.
Many people think that by surrendering to Krsna they will lose something. But
Krsna's relationships with His pure devotees are two-way. It is not the case
that we all simply serve Krsna and then He simply ignores us. No. What
happens is that there is mutual love and devotion. This is the real beauty of
bhakti which many people do not understand. It is also the reason why Krsna
accepted the position of a charioteer -- He was serving His pure devotee
Arjuna. Krsna likes to serve His pure devotees out of love. In fact, I
remember reading somewhere that Krsna cannot be conquered by military
strength, economic strength, or speculative philosophy, but only by pure,
selfless devotion.
>In fact, to me that was the whole point of Ramanuja's teaching -
that>diversity could be a feature of the One.>>HKS>The jivas are not God. The
jivas are the enternal servants of God. Those>who>say otherwise have the
right to do so, but as this verse contradicts them,>those persons are
speaking against the authority of Bhagavad-Gita.>>Bhagavad Gita As It Is
10:21 -->>"I am the Self, O conqueror of sleep, seated in the hearts of all
creatures.>I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings.">
Are you sure you are not referring to 10.20? I might have a newer edition
of the translation, but I'm sure the verse you are referring to is the one
I am thinking of.
The translation I have (I'm using Prabhupada's Gita) is:
"I am the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all living entities.
I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings."
Note that Krsna is referring to the Supersoul, not the soul. The Supersoul
is an expansion of Krsna which resides in the heart of the living entity,
accompanying the soul. The Self referred to above is the Supersoul (that's
probably why it is written with a capital 'S').
Anyway, even if Krsna were referring to the soul of the jiva, this would
still be reasonably consistent with acintya bedha abhedha philosophy.
Everything that exists is said to be of Krsna's energy, including the
jivatmas.
This does not mean that the jivatmas are God. Rather, it means that they have
the same qualities as the Supreme Lord, but in minutiae. So, they are not
rightfully meant to be separate from Krsna. Unfortunately, because the jiva
comes under illusion, he thinks himself separate from the Supreme Lord and
tries to lord it over material nature.
Because everything is of Krsna's energies, there is, in a sense, oneness.
But there is variegatedness within that oneness, so that there is duality.
The sense of duality is NOT due to illusion, otherwise the verses which
talk of devotional service on the supreme platform would be meaningless.
>---------
>>I certainly do not know enough to say with any certainty, but I'm
starting>to perceive a tendency since 1977 among KC to try and find ways
to>differentiate themselves from the "Bhagavans" - usually involving
taking>slight semantic differences of approach of Srila Prahbupada and
blowing them>up into actual theological distinctions that don't exist.>
The Krsna-consciousness movement is very distinct from other organizations in
that it preaches that devotional service is both a means and an end. Other
organizations often praise devotional service, but then they say that it does
not exist on the Supreme platform, only unqualified oneness does.
So, the distinctions definitely exist. Before I got involved with the HK
movement, I was involved with two other Hindu organizations, and I can say
with absolute certainty that there are profound distinctions between the
philosophy of Krsna-consciousness and most of everything else that is
generally known as Hinduism. Of course, both agree that existence is eternal.
But most Hindus speak of unqualified oneness while the Vaishnava sampradayas
(of which ISKCON belongs to one) all preach the importance of duality.
Oneness plays a role of varying importance in the teachings of the Vaishnava
acharyas, ranging from the (nearly) pure dualism of Madhvacarya to the
simultaneous oneness and difference of Sri Krishna Caitanya. In this way, the
acharyas of the four authorized sampradayas remain most faithful to the
teachings of our scriptures.
On the other hand, when I was involved with some oneness Hindu groups, I was
taught the idea that the jivas were, in every sense of the word, God. This is
essentially what Sankara preached, although he himself was a devotee. I grew
unsatisfied with this absolute oneness philosophy because there are logical
contradictions in it. If I am the same as the Supreme, then how come I am
covered by maya? That would seem to indicate that maya is more powerful than
God. Hence, absolute oneness is not logical, and it certainly is not
supported by scripture.
