[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Animal-Killing, and Soul-Merging Condemned
Ken Stuart wrote:
>Okay, do I understand this correctly?
>
>All the following are my understandings of Vaishnava doctrine:
>
>1) Shankara was an incarnation of God to lead people from an
>atheistic Buddhism to an impersonalistic Advaita, since the latter was
>better for them (even though it wasn't the ultimate viewpoint).
>
The Gaudiyas say that he was an incarnation of Shiva, not that he was an
incarnation of God. I can't speak for the views of other sampradayas.
>2) Those who follow Shankara by wanting to lose their individuality
>and merge with God, are condemned to "the planets of the faithless,
>full of darkness and ignorance".
>
>Is this right?
I believe that was Lord Caitanya's message. He explained that Sankara was
not at fault, because his preaching of advaita philosophy was an order by
the Lord to mislead people. It is part of the Lord's plans that the Kali
Yuga will be full of false and misleading cults and religions which will
mislead the envious class of men. It is also stated somewhere in scripture
that this preaching of advaita, or mayavada philosophy was done to increase
the unwanted population of this age.
However, in the case of the Buddhists and atheists, advaita is actually an
improvement over what they had previously. Although the many Hindu yogis of
today would never reveal this, it is a fact that *real* advaita requires
hardcore austerity. Sankaracarya would never have put up with disciples
eating meat or engaging in other materialistic behaviors which today's
so-called advaitins take a neutral stance towards. In fact, Sankara demanded
that his disciples stay as brahmacaris or become sannyasis. There was no
place for married people in his philosophy (or, for that matter, for people
who would like to waste time reading kama sutra). So, Sankara's preaching of
advaita was a way of cheating the faithless people into practicing austerities.
Major problems occur when you have a situation like the present, where
advaita philosophy is preached because of its appeal to the atheists, but
the austerities normally required therein are not emphasized. One admirer of
advaita philosophy once confided in me that he liked advaita because it did
not require that he perform any sadhana (i.e. going to temples, following
regulative practices, etc.). That's what happens when you preach advaita to
someone who is not serious about spiritual life; more often than not they
come to the understanding that they can simply continue with their present
materialistic lifestyle. As a result, they continue accumulating bad karma
and slide down further and further into hellish conditions of life, all the
while thinking that they are going to merge with God in the end.
The goal of advaita, which is to merge with the impersonal Brahman, can only
be realized by a VERY STRICT yogi who is completely in control of his
senses. Anyone less than that who pursues advaita will simply get entangled
in the material nature and acquire karma. After performing austerities for
millions of years, a strict yogi can achieve the impersonal Brahman.
However, the Bhagavatam states that even such yogis ultimately fall down
again, because their constitutional position is to be at the Lord's lotus
feet, not within His impersonal Brahman effulgence. In _Nectar of Devotion_,
Srila Prabhupada states that the happiness of identifying oneself with
Brahman, although spiritual, is nevertheless temporary. As proof of this, he
notes the existence of many advanced impersonalist yogis in India who, after
many years of denying the reality of the material world, fall back down into
performing political or welfare work. They are not satisfied with the idea
of an impersonal Absolute Truth, and so they try to find happiness by other
means. In the 12th chapter of the Gita, Lord Krishna also confirms that the
path of the impersonalist is troublesome and less effective, compared to the
path of the devotee which is blissful and more powerful.
-- HKS
