Defeating Mayavada Philosophy VRNDAVAN INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONNONKCHKEDS QSumaedDOATY Surveying its History, Cause and Flaws While Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu was passing through Varanasi on His way to Vrndavana, the Mayavadi sannyasi philosophers blasphemed against Him in many ways. PURPORT While preaching Krsna consciousness with full vigor, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu faced many Mayavadi philosophers. Similarly, we are also facing opposing svamis, yogis, impersonalists, scientists, philosophers and other mental speculators, and by the grace of Lord Krsna we successfully defeat all of them without difficulty. (Adi 7.40) Seminar based on lectures and notes by H.G.Ravindra Svarupa PrabhuFrom karma-kanda to jiana-kanda Excerpt from “Science and Religion” by Ravindra Svarupa dasa _-The Bhagavad-gita can be seen as an essay in comparative religion—bearing in mind ‘hat the word religion here is systematically misleading. The Bhagavad-gita itself uses the word dharma, which has been translated as “truth,” “religion,” “duty,” “path,” “righteousness,” and so on. In its broadest sense, dharma denotes a way or form of life that possesses its own integrity and validity by virtue of being centered on truth, out of the Vedas there had emerged a variety of schools, each with powerful and persuasive advocates of its own dharma, In the Bhagavad-ghta Krsna surveys them: ‘The practice of Vedic ritualistic yajita, or sacrifice; the disinterested performance of worldly duties; the propitiation of various devatas, or controlling demigods; the attainment of trance of self-realization through physiological mastery, sensory withdrawal, and mental concentration; the ascent to absolute consciousness through philosophical discrimination and world-renunciation—these are some of the main ones In essence, the Bhagavad-gita acknowledges the truth and validity of the various Vedic dharmas, yet at the same time holds that the particular knowledge and realization offered in each dharma attains to its completion in Krsna (vedais ca sarvair aham eva wedyah). Since all Vedic dharmas are thus but various indirect ways to Him, Krsna accordingly offers Arjuna the opportunity to make a short work of it and come disectly to the final end, Sarva-dharman parityajya;, He instructs: “Just abandon all other dharmas"; mam ekath Saranarh vraja—"and come to Me alone for shelter” (18.66). In this way, Bhagavad-gita teaches that the ultimate dharma is unalloyed loving service to the supreme personal feature of the Absolute Truth Now, a deep study of the way the Bhagavad-gitd reaches its conclusions, as undertaken by teachers of the Bhagavata school of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, brings to light a certain paradigm of human spiritual and poetic development as a dialectical process consisting of three principal phases or moments. I shall call these three phases (or spiritual platforms) karma, jfana, and bhakti. Karma, in this context denotes those rationally organized activities aimed at acquiring “the good things of life” for ourselves and those we identify with ourselves. Thus, we labor to gain secure and continuous possession and enjoyment of health and vitality: of land and goods and money; of grace, charm, and beauty, both animate and inanimate; of love, honor, and repute; and the like The section of the Vedas called the karma-kanda provides for such ends. Central to this enterprise was an extremely highly developed activity of the sort now referred to as ‘ritual’ —in particular, the yajiia, or sacrifice. The Vedic yajfia was an elaborate and painstaking endeavor in which the learned and expert performers (rtvij), workingaccording to the Vedic paradigm (tantra), had to arrange correctly the detailed paraphernalia (prtag-dravya) at precisely the proper place (desa), and, at the right time (Kala), build the fire (agni) and conduct the sacrifice itself (kratu), carrying out all the prescribed procedures (dharma) and reciting the correct verbal formulae (mantra) with perfect precision. If —and only if—everything were flawlessly executed according to most exacting standards of correctness, then the benefits for which the sacrifice was performed would accrue to the patron—the sponsor—of the sacrifice (yajamana). It is easy to see how the form of life that centered itself upon the Vedic yajfia became a cult of technique. For mastery of technique was the key to power. By constructing a microcosmic image of the cosmos, and duplicating in fine the act of creation, the properly performed yajiia gathered, condensed, and localized the power Of the cosmos itself—and so put this power into the hands of those adept at technique. Those who mastered yajfia mastered the cosmos. This ethos of mastery through technique attained explicit expression in the writings of the Karma-mimarisa, the philosophical school that took yajiia as the prime Vedic dharma, Now, in the mantras recited at sacrifice, the names of various devatas—controlling demigods—are invoked, and it would seem that these mantras summoned the favor of the gods, and the sacrifice achieved its results by propitiating them. Not so, claims the Karma-mimarisa. The mantras and the procedures are potent in and of themselves, and they evoke the gods in order to compel them or their specific powers. Indeed, the gods themselves are sustained by the power of sactifice. As for a supreme God, the Karma-mimarisa school either denies His existence or declares His irrelevance. Thinking of this way of life asa “religion,” using terms such as “rite,” “ritual,” “ritual act” etc., impedes our comprehension of what is going on. But if we can view it on its own terms, then we see at once that essentially the same form of life is reincarnated, as it were, today in the culture of science and science-centered humanism. ‘The practice of yajfa is science—an archaic science, but science nonetheless—i.., an enterprise centrally concerned with acquiring mastery of practical techniques for the direct control and domination of nature for human benefit, This is not to minimize differences, of course. But the performer of the sacrifice, the rtvij, is far more like today’s scientist than today's priest. We should understand, for example, that when the rtvij took great pains to observe what we call “ritual purity,” he was, in his own mind, establishing the required mental preconditions for the efficacy of his mantras. Even though we may not believe that thought can act on matter over distance (tunless wwe are persuaded by some experiments in psychical research), the acts of the rtvij are still intelligible to us as “establishing controlled laboratory conditions.” Another interesting feature of this Vedic tradition is how the fascination or obsession with the power of technique gave rise to the depersonalization or disenchantment of the world. Technique cannot give direct mastery if there are higher controllinghuman soul and this higher and ultimate reality. This ultimate reality, in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), is called God; God is the Absolute principle from which all existence originated and to which all existence will return. In