[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Unity In Diversity
Dear Dr. Naik,
Thank you for your article. I understand that the discussion on this
newsgroup has at many times gotten rather hairy and that I have been
a major contributor in this regard. However, on the whole, I suggest
that there may be some positive common ground upon which we can build,
so long as we destroy a lot of misunderstandings.
You have written:
> we all are seeking him one way or the other. Above all, most of us are
> Hindus or followers of Sanatana Dharma which cater to the needs of
> people with different personalities. And precisely because of this,
> dry logic and intellect being their strong point. In short, path of
> Devotion for emotional, path of Selfless work for physically able and
> path of Knowledge for intellectuals.
This is one point that is commonly heard in Hindu circles. I have heard
it many times myself. However, while this may be true on a surface level,
it cannot hold on a more fundamental level. Why? Because we are all spirit
souls, and things like physical ability, intellect, and even ordinary emotions
are just temporary manifestations. It's true that these various
bodily features will indeed shape our worldview, but that's more a matter
of this life. There must be something greater in sanatan-dharma. Sanatan
literally means eternal, dharma roughly as values, religion, characteristic,
etc. Regardless how you translate it, the Sanatan-dharma _must_ be that
feature which the spirit soul carries for eternity.
At the same time, this Sanatan-dharma cannot be some unbearable burden.
Why? The qualities of saccidananda, particularly ananda. The Sanatan-dharma
must be all blissful.
At that level, then only bhakti-yoga can truly qualify. This was the
verdict of the acharya Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu -- "jivera svarUpa haya
kRShNera nitya-dAsa" : the eternal form of the jiva is to be the servant
of Krishna. "svarUpa" and "sanAtana-dharma" must be one and the same,
ultimately.
> Normally all of us are combinations of all the above
> personalities - we are emotional, intellectuals and able bodies. At
> times we are emotional while other times we resort to logic. However, in
> most cases, there is predominance of one over the others. Remember, I am
> not saying one is better than the other. What I am saying we are just
> different and that makes each one of us so special. When we are sitting
> on the dinner table, we do not expect each one to like the same thing
> that we like the most. There we respect each other liking according to
> ones own taste but when it comes to religion and various paths, we are
> so intolerant. The religion which teaches intolerance and hatred that I
> have been witnessing on this board, is not worth two cents. Obviously,
> there is some problems with our understanding of validity and
> desirability of different paths for different make up of our body, mind
> and intellect.
Undoubtedly there are various paths which may be appropriate at different
times for different people. But Veda is about Sanatan-dharma, and that can
only mean that which is eternal, a permanent characteristic of the soul.
So, we should only discuss Sanatan-dharma if we claim to speak about Veda.
> There is a lot of intolerance of Advaitas by Dvaitas and vice
> versa.
> Path of devotion has been regarded to be the simplest for most
> of us and in that there is obvious dualism, one who is a worshipper and
> other is worshipped. What one requires is faith in Guru and
> predominantly emotional nature.
Undoubtedly one must have simultaneous faith in Guru and God, as
expressed in Svetasvatara Upanisad, Bhagavad Gita, etc. However, the
claim about "predominantly emotional nature" really belittles all the
great practitioners of bhakti-yoga over the ages. Great acaryas like
Madhva, Ramanuja, and Rupa Goswami have recommended bhakti as the only
perfect path and they also wrote extensive treatises on
philosophy. Their status was as already perfected intellects, and they
also knew that bhakti was the only way to go. Similarly, Sukadeva
Goswami was a very grave personality, an atmArama, but he nevertheless
narrated the infinite glories of bhakti-yoga in Srimad Bhagavatam.
There are other requirements too. Bhagavad Gita 7.19 shows that a person
doesn't just stumble upon devotion. He can only get to the realization after
many many lives that Vasudeva is all, and finding such a pure person is
very difficult and that this is the mahatma. Similaraly Bhagavad Gita
9.13-9.14 speaks of those who are always singing the glories of the Lord
as great souls, and those who take refuge in the divine nature.
The other sort of people, who try the method of jnana-yoga are just considered
as "other" in 9.15, not given the same title as "mahatma". Nevertheless,
they are also worshipping the same God, although their path is difficult,
slow in progress, and troublesome (BG 12.5).