It makes no sense to say that God could be covered by maya and then think
Himself to be many different individuals. On the other hand, it is logical
that individual spirit-souls, who are qualitatively but not quantitatively
identical with God, could be covered by maya. They are similar to God in
the sense that sparks are similar to the fire, but a spark is not the fire.
Similarly, the jivatma does not have the full potency of God. Hence, it is
believable that the jivatma, with his finite potency and intelligence, could
come under the influence of maya.
I could conceivably be convinced of the logic of oneness (advaita)
philosophy if someone could explain to me how Brahman, the Supreme, could
be covered by maya. But, this is the one question which I have not seen
anyone resolve, leaving me with conclusion that advaita cannot be an
adequate explanation our relationship to God.
>None of the "Bhagavans" of the last hundred years or so preach that
the>personal God does not exist or is inferior to impersonal Brahman.
Even>the Tibetan Buddhists don't even believe that (although they don't
state>so very explicitly). Such an "Impersonalism" only exists in
academic>studies (and Theravadin Buddhism). In fact, ISKCON itself points
out that>even Shankaracharya himself did not believe that.>
As I pointed out, I was involved with some of these groups before getting
involved with ISKCON, and I know very well what they preach. They often
say that duality is a way to achieve the oneness, or that devotion is for
people who are weak and ignorant. According to them, understanding oneness
to be the conclusion is a higher understand than duality. Of course, since
they try to seem all-accepting and all-tolerant, they try to say this very
nicely so that no one gets offended. But if you read between the lines, you
can see that they are preaching that the personal God ultimately does not
exist.
Of course, we in ISKCON respect Sankaracharya because we understand him to
be a pure devotee. Lord Caitanya explained that Sankaracharya was not at
fault for preaching advaita philosophy because that was his mission.
However, the philosophy itself, according to the Lord, was inauspicious and
diverted people away from the true nature of Vedanta, that of devotional
service. In the Padma Purana, Lord Shiva describes the advaita philosophy
in a number of unflattering ways. He calls it 'inauspicious', 'atheistic',
and 'covered Buddhism.'
>So, it really is a straw man that you are creating, just to knock it down.
If it were a straw man, I would not have bothered with it. But, as I have
learned more and more about acintya bedha-abhedha philosophy and compared
it to the commentaries given by certain other Hindu swamis, I am convinced
that the latter are preaching absolute oneness and that this needs to be
rectified. FYI, I was really convinced of the advaita philosophy before I
got involved with ISKCON. But today, I have seen practical examples of how
it is so conducive to fall-downs.
God is known as the purusha, and one of the meanings of this is that He is
the ultimate enjoyer, while we, the jivas, are meant to be enjoyed by Him.
Therefore, a philosophy that tells people that they are all God is
implicitly telling them to be enjoyers. As a result, people who subscribe
to this philosophy will tend to make up their own code of morality and don't
even bother with regulative practices or austerities that they are not used
to. As a result, they continue with their practice of lording it over the
material nature and become unhappy as a result. For Hindu teenagers, who
are constantly being exposed to temptation in the high schools and colleges,
this is an extremely dangerous philosophy to teach because they will
naturally speculate that they can do certain things... and then you can
imagine what happens.
It would be most appropriate therefore, to teach people to serve God and not
to try to become absolutely One with Him. Everyone wins in bhakti yoga,
because the devotees feel joy in serving the Lord. This cannot be understood
by people who perform devotional service while believing God to be
ultimately impersonal. It can only be appreciated by those who are always
joyous in meditating on the form, qualities, name, fame, and pastimes of
the Lord, which are nondifferent from the Lord Himself. Such people
gradually lose interest in material attachments, speculative knowledge,
and desire for absolute oneness, and experience the greatest pleasure of all
-- that of pure devotional service.
Hare Krsna,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- H. Krishna Susarla - "Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or -
- susarla@rice.edu - sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without -
- Rice University - religion is mental speculation." -
- Class of 1995 - -- Swami Srila Prabhupada -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and
have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge,
they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme."
- Bhagavad-Gita 7.24