non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism, the ultimate or absolute is characterized somewhat differently These worldwide perceptions are thought to be valid or reliable because of their consistency and due to the similarities among them, in spite of their often independent origins. According to Huxley, the perennial philosophy is the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being; the thing is immemorial and universal. Rudiments of the perennial philosophy may found among the traditional lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and ints fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions).Aldous (Leonard) Huxley (1894-1963) English novelist and critic, grandson of the prominent biologist T.H. Huxley (see further below) and brother of Julian Huxley, also a biologist. Aldous Huxley's production was wide. Besides novels he published travel books, histories, poems, plays, and essays on philosophy, arts, sociology, religion and morals. Among Huxley's best known novels is BRAVE NEW WORLD (1932), which is one of the classical works of science fiction along with George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. In his later years Huxley wrote two books about mind-altering drugs, becoming a guru among Californian hippies’. While writing Brave New World Huxley had read about drugs, but it took 22 years before he experimented with them himself. Ina article from 1931, Huxley stated that drug-taking "constitutes one of the most curious and also, it seems to me, one of the most significant chapters in the natural history of human beings." THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION, published in 1954, was an influential study of consciousness expansion through mescalineand. Huxley also started to use LSD and showed interest in Hindu philosophy. Huxley adopted a philosophical outlook based on mysticism, most especially on Hindu and Buddhist concepts. There exists a single universal consciousness, the “Mind at Large,” of which individual selves are manifestations, extrusions into the world of space, time, and language. It follows that our individual consciousnesses, our private selves, are in principle capable of apprehending the whole of reality. In Doors of Perception, Huxley quotes with approval the British philosopher C. D Broad: “The function of the brain and the nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and otherwise irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive.” Mind at Large, says Huxley himself, “has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system.” The contents of this much-reduced awareness are then encompassed and fixed (in the chemical sense: “to make nonvolatile ot solid”) by language, so that they are, by definition, all that language can cope with. Connoisseurs of pseudoscience will spot the parallels with dianetics here, though Huxley had formed his ideas long before Hubbard launched his own system-on an unsuspecting world in the May 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction. The ethical problem raised by this outlook—the fact that the Mind at Large is impersonal, and therefore ethically neutral—is dealt with in Ends and Means by uaditional Vedantic and Buddhist arguments. Though ultimate reality is neither good nor evil in itself, it is only by practicing goodness that one can hope to attain any real acquaintance with that reality. All of this was, in Huxley's case, pure intellection, He told Rosamond Lehmann in 1961 that he had never had a religious experience. He did not actually like religion, as a social phenomenon. “One is all for religion until one visits a really religiouscountry.” (He seems to have India in mind here.) Huxley took lessons in Indian techniques of meditation from Swami Prabhavananda at the Vedanta Society in Hollywood. He was not, though, willing to accept the Swami as a guru, nor to join with him in devotions to Hindu gods. Huxley was in fact strongly averse to the notion of religion grounded in culture. He sought the universal, the common denominator of religious experience.Paul Johannes Tillich (August 20, 1886 ~ October 22, 1965 German-American theologian and Christian existentialist philosopher. Tillich was, along with contemporary Karl Barth, one of the more influential Protestant theologians of the twentieth century. Tillich was influenced by a contemporary German theologian, Rudolf Bultmann, who argued that the Christian world view, as expressed in the Bible, was outdated. Cast, as it was, in mythological terms, Bulumann argued, with references toa three-tiered universe, a heavenly city, a "house of many mansions" which included numerous thrones, and so forth, it depicted a cosmos alien to modern men and women. The result, Bultmann believed, was that many contemporary people tended to reject the Bible and, with it, the message of salvation inherent in its narrative. The solution, he believed, was to recast the story of Christ's redemptive work in modern, philosophical, psychological, and scientific language that would enable today's men and women to ascertain the truth that the mythological language no longer conveyed. Tillich was quite impressed with Bultmann's call for the "demythologization" of the Bible and, in his own theological writings, undertook to replace the mythological expression of the Christian message with a new, existential interpretation. Tillich says that in our most introspective moments we face the terror of our own, nothingness. That is, we "realize our mortality”, that we are finite beings. The question which naturally arises in the mind of one in this introspective mood is what causes us to "be" in the first place. Tillich concludes that radically finite beings (which are, at least potentially, infinite in variation) cannot be sustained or caused by another finite or existing being. What can sustain finite beings is being itself, or the "ground of being”. This Tillich identifies as God. Another name for the ground of being is essence. Essence is thought of as the power of being, and is forever unassailable by the conscious mind, As such it remains beyond the realm of thought, preserving the need for revelation in the Christian tradition. Contrasted to essence but dependent upon it is existence. Existence is that which is finite. Essence is the infinite. Since existence is being and essence is the ground of being, then essence is the ground or source of existence. But because the one is infinite and the other not, then existence (the finite) is fundamentally alienated from the essence. Man is alienated from God. This Tillich takes to be sin. To exist is to be alienated. "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him." This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being which exists in time and space, because that constrains God, andmakes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself. Tillich stated that since things in existence are corrupt and therefore ambiguous, no finite thing can be (by itself) infinite. A that is possible is for the finite to be @ vehicle for revealing the infinite, but the two should never be confused. This leaves religion in the situation where it should not be taken too