> Bhakti begins in love, sustains in love and ends in
> love. Bhakta gets so much of fulfillment in loving the personal God that
> it is the means and the end both. He does not want to have anything, not
> even liberation.
Yes, this is all true. A perfect Bhakta doesn't care what happens to
him, so long as he can always continue to render service to
Bhagavan. The bhakta doesn't pray for liberation or wealth, but would
be happy to be born as even an ant in a bhakta's house (so he could
eat remnants of prasadam and hear chanting).
> As the love becomes more and more intense the distance
> between the worshiper and worshipped becomes less and less and ultimately
> he merges with the God, the ego is annihilated completely and he realises
> the truth which Jnani realises by method of enquiry.
Although this may be the goal of some "bhaktas", it is certainly not
approved by many great acharyas. Madhva, Ramanuja, and Sri Caitanya
all agree that Bhakti continues even _after_ liberation. One cannot
lose one's identity in God's and still practice Bhakti. A bhakta will
accept proximity to the Lord, a body similar to the Lord's, opulence
like the Lord, etc. but will not accept becoming one with the
Lord. Prabodhananda Sarasvati wrote "kaivalyam narakye" : becoming one
with God is hellish. No other term can properly explain it. However,
the false ego, called as "aham`kAra" is removed in the devotional
state -- this false ego first causes identification with the body,
then with the mind; another stage of false ego is thinking "I am
God. I am the ultimate doer. aham janmAdyasya yataH (I am the one
from which all creation etc. emerge)" When all these false
identifications collapse, one can only have bhakti left.
> Is Bhaktas personal God is different from Jnanis impersonal
> God?
Yes and no. For the true impersonalist, the answer is definitely no. The
Srimad Bhagavatam makes this clear -- the same Absolute Truth is differently
called as impersonal Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan by different people who
know the Truth. Some people who know the Truth may be attracted to the
Supreme Brahman aspect. The Kumaras, Sukadeva, etc. are such examples.
Nevertheless, these personalities are not kevaladvaitans of the sort
we see today. They know very well that they are part and parcel, not the whole.
However, many "Jnanis" these days say that Bhagavan is an inferior aspect,
materially contaminated "saguna Brahman". This cannot be held in light of
the above. In fact, the Vedas are constantly referring to the perfection
of the opulences of Sri Bhagavan.
> the fulfillment and pleasure that Bhakta gets in love of God is any
> different than the bliss that Jnani experience in the raveling in
> Brahman?
Undoubtedly, as one is selfless and the other is self-aggrandizing. The
bhaktas see perfection in the stage of those like Hanuman, Uddhava,
Prahlad, Draupadi, Yasoda, Radharani, etc. who cared nothing about their
own pleasure but only wanted to see the Lord's desires carried out. A devotee
like Prahlad suffered so much at the hands of his tormentors, yet the only
thoughts in his mind were "om` namo bhagavate vAsudevAya".
> There is one danger, however, in the initial preparatory phase
> of Bhakti in which Bhakta has intense and exclusive love for his ideal
> personal form and even suggestion of any other ideal or other point of
> view becomes so intolerable for him that it evokes hatred for the ideals
> of others, hence lead to fanaticism.
The same could be said of jnana and karma too, not just bhakti. People
are also fanatic about what kind of car they want (Buy American! No,
buy Japanese, etc), what computer to use (Buy IBM! No, buy Macintosh,
etc), what softdrink to drink, etc. If one has to be fanatic, better
to be fanatic with the idea that I am a servant rather than the idea
that I am the Master. We generally see a lot of the latter sort on
these forums.
Fanaticism means with disregard of logic, disregard of authority, etc.
In this regard, one can only only question "If I am God, why am I
suffering? If all is one, why do I eat rice and not stool? If all
paths are the same, why are some described as pleasant and others as
unpleasant?" Actually, one sees in the Gita that impersonalism is
treated as troublesome and difficult (12.5), and with no guarantees
for success, whereas the devotee is guaranteed results, both in this
life (9.22) and the next (12.6-12.7). In fact, even if one doesn't
develop perfect devotion, one will have good results (6.40-6.45) in
both this life and the future. Bhakti Yoga is the best path
(12.2). Yet some people fly in the face of both logic and authority
and prove themselves fanatic. These are not the bhaktas, incidentally.
