[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Reply to Tolerance towards other Religious Viewpoints
> In Hinduism, God is not an object. Objects (images) are used to
> help Hindus to visualize God. The names and forms are vehicles and
> not the destination. Lord Krishna is not an object but he
> represents the "ABSOLUTE." Vishnushasranamam contains 1008 names
> of Lord Krishna (Vishnu). All these names and forms mean the same
> abstract God "Brahman."
What you write above is not correct, at least not according to the
Bhagavad-Gita.
In Chapter 11, after showing Arjuna His universal form, and then His
four-handed four, Krishna shows His two-handed form (as Krishna) and then
speaks the following:
nAham` vedair na tapasA
na dAnena na cejyayA
s'akya evam`-vidho draSTum`
dRSTavAn asi mAm` yathA
"The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be
understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious
penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that
one can see Me as I am." (11.54)
In the next verse, Krishna then goes on to say that He can only be
understood by pure devotional service. The point here, however, is that
Krishna was in His divine two-handed form when He said this. If Krishna
were ultimately impersonal, then He would have shown His impersonal form
and said what He said above. But since He was in His form as Krsna, we
have to conclude that this is Krishna "as I am."
Furthermore, in chapter 14 of the Gita, it is stated:
brahmaNo hi pratiSThAham
amRtasyAvyayasya ca
s'As'vatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikAntikasya ca
"And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal,
imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate
happiness." (14.27)
Note here that it is Krishna from which the impersonal Brahman emanates,
and NOT vice-versa. Therefore, the theory that the personal form of God
is subordinate to the impersonal form is contradicted herein.
Krishna is actually the basis of everything, including the impersonal
Brahman. Verse 10.8 makes it clear that He is the source of all things
spiritual and material.
aham` sarvasya prabhavo
mattaH sarvam` pravartate
iti matvA bhajante mAm`
budhA bhAva-samanvitAH
"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything
emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engaged in My
devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."
Not here the Sanskrit 1st person pronoun aham`. If the impersonal Brahman
were the source of everything, then Krishna would have said so. But
instead, He makes it quite clear that He is the ultimate source.
Finally, the point needs to be addressed about Krishna's form. The
impersonalist school maintains that Krishna's form is something material,
but this is not supported by the Bhagavad-Gita. If Krishna's form were
material, then the whole point of bhakti would be lost. The Bhagavad-Gita
says:
nAnyam` guNebhyaH kartAram`
yadA draSTAnupas'yati
guNebhyas' ca param` vetti
mad-bhAvam` so 'dhigacchati
"When one properly sees that in all activities no other performer is at
work than these modes of nature and he knows the Supreme Lord, *who is
transcendental to all these modes, he attains My spiritual nature."
(14.19)
So Krishna makes it clear here that He is transcendental (param`) to the
three modes of material nature. So, His body has nothing to do with
material nature; it is a purely spiritual body, with spiritual qualities,
and spiritual pastimes.
The bottom line then, is that you can believe whatever you want. But if
you claim to believe in Bhagavad-Gita, then you have to accept the
personal nature of the Supreme Lord. There really is no room for an
impersonal reading of the Gita, at least, not for someone who is honestly
and objectively examining its message.
Those who treat God as an OBJECT become
> attached to the object and suffer the consequences elaborated in
> verses 62 and 63. Attachment to God as an object is the root cause
> of religious fanaticism.
If you examine your own statement very closely, I am sure you will
realize that this idea is simply an extension of your own prejudice. This
is not the first time that I have seen impersonalists blaming all
personalists for religious fanaticism. It's a very romantic idea, really.
The idea that people who believe in a personal God are less intelligent,
so they have to imagine Him as a person. And they are the ones who cause
all the trouble, therefore all we have to do is 'educate' them and make
them realize that God is a universal, abstract, impersonal entity, right?
I'm sorry, but this idea is very offensive. I would ask that you and
other people keep this in mind, before you lecture to others that they
have to be tolerant. There is nothing material about Krishna's form, as
the Gita itself explains. So one who is attached to Krishna in this way
is situated in the proper spiritual consciousness.
The major problem I have with these impersonalist Hindus is that they
insist that God is ultimately abstract, and that devotion and personalism
are mere sentiments for "less intelligent" people. Barring the fact that
such ideas are not supported in scripture, I find such ideas to be
completely pompous and uncalled for. When impersonalists say things like
this, they are asking for trouble.
I used to be involved with impersonalist groups, and this is exactly what
they taught me. But then what I got involved with an authentic,
devotional tradition, I quickly realized how wrong all that impersonalist
propaganda was, and I at once became very upset with them for the way
they tried to marginalize the bhakti tradition while saying at the same
time that "every path is as good as every other."
-- HKS