dogmatically, because of its conceptual and therefore finite and imperfect nature. True religion is that which correctly reveals the infinite, but no religion can ever do so in any way other than through metaphor and symbol. Thus the whole of the Bible should be understood symbolically, and all spiritual and theological knowledge cannot be other than symbol. This idea is used by theologians as an effective counterpoint to religious fundamentalism. Tillich argued that symbols are immensely important to faith because "faith is the state of being ultimately concerned.” Faith without symbols is a form of idolatry. It is faith in something finite, something that can be expressed without symbols, and something that is fundamentally less than the ultimate. Tillich was described as the "last great 19th century theologian” by paleo-orthodox ‘Methodists Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon in their 1989 book Resident Aliens. They sharply differed with Tillich's understanding of the words, work, and person of Jesus Christ, and wrote that Tillich's innovations were little more than retelling of 19th century Protestant liberal thought. C.S. Lewis took issue with Tillich’s agreement with Bultmann, that the Christian message needed to be "demythologized,” arguing that the mythological terms in which the narrative is expressed are of a far richer and more mult-valent character than Tillich's existential version. Lewis thought that Tillich had unnecessarily demystified the stories, although Lewis' emphasis on myth and Tillich's emphasis, on symbol may be interpreted as different ways of expressing the same thing, Nonetheless, Lewis rejected what he saw as Tillich's extreme departure from the traditional story of Christianity. In additions to the criticisms of Tillich on the part of the religiously orthodox, he has also been assessed by secular humanist thinkers. Sidney Hook wrote about "The Atheism of Paul Tillich": With amazing courage Tillich boldly says that the God of the multitudes does not exist, and further, that to believe in His existence is to believe in an idol and ultimately to embrace superstition. God cannot be an entity among entities, even the highest. He is being-in-itself. In this sense Tillich's God is like the God of ‘Spinoza and the God of Hegel. Both Spinoza and Hegel were denounced for their atheism by the theologians of the past because their God was not a Being or an Entity. Tillich, however, is one of the most foremost theologians of our time.Plotinus (ca. 205-270) A major philosopher in the ancient world and is widely considered the father of ism. Much of our biographical information about him comes from Porphyry’s preface to his edition of Plotinus' Enneads. His metaphysical writings have inspired centuries of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Gnostic metaphysicians and mystics. Plotinus' theory: The One Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity or distinction; likewise it is beyond all categories of being and non-being. The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience, and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects, and therefore is beyond the concepts that we derive from them. The One “cannot be any existing thing", and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence), but "is prior to all existents". Thus, no attributes can be assigned to the One, For example, thought cannot be attributed to the One because thought implies distinction between a thinker and an object of thought. Likewise, self-sentient willing cannot be ascribed to the One, however the One is by nature Will, and its attribute or indefinite-dyad is the attributive nature of same, the willing (to other), the Nous or 2nd hypostases. ‘The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world not through any act of creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable One. Plotinus resorts to a logical principle that the "less perfect” must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the Sperfect* or "more perfect”. Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur throughout time as a constant process. Later Neoplatonic philosophers, especially Jamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings as emanations between the One and humanity; but Plotinus' system was much simpler in comparison. (edit) Emanation by the One Plotinus offers an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex nihilo Cout of nothing’), which would make God suffer the deliberations of a mind and actions of a will, although Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works. Emanation ex deo (‘out of God’), confirms the absolute transcendence of the One, making the unfolding of the cosmos purely a consequence of its existence; the One is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations. Plotinus uses the analogy of the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby "lessening" itself, orreflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected. “The first emanation is Nous ('Thought), identified with the "demiurge’ in Plato's Timacus, From Nous proceeds the "World Soul", which Plotinus subdivides info upper" and “lower”, identifying the lower aspect of Soul with Nature: From the World Soul proceed individual human souls, and finally, matter, at the lowest level of being and thus the least perfected level of the cosmos. Despite this relatively negative peseasment of the material world, Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material ereation since it ultimately derives from the One, through the mediums of Nous and the World Soul. “The essentially devotional nature of Plotinus' philosophy may be further illustrated by his concept of attaining "ecstatic" union with the One (Epistrophe, the mystical ‘Oneing). Porphyry relates that Plotinus attained such a union several times during the years he knew him (4 times to be specific). This may be related, of course, with enlightenment”, *liberation", and other concepts of mystical union common to many Eastern and Western traditions. Many scholars have compared Plotinus' teachings to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta (advaita "not two", or "“non-dual")., and of presecular Buddhism: "Gotama is a teacher of Monism (advayavada)"-Kathavatthu 204; also: "Gotama teaches the path to union with the One (Ekam)'- Itivuttaka. Neoplatonism was sometimes used as a philosophical foundation for paganism, and as a means of defending the theoretic of paganism against Christianity (see Porphyry, Eunapius). However, many Christians were also influenced by Neoplatonism, most notably Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite modern Russian philosophers like Nikolai Lossky and St. Augustine who, though often referred to as a *Platonist," acquired his Platonist philosophy through the mediation of Plotinus' teachings. Indeed, Plotinus' philosophy still exerts influence today: in the 20th century, American philosopher Ken Wilber has drawn heavily upon the Enneads in his ‘cosmology, reaching some metaphysical conclusions comparable to Plotinus' own. Many of the great Indian philosophers of great renown such as S. Radhakrishnan, Dr. ‘AK. Coomaraswamy and others used the writing of Plotinus in their own texts as superlative elaboration upon Indian Monism, specifically Upanishadic and Advaita Vedantic thought.Notes to LC’s encounter with Mayavadis 7.33 mayavadis defined.....and why the Lord takes sannyas Saila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has explained the term “Mayavadi” as follows “The Supreme Personality of Godhead is transcendental to the material conception of life. A Mayavadi is one who considers the body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Krsna to be made of maya and who also considers the abode of the Lord and the process of approaching Him, devotional service, to be maya. The Mayavadi considers all the paraphernalia of devotional service to be maya.”.... Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu felt compassion for them, and itis for this reason that He decided to accept the sannyasa order, for by seeing Him as a sannydst they would offer Him respects. The sannyasa order is still respected in India. Indeed, the very dress ofa sannyasi still commands respect from the Indian public. Therefore Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted sannyasa to facilitate preaching His devotional cult, although otherwise He had no need to accept the fourth order of spiritual life 7.39 types of mayavadis..... These impersonalists, who are followers of Sankaracarya, are generally known as Kasira Mayavadis (impersonalists residing in Varanasi). Near Varanasi there is another group of impersonalists, who are known as Saranatha Mayavadis. Outside the city of Varanasi is a place known as Saranatha, where there is a big Buddhist sttipa, Many followers of Buddhist philosophy live there, and they are known as Saranatha Mayavadis. The impersonalists of Saranatha differ from those of Varanasi, for the Varanasi impersonalists propagate the idea that the impersonal Brahman is truth whereas material varieties are false, but the Saranatha impersonalists do not even believe that the Absolute Truth, or Brahman, can be understood as the opposite of miya, or illusion. According to their vision, materialism is the only manifestation of the Absolute Truth. 7.40-41 criticism against L.C.. The blasphemers said, “Although a sannyasi, He does not take interest in the study of Vedanta but instead always engages in chanting and dancing in sankirtana. 66-70 guided by sentiments bhavuka—fanaties "You are a sanny’si, Why then do You indulge in chanting and dancing, engaging in Your satikirtana movement in the company of fanatics? 7.72. conversant with Vedanta ‘One who has taken shelter of the holy name of the Lord, which is identical with the Lord, does not have to study Vedanta philosophy, for he has already completed all such study ‘A devotee must know the importance of simultaneously understanding Vedanta philosophy and chanting the holy names. If by studying Vedanta one becomes animpersonalist, he has not been able to understand Vedanta, This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gitd (15.15). Vedanta means “the end of knowledge.” The ultimate end of knowledge is knowledge of Krsna, who is identical with His holy name. Cheap Vaisnavas (sahajiyas) do not care to study the Vedanta philosophy as commented ‘upon by the four acaryas. 7.101-102 Vaisnavas do not neglect Vedanta Sutra... Stila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura comments in this connection, “Mayavadi sannyasis accept that the commentary by Sri Sanikaracarya known as Sariraka- bhasya gives the real meaning of the Vedanta-sitra. In other words, Mayavadi sannyasis accept the meanings expressed in the explanations of the Vedanta-satra by Sankaracarya, which are based on monism. Thus they explain the Vedanta-sitra, the Upanisads and all such Vedic literatures in their own impersonal way.” The great Mayavadi sannyasi Sadananda Yogindra has written a book known as Vedanta-sara, in which he writes, vedinto nama upanisat-pramanam. tad-upakarini sartraka-sitradini ca, According to Sadananda Yogindra, the Vedanta-sitra and Upanisads, as presented by $ri Satkaracarya in his Sariraka-bhasya ccmmentary, are the only sources of Vedic evidence. Actually, however, Vedanta refers t0 the essence of Vedic knowledge, and it is not a fact that there is nothing more than Sankaracarya’s Sariraka-bhasya. There are other Vedanta commentaries, written by Vaisnava 4caryas, none of whom follow Sri Sankardcarya or accept the imaginative commentary of his school. Their commentaries are based on the philosophy of duality. Monist philosophers like Sankaracarya and his followers want to establish that God and the living entity are one, and instead of worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead they present themselves as God. They want to be worshiped as God by others. Such persons do not accept the philosophies of the Vaisnava acaryas, which are known as éuddhadvaita (purified monism), suddha-dvaita (purified dualism), visistadvaita (specific monism), dvaitédvaita (monism and dualism) and acintya-bhedabheda (inconceivable oneness and difference). Mayavadis do not discuss these philosophies, for they are firmly convinced of their own philosophy of kevaladvaita, exclusive monism..... -..athe entire system of Vaisnava activities is based on Vedanta philosophy. Vaisnavas do not neglect Vedanta, but they do not care to understand Vedanta on the basis of the Sariraka-bhasya commentary. 7.108 mukhya vriti vs gauna vrtti ...although it is not possible to alter real knowledge, people have taken to the fashion of understanding Vedic knowledge in any way they like. It is for this reason that we have presented Bhagavad-gita As It Is. We do not create meanings by concoction. Sometimes commentators say that the word kuruksetra in the first verse of the Bhagavad-gita refers to one’s body, but we do not accept this.or apophatic theology. In the jfiina-Kanda section of the Vedas, the procedure is characterized as neti neti, ie., “not this, not that.” Inthe realm of value, jfina expresses its opposition to karma through the culture of renunciation_-a thoroughgoing rejection of the world, its activities, and its supposed goods. Thus, in both the noetic and the valuative realms, rejection or negation is the keynote. In the Sanskrit literature of this tradition, knowledge (i... the via negativa) and renunciation are wed into a single frequently encountered compound: jiidna-vairagya- ‘Those who engaged in the intense cultivation of jtana-vairdgya testify to an eventual dissolution of phenomenal selfhood and a breaking through phenomenal existence into a transcendent state, which, although strictly beyond description, is spoken of as a total merging into absolute existence and consciousness, a unity without diversity or distinction. This state, being absolute, is the sole reality; there is no other existence beside it, to relate to it. Thus, the phenomenal world is denied—in philosophy, it is eliminated altogether from the ontology” or granted a kind of illusory, provisional semi-cxistence. The theory of illusion, in its most extreme form. sees not only the gods but also God ie, the Supreme Person, as products of illusion, to be employed o« tolerated in practice as convenient fictions. Indeed, valid objects of worship, all ultimately factitious, can be arbitrarily many, and one’s own self, any favored controlling demigod, or the cosmos itself can serve. Another impetus toward the formation of jfidna is provided by a culture of karma that has fallen into gross excess and abuse. Thus in India, the eventual corruption of the Vedic karma-kanda cult of sacrifice provoked the most radical development of jana in the form of the Buddhist reaction. Rejecting the Vedas altogether, the Buddha inaugurated a tradition that has produced the world's most thoroughgoing negative theology. This extreme form of jnana eventually worked its way back into Vedic tradition through Sankaracarya. 