[material about development of jnana deleted]
> questions raised by his intellect is answered by his own experience. Now
> he understands that the paths which he had problems with initially are
> the valid paths for appropriate personality make up. He sees the common
> thread to all paths - that is annihilation of ego.
The problem here is that the jnanis have been at least as intolerant, if not
more so, than the bhaktas. While theoretically feeling, "oh, their path
is valid too," they turn around and throw snide comments about exclusivism
and intolerance. This is true not only on this board, but in general.
> Bhakta achieves this
> with surrendering the lower self (ego, body, mind and intellect) to God.
The true bhakta surrenders _everything_ to the Lord, including both material
self which you've discussed, and also spirit soul.
> Bhakta realizes the same truth when he reaches to the pinnacle.
> Study any Bhakta who has realised the ultimate truth, you will hear
> nothing different than what Jnani is saying. Listen to any Jnani who is
> realised, his language is no different than that of Bhakta. Most of the
> time, it is difficult to label them as one.
I agree that a jnani who is realized will sound more and more like a
bhakta, but the other way around isn't the case. Lord Caitanya never
suggested impersonalism, that all paths lead to one, that we are one, etc.
In fact, He even said that anyone who listened to such philosophy lost
spiritual progress. This idea is also confirmed in Padma Purana.
Madhva maintained strict dualism though he was perfectly in full knowledge of
the Lord and was able to write philosophical treatises on his system.
Ramanujacarya always rejected kevala-advaita. So forth, there are so many
examples.
The difference is that an advaita-vadi typically sees his system as a
means to an end, whereas the bhakta knows his system as both means and
end. jivera svarUpa haya kRShNera nitya-dAsa. Or one must always be a
sheSha (accessory) to the Parabrahman, Sriman Narayan. Or that "amalA
bhaktiH tatsAdhanam" -- the only spiritual practice is pure
devotion. These are the views of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Sripada
Ramanujacarya, and Sripada Madhvacarya.
Fundamentally, always the bhakta knows "hRShikena hRShikesha sevAnam bhaktir
ucyate" -- Bhakti is to always serve Krishna with all the senses.
> I am troubled by the word Mayavada on this board used
> improperly by the people who should not even talk about Maya.
The term Mayavada has been used for hundreds of years. We can only but
repeat it.
> The concept
> of Maya has been used for the explanation of world of plurality which
> seems to be in apparent contradiction to the reality and ultimate truth
> which was unequivocally proclaimed by all realised ones that there is
> only Brahman (God of Bhakta) and nothing else.
But not all realized ones have agreed to this, certainly not in the
tone suggested. The great Vaisnava acaryas of bhakti have always
asserted individuality of the spirit soul. Whether the system of
dvaita, visistadvaita, or acintya-bheda-abheda, this concept has been
the same. Certainly "vAsudevam sarvam iti", but that does not mean
that we are not all his eternally fragmented parts.
> Love being his core
> personality, Bhakta has no problem. As mentioned earlier, love is the
> means and the end for him. He does not need any philosophical
> explanation of Maya or law of karma before he embarks on his journey to
> realisation.
Nevertheless, bhaktas have written immense volumes of philosophical
treatises. Whether the treatises of Ramanuja and Vedanta Deshika, the
nyayas of Madhva and Vyasatirtha or the sandharbas of Rupa and Jiva
Goswami. Bhakti is based strongly on sruti, smrti, and nyaya. If one
is advocating tolerance, one cannot dismiss a system of philosophy
just because it is by bhaktas, considering them emotional or less
intellectual. This is hardly tolerant! In fact, if we look closely, we see
that all these acharyas have shown that the culmination of jnana is
bhakti and that one can be a great philosopher only if one is already
a great devotee.
> There is too much discussion here about our relationship to the
> God.
This is the fundamental principle upon which all religion builds. How can we
ever stop discussing it? Without philosophy, there is no question of
real religion, and without religion, there is no question of real philosophy.