2 In Western terminology, a philosophical presentation of the realities of existence is called ontology. Ic is che study of being, Ic asks, what does co be, of to exist, really mean? --- Epistemology—This term comes from the Greek epistme (knowledge) and lgos (the study of). Epistemology is one of the four tain branches of philosophy (besides echics, logic and metaphysics). Ic asks questions regarding knowledge: What is knowledge? Where does ic come from? How is it formulated, expressed and ‘communicated?Cleaning House and Cleaning Hearts (by Ravirdra Svarupa dasa) _From the beginning, ISKCON has excelled in instilling in its members an extremely igh ideal: that of a‘pure devotee of Krsna’, one totally engaged in God!’ service wihout any personal motive and without interruption. Such a standard was visibly exemplified by Srila Prabhupada himself, an acarya (or model), for all to follow. It was casreestood that initiated devotees must strictly observe the regulative principles and Conform themselves to this standard, if not out of spontaneous love for God, atleast Gut of dutiful obedience to the commands of scripture ard guru. Itis only natural to expect that it would was a great and often protracted struggle for young men and women, raised in the lax and increasingly permissive moral climate of ybattsed., secular America to live up to their newly-adopted standard. Yet in the early days of ISKCON, such difficulties were not easily acknowledged. The shibbolethic! role played by the regulative principles, and the fact that taking, initiation was the only acceptable means of socialisation within ISKCON, made strict following of these principles a sine qua non of allegiance to Srila Prabhupada. At the tame time, members who were themselves fairly new, looked for validation by seeking and producing swift conversions, entailing, in the devotee’s mind, a complete break with society and total immersion in the culture of an ISKCON temple ‘The temples became filled with premature and tentative candidates, who were under enormous internal and external pressure to profess a degree of commitment far in excess of the reality. Furthermore, the lack of mature devotees—who had successfully passed through the trials of spiritual development—left most of the movement ‘without experienced, practical guides and counsellors. All these factors combined to produce in the movement an inability to deal in a healthy and constructive manner, with the spiritual failings and failures of its members ‘These problems were barely acknowledged, let alone discussed. ISKCON's prevailing climate at that time discouraged any frank and open confession of difficulty in following the principles, not only at an institutional level but quite often on a personal one as well. For example, soon after I joined the temple I confided my own problems toa slightly more senior devotee, hoping for forgiveness, practical advice, sympathy and encouragement; instead my ‘confessor’ showed alarm, astonishment and anger, sternly delivering the judgement that I ‘could not be a devotee’. Such experiences seem to have been all too typical. Concealment, the unfortunate by-product of any religious group with a high demand for sanctity, surfaced, manifesting itself in bluffing, hypocrisy, intolerance, fanaticism, punctiliousness, fault-finding and the sabstitution of minor virtues for major ones. Devotees became isolated from each other, and real fellowship was baffled. je 7 ghibbotethic: a peculiarity of pronunciation, usage, or behavior that distinguishes a particular group.Religion And Religions (excerpt by Ravindra Svarupa dasa) .. Jnana is nearly as widespread as karma, a fact causing some of its advocates to name it ‘the perennial philosophy’. As generic phase of human spiritual development, we would expect to find it breaking out all over. It is not even surprising, then, to find strong expressions of jnana in predominantly theistic traditions like Christianity and Islam, There we find often enough rigorous expositions of the theology of negation (apophatic theology or the via negativa), as well as the regular emergence of mystic like Meister Eckhart or al-Hallaj (who even indulge in expressions of self-deification). The platform of jnana is most obvious to usin ‘religious’ contexts, such as the Elastic criticism of the Homeric gods or the Buddhist revolt against the cult of Vedic yajna. But the paradigm is also exemplified in ‘secular’ ideological developments, For example, the historical movement we call the Enlightenment can be understood as a powerful example of the culture of karma. The aim of karma is to attain material well-being by gaining control over natural processes. This was certainly at the heart of Enlightenment ideology: the central article of faith held that Newton's success in physics could and should be programmatically extended until all of nature - especially human nature in its psychological, social and political manifestations - became subjected to rational (‘scientific’) manipulation and control. The reaction came quickly, and the stage of nana became manifest in the form of the counter-Enlightenment (and then matured into the Romantic movement), with its exultation of intuition, holism, organicism, mysticism, ete. “The struggle between Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment ideologies continues to shape the cultural dynamics of the West, The counterculture of the sixties was simply a re-emergence of the original counter-Enlightenment, whose spirit had not been squashed by years of rational scientific and social progress. The emergence of the counterculture surprised and dismayed those who thought they had succeeded in establishing the method of empirical science as the only valid means of knowledge and in dismissing whatever was inaccessible to it as devoid of existence or significance. And the counterculture continues strongly today as the "New Age Movement’ or the ‘Aquarian Conspiracy’ ‘The karma-jnana-bhakti progression makes the emergence of ISKCON within the counterculture intelligible. As Prabhupada's ‘double-dropouts' abandoned ‘straight’ society for the counterculture and then the counterculture for ISKCON, they lived that dialectic spiritual progression, each ‘dropping out’ conveying them, so to speak, across a hyphen. Prabhupada's presentation of bhakti as the fulfillment of this progression and his critiques of karma and jnana, were full of personal resonances for most who became his disciples. He was telling them the truth Thus, they did not ‘convert’ to a ‘religion’ - the terms are alien, the categories inapplicable - therefore they do not see people outside of ISKCON as practising“another religion’. ‘All people are following My path,’ as Krsna said, and chat path progresses through various manifestations of karma, jnana and bhakti. People are distributed on different places along that path; some are hardly moving; others are going forward rapidly. In principle; any person, whether within or without ISKCON, confessing or not confessing a religion, is to be evaluated simply as an individual and by the same criterion that one evaluates oneself - by proximity to pure bhakti. Yet it may be objected that ISKCON is, after all, a ‘proselytising’, missionary’ organisation. Don't we in ISKCON actively seek converts, and doesn't that activity imply our own conviction of institutional superiority? ISKCON hopes to each people that pure devotional service is the highest aim of life and to provide the means for practising it. The positive influence it can exercise can be of two kinds: people may become ISKCON members and practise devotional service, or people may realise the nature and importance of pure bhakti and seek to practise it within another historical tradition. Bhakti is taught in many traditions, but so far | have not encoutered in any but the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition the lucid, analytical reflection on spiritual experience which so precisely defines bhakti and isolates it from the elements of karma and jnana, as well as the explicit and consistent effort to inculcate such purified bhakti, My own conviction is that many Christians, for example, could benefit from this analysis, but they would not have to cease being Christians to do so. Rather, they could mine the resources of their own tradition to pursue pure bhakti, thereby becoming more devoted and spiritually advanced Christians. For, even in many devotional traditions, the theology of negation has compromised and vitiated bhaktt. The God one worships may be a person, but the God one thinks about becomes progressively evacuated of all personal features by a resort to abstraction and negation. The influence of jnana in theology checks and baffles the natural development of real bhakti. While bhakai impels us to praise God without ceasing, jnana tells us silence alone is valid and chokes the voice of praise and prayer. ‘Jnana presupposes that language originates here, in our traffic with the objects of this world, and it has no competence to deal with transcendence. When we extend it to speak of the divine, it snaps like an over-stretched rubber band. Such ideas are theological commonplaces, but from the point of view of bhakti, they are wrong. Bhakti understands that the language conveying the names, forms, attributes, activities, etc. of the transcendent person does not originate in this world. The origin of everything is God, and the original use of language is to praise, glorify, and offer prayer to God. Service to God is the proper and original use of everything, Forgetting God, we pervert that language to traffic with sense objects in this world. But when God reveals himself and has that revelation conveyed in and through inspired language, language is restored to its original use. It is transcendental speech, and it must be taken with ultimate seriousness. And is it therefore to be taken - as everyone always worries - ‘literally’? Rupa Goswamianswers this question by saying that our materially contaminated mind and senses cannot comprehend the transcendental quality of the names, attributes, and so on of the Lord. Only when our senses -beginning with the tongue - have become purified by being engaged in devotional service, can they grasp the Lord's names, attributes, etc ‘Thus, the language that describes God is to be understood literally, but in our conditioned state -with our mind and senses saturated with lust, greed, and anger - we are unable to understand the literal meaning. Yet even though our mundane meanings are perverted and distorted, the language remains real and valid, And even though we cannot grasp the language we use, we must use it unceasingly, for the use purifies our minds and senses so that we will come to understand fully what we speak. Through ‘nonsectarian' arguments like this, ISKCON seeks to help encourage and foster the development of pure bhakil in any tradition. Yet many will fear that such fostering of bhakti is precisely the thing which will most injure the ecumenical spirit. For the negative theology of jnana has been widely promoted as the key to inter-religious harmony and even unity, while bhakti, with its conceptually specific object of devotion, is often held responsible for sectarian exclusivity and hostility. The claim on behalf of negative theology has perhaps been most strongly advanced by the proponents of advaita vedanta (often still presented as normative 'Hinduism’). But we should consider that advaita vedanta solves’ the problem of religious pluralism and diversity by the expedient of wiping itout of the ontology. Only so long as the Absolute is an object of nescience, Sankara says, do the categories of devotee, object of devotion, and the like apply to it When knowledge arises, these and all other distinctions and differences disappear, for all are unreal and due to ignorance alone. Modern advocates of this position tend to combine Sankarite metaphysics with recent types of social and cultural relativism, leading them indiscriminately to accept practically all forms of religious life as equally valid. For what reason is there to discriminate invidiously among illusions? Everything is embraced with open arms, but precisely because everything is ultimately rejected right across the board. Unlike jana, bhaltt does not devalue individuality, diversity, and relativity as such. Indeed, they are found here in this world because they exist in the origin. For bhakti, God, the individual souls, and the relations between God and the souls are all eternally, irreducibly, and ultimately real. God sustains ongoing, ever-developing loving relationships. He discloses himself in different ways, according to the nature of the relationship. ‘As they surrender to Me, I reward them accordingly’ the 'as'in this verse refers not just to differences in degree of surrender and revelation, but also to differences in kind In other words, diversity and relativity in religion is not necessarily due to accidental material conditions; it comes from transcendence itself. Person-hood is a social condition; it is made of relationships. We come to be the persons we arecout our personal relations: each relation teases into manifestation an aspect of ourselves that would otherwise remain unknown. So it is with God, who engages in innumerable relationships. The relations we can sustain before we begin to sacrifice internal coherence are limited; but God can, in principle, combine unlimited self-integration with unlimited relations. Each relationship reveals more of the supreme personality of the Godhead. In this way, the personalistic theology oof bhakti recognises positive spiritual value in religious diversity. To affirm genuine religious experiences wherever they do occur, itis hardly