If we don't discuss this point, we will either become fanatics or
speculators.
> guns. Most of the time we are steeped in our body consciousness. We do
> not think ourselves any more than this flesh and bones. When we have
> this kind of consciousness, there can only be master and servant
> relationship.
At that level of identification, people have no interest in religion
anyway, so there is no question of any relationship with God. One will
only be a servant to the master known as the senses, but certainly not
to God. One has to transcend that state to serve God.
> conceive and believe, it can achieve. In other words, he appreciate his
> god-like power in this state of consciousness. Not only that at time when
> superpower implanting his will or working through him. If you study
> scientists and poets, you would get the picture. Thomas Alva Edition
> stated that it was like some higher intelligence was manifesting through
> him. No wonder, one feels, he is part of God in this state of
> consciousness.
At that level of identification, people become puffed up with pride and
start to see themselves as the most important. At this stage there can
also be no question of real relation with God here. One must transcend
that identification to realize oneself as a part and parcel of God.
Incidentally, those people who do accept themselves as part and parcel of
God almost invariably stress bhakti-marga: as a part, one should serve
the whole.
> they found no different than Brahman and in the height of ecstasy he
> proclaims, Aham Brahmasmi ! I am the God.
This is a fundamental issue -- what is the meaning of these seemingly
monistic statements in the Vedas. Many acharyas have shown these
statements to be very positive statements of identity. For example,
aham` brahmAsmi does not indicate that there is no parambrahma. On the
contrary, it only establishes oneself as spirit soul. We can look to
Gita, where Arjuna addresses Krishna as "param` brahma param` dhAma,
pavitram` paramam` bhavAn, puruSham` shAShvatam` divyam, Adi-devam
ajam` vibhum" : You are the Supreme Brahman, the supreme shelter,
etc. (10.12)
So, although aham` brahmAsmi, I am _not_ param brahma
This is quantified in Mundaka Upanisad (3.2.9)
paramam` brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati
He who knows the Supreme Brahman attains Brahman. In other words, he becomes
liberated by knowing God, but he certainly does not become God; otherwise it
would have been "... paramam` brahmaiva bhavati". These adjectives are there
for a reason.
> Nobody will make this point clear than Hanuman while explaining
> his relationship to Lord Rama. Oh Lord Rama, when I am steeped in this
> body consciousness, I am your servant. When I identify with my subtle
> body, I am a part of you. But when I identify with Atman, you and I are
> the same.
A follower of Swami Chinmaya once brought this issue up with me in a
discussion. I believe Chinmayaji includes it in one of his Self
Realization books. I asked the person to provide exact Sanskrit text
or a verse number, but the Chinmaya book didn't include it. I'd still
be interested in seeing the exact Sanskrit.
The reason I say this is that Agni Purana (I think it was Agni, maybe it was
another) establishes Hanumanji as an eternal servitor of Lord Rama (and Rama
alone; not even Krishna). Ramayana shows that Hanuman's sadhana is both means
and end. Also, as Hanuman was a pure devotee, he was never in bodily consciousness;
he was always immersed in the bhakti-rasAmRta-sindhu (nectarean ocean of devotional
service).
So, the question that started this response remains at the end -- what
then, is Sanatan-dharma. The answer: it can only be the dharma in eternity,
the conclusion of all other dharmas, the dharma of the perfected person.
The perfected person, then, can only follow the course of action
detailed in Bhagavad Gita 18.66
sarva-dharmAn parityajya, mAm ekam` sharaNam` vraja
aham` tvAm` sarva-pApebhyo, mokShayiShyAmi mA shucaH
They give up all other dharmas and only take shelter of Krishna. This, therefore,
must be the sanatan dharma. The previous verse describes what exactly
is that sanatan-dharma
man-manA bhava mad-bhakto, mad-yAjI mAm` namaskuru
mam evaiShyasi satyam` te, pratijAne priyo'si me
In other words, the person must constantly remember Krishna, must constantly
offer to Krishna, and must constantly worship Krishna. This sanatan-dharma
is "mad-bhakto" : a constant devotee of Krishna. (BG 18.65)
Yours,
Vijay