necessary to supersede devotion with speculation and a personal with an impersonal Absolute. We need not propagate ontologies of emptiness to be liberal, broad-minded, and tolerant, If the sectarian intolerance of some devotional communities is actually a consequence of their personalism, then it is owing to too litte rather than too much of it. ISKCON thus offers a vision of inter-religious unity and harmony on the platform of bhakti. There are, of course, other traditions like the non-theistic advaita vedanta that also tend to systematically subordinate bhakti to Jnana - most notably the Buddhist traditions. One may object that the view presented here is distinctly inimical to such traditions and is therefore not as liberal-minded as one might like, On the other hand, a view that systematically relegates God, the devotee, and their relationship to the realm of illusion might in turn be considered hostile to bhakti. Vaishnava theology, at any rate, accepts that the absolute truth has an impersonal feature as well as a personal feature, so the spiritual achievement of those engaged in various kinds of jnana is not written off as a delusion. Itis only when people on the basis of such experience propagate philosophies hostile to the Supreme Person that ISKCON devotees raise objections. Certainly, ISKCON's ecumenical theology of bhakti does not end all disagreements. But at the least it achieves this: it recognises no real difference between intra and inter-religious discussion, debate, or dialogue. We may disagree and argue, but, still, itis in the family‘The Jerk Divine (excerpt, Ravindra Svarupa dasa) __-Aecording to impersonalists, the absolute truth (‘Brahman" in Sanskrit, but you coild eal it"God") isa completely undifferentiated spiritual unity; it has no variety in sc no form, no qualities, no relations. Moreover, itis the only reality. The existeris of any other entity, they claim, would limit it, Thus the world we see about us, in all its profusion of shapes, smells, sounds, colors, and tastes, isan illusion, maya There is only one homogeneous spiritual entity, and that alone is real All else is false. You and 1 ay'particular individuals, are in truth non-existent. When Brahman is covered by maya, the illusion of individual existence arises. What is inexplicable in this philosophy is the existence of illusion itself: How did that illusion arise? How could it cover Brahman? Impersonalists try to make illusion more powerful than the Supreme. For them, illusion in its individual aspect is a finite person illusion in its collective aspect is given the name "God." Thus, the one Supreme Person is an illusion, the infinitely many subordinate persons are illusions, iar hak, the devotional service of the many to the One, is also an illusion. So although impersonalists may make free use of the word God, in fact they are rigorously atheistic To support their impersonalism, they appeal to the idea that the Supreme must be unlimited and unconditioned. And all name and form, they say, are limitations. Individuality isa limitation. The Supreme, then, can properly be understood only through the complete elimination of all such limiting ideas, by the denial of all names, forme actions, and attributes. "Neti, neti, they say: "Not this, not that." This procedure alone secures the transcendence of the Supreme, they say, and keeps it from coming under the confinement of our materially entrenched conceptions. ‘They do not recognize, however, that definition by negation has its own inherent limitation. We may negate conceptions of material qualities, relations, and forms, but the corresponding negations are themselves material ideas. If “form,” for instance, isa material concept, then "formless" is also material. This is because the idea of formless’ depends for its meaning upon the idea of "form." "Formless* requires form? if itis to have any sense at all. Thus "nameless," "formless," “qualityless,” and so on are only relative material conceptions of the Supreme; they cannot precisely describe the Supreme. Definition by negation, then, is incomplete. Can we complete the process of definition? We start with *form," then by negation g0 to "formless * Where can we go from there? “Form” and "formless" seem to exhaust the alternatives, We can't go back to material form; nor do we want to get hung up in sou interminable blow-your-own-mind effort to realize the "unity" of "form" and formless.” (Many impersonalists do this.) But let us examine the starting point again, thactime more carefully, We start not with "form" but more precisely with "material form." And our negation, "formless," means "no material form," Now we can see our way through the barrier tothe affirmation that is finally called for: “spiritual form.”tere we have the factual unity or synthesis of form" and "formless": there is form, bat ne (material) form. Thus we must conclude that the Supreme Absolute Truth has spiritual or transcendental form and, by the same token, transcendental names, qualities, activities, and relations. “And it makes good sense. We can agree that the Supreme must be unlimited, butisn't it paradoxical that the impersonal conception of the Supreme, arrived at by relentless denial. is of an entity so systematically stripped of everything -form, attributes, and aa one.that it is cognitively no different from the idea-of nothing at all? (Indeed, Some impersonalists like to speak of the *Divine Nothingness” or “Nonbeing.") But nullity, nothingness, is the ultimate in limitation. On the other hand, the personal Conception of God as a being full of transcendental or spiritual forms, qualities, setivivies, and relationships without limit really does indicate one who is the greatest ofall ’ Our resoning can show that the Supreme has transcendental variegatedness, but it Cannot tell us the specific, concrete facts about that variegatedness. At this point we fave to drop our efforts to understand God by our own mental prowess, and we have Ta hear, submissively, from the Vedas, from the transcendental sound that comes from the Supreme Himself, That sound discloses in full the specific name, form, opulences, sind acivities of the Supreme, which are beyond the effulgence of impersonal teahma: It is Krsna, the all-attractive, whose transcendental bluish-black form glows Hav new raincloud illurninated by lightning within, whose jewel-bedecked hands lift neiiver flute to His lips, whose eyes, beautiful like lotus petals, roam restless with love over His devotees in the eternal kingdom of God. The impersonalists hanker to merge into the effulgence of the Supreme. But when they hear about the form beyond that effulgence, the transcendental form of Krsna. the embodiment of all beauty, they think of it as material, as maya. This is because the oom mentality is so rigidly materialistic. They are unable to accept the notion of ttransvendental form" because as far as they are concerned all form is material. This keeps them stuck in their negations. But why should we impose our material ideas of name, form, qualities, and actions on God? Who says that all form has to be material form? tis true that mundane mind and senses cannot conceive of the Supreme, but there is hho reason why we have to be limited to mundane mind and senses. We can, in fact, directly experience the transcendental nature of the form, qualities, and activities of Krsna when our own mind and senses have been completely purified and spiritualized by total absorption in devotional service to God (bhakti), which begins with the chanting of Hare Krsna. We can then personally enter into the endless pastimes of Krsna.The Perennial philosophy ‘The notion of perennial philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis) suggests the existence ofa universal set of truths and values common to all peoples and cultures. The term was first used in the 16th century by Augostino Steuco in his book entitled: De perenni philosophia libri X (1540), in which Scholastic philosophy is seen as the Christian pinnacle of wisdom to which all other philosophical currents in one way or another point The idea was later, and more famously, taken up by the German mathematician and philosopher Gottfied Leibniz, who used it to designate the common, eternal philosophy that underlies all religions, and in particular the mystical streams within them. The term ‘was popularized in more recent times by Aldous Huxley in his 1945 book: The Perennial Philosophy. The term "perennial philosophy" has also been used as a translation of the Hindu concept of * De the "everlasting or perennial truth, or norm". ‘The existence of a perennial philosophy is the fundamental tenet of the Traditionalist ‘School, formalized in the writings of 20th century thinkers René Guénon and Erithiof ‘Schuon. The Indian scholar and writer Ananda Coomaraswamy, associated with the Traditionalists, also wrote extensively about perennial philosophy. Main principles According to the tenets of the perennial philosophy, people in many cultures and eras have experienced and recorded comparable perceptions about the nature of reality, the self, the world, and the meaning and purpose of existence. These similarities point to underlying universal principles, forming the common ground of most religions. Differences among these fundamental perceptions arise from differences in human cultures and can be explained in light of such cultural conditioning, ‘Among these perceptions are the following assertions: + The physical or phenomenal world is not the only reality; another non-physical reality exists. The material world is the shadow of a higher reality which cannot be grasped by the senses, but the human spirit and intellect bear testimony to it in their deepest core. + Humans mirror the nature of this two-sided reality: while the material body is subject to the physical laws of birth and death, the other aspect of human existence is not subject to decay or loss, and is identical to the intellect or spirit, which is the kernel of the human soul. In the modern West, this second or other reality has been frequently discounted or ignored. + All humans possess a capacity, however unused and thus atrophied, for intuitive perceptions of ultimate or absolute truth, and the nature of reality. This perception is the final goal of human beings, and its pursuit and development are the purpose of their existence. The major religions try to (re-)establish the link between thehuman soul and this higher and ultimate reality. This ultimate reality, in the ‘Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islara), is called God; God is the ‘Absolute principle from which all existence originated and to which all existence will return. In non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism, the ultimate or absolute is characterized somewhat differently. ‘These worldwide perceptions are thought to be valid or reliable because of their consistency and due to the similarities among them, in spite of their often independent origins. ‘According to Huxley, the perennial philosophy is the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being; the thing is immemorial and universal. Rudiments of the perennial philosophy may be found among the traditional lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions)V.LELE. Kartika Session 2006 Defeating Mayavada: Examination (please write a short answer, maximum a sentence and use the blank space, max 30 pts) 1) nirvisesa-sunyavada refers to which two classes of people? (2pts) 2) “In its broadest sense, dharma denotes a that possesses its own integrity and validity by virtue of being centered on truth.” (1pt) ‘The missing word in the passage is: a) religion b) duty c) a way or form of life d) path 3) Which two types of ‘religions’ are to be given up according to Bg.18.66? (2pts) 4) What has karma-mimamsa and the present day culturé of science in common? (pt) 5) Western theology speaks of the process of negation as the via negativa. The Vedas characterize the same pursuit as__. (1p) 6) Concealment, the unfortunate by-product of any religious group with a high demand for sanctity, surfaced, manifesting itself in binifing, hypocrisy, intolerance, fanaticism, punctiliousness, fault-finding and the substitution of minor virtues for major ones. Devotees became ______ and real fellowship was baffled. (1pt) The missing word in passage is: a) ateftl b) envious c) isolated d) crazy 7) Please make a drawing of the scheme that establishes why Bhakti is Supreme. Explain the concept by using simple, written explanations. (5pes)8) What do we mean by “God isa Person"? pts) 9) “The notion of perennial philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis) suggests the existence of a universal set of common to all peopies and cultures.” (1pt) The missing word in the passage is: a) truths and values b) believes c) controlers d) dharmas. 10)“When we compare the attributes of the Godhead as they are understood by the more mystical tradition of Christian thoughts with those of Nirvana, we find almost no difference at all.” ......in that light Buddhism is not more Atheistic than any other mystical traditions... Explain how this conclusion comes about and mention which person(s) are teaching this understandings (one short statement) (2pts) 11)“Jnana presupposes that language originates here, in our traffic with the objects of this worid, and it has no competence to deal with transcendence. When we extend it to speak of the divine, it snaps like an over-stretched rubber band, Such ideas are theological commonplaces, but from the point of view of bhakti, they are wrong.”..... Why are these ideas wrong? (give one reason) (Ip) 12) “We need not propagate ontologies of emptiness to be liberal, broad-minded, and tolerant. If the sectarian intolerance of some devotional communities is. actually a consequence of their personalism, then it is owing to too rather than too of it.” (Ipt) 13) What trick did Lord Caitanya use to convert impersonlists? (Ips) 14) What is the ground rule in new age circles? Which attitude is helpful to influence people in such circles? (two questions ~ keep answer short) (2pts) 15)Which are the three dominating forces that we find today in the world? Give an example for each group and explain briefly their respective conviction (pts) 16) Give two examples of fallacious Mayavada arguments and counter them with an argument that Srila Prabhupada uses. (4pts) ...Use back space!