Saturday, March 14, 2009
Re: A case in preaching
Dear devotees,
Nityananda Gauranga Hare Krishna! Please accept my respectful obeisances!
Before writing this letter, I was first informed that the inquirer who had replied earlier had gone after a Mayavadi who is a disciple of some famous impersonalist in South India. The mayavadis have certainly changed a lot in the 20th-21st century. Now they have imported sahajiya tendencies to make their impersonalism cloaked under a cover of love. While thinking on the matter, certain realizations were made known to me by the mercy of Hadai Prabhu and I tried replying.
Dear _____,
Our friend _____ certainly got plenty of things correct but a closer look doesn't reveal things to be so correct behind what is seen to the eye.
1) The material world is perfect : True, it is perfect. But a perfect prison for souls opposed to love of Godhead. So in that sense it is not perfect because it is not suited for our habitat. We are happy only in the spiritual world.
2) He's realised the oneness but not the difference : Acintya Bheda-Abheda Tattva. Since everything is an expansion of the Lord, it is correct to say that the Lord is everything, including the jiva souls and the material universe. But yet while everything is one with the Lord, still everything is not the Lord in all respects. There are differences too. The thing is everything is part and parcel of the Lord, so it is not different. Yet the part is never equal to the whole in all respects.
Therefore when someone says that the feeling of warmth and wind and satisfaction is the Lord and thereby he experiences the Lord, he is right, but not totally right. This conception only realises the Lord in his external feature, maya-shakti. It is nowhere near the all inclusive personal experience of the Lord at the highest level of pure devotion. Dylan's realisation is good, but it is incomplete and from a distance, if we could use the words.
Where the mayavadis go wrong is that they identify this incomplete stage of realisation as the complete experience itself. The feeling of warmth and satisfaction is also the Lord expanded through his material feature, but it is not completely the Lord in all respects of sat-cit-ananda vigraha. That feeling cannot reciprocate love, or happiness, or ecstatic bhava or prema, and it cannot even give mukti (liberation). Therefore while everyone experiences the Lord in everything, everywhere and at all times, still the devotees' experience is superior and higher to those of others.
Perfect is fine, but beyond perfect is more perfect, most perfect, super perfect, ultra perfect, etc... No words left....
The devotees' realisation of the Lord is all inclusive of all other concepts and realisations. One trillion times trillion times all other realisations including impersonal brahman liberation and realisation of the self (atma) can never match one pinhead of experience from bhakti.
3) A correction to the devotee: We were never in the eternal service in the spiritual world. It is true that the souls are in the material world because they are against the Lord, but this is described as beginingless (anadi), it is true that the souls have fallen because of envy. But this envy is there and where it came from is beyond space, time and speculation.
When the Lord wanted to enjoy pastimes, he became two and expanded as Radha Krishna. And when Radha Krishna became one, they became Gauranga. This is how we say, but can we actually answer the question, "When did that happen?" We cannot. We use words because of the limitations of language, limited by space and time. But the pastimes of the Lord are eternal and they are beyond all spatial and temporal aspects. Actually it is more correct to say that the Lord continuously wants to enjoy and so he continuously remains two and the two are also eternally merged as one. This is anadi.
So similarly the souls come from the marginal position between the spiritual and material worlds. Those who are eternally averse stay in the material world since eternity and those who are favourable are nitya-siddhas. When a person attains Goloka, he is technically a sadhaka siddha, but in nature he is nitya siddha and it is as though he is eternally there in Goloka and was never elsewhere. This is beyond mind and words.
We say our orignal position was etc..etc and that because we envied etc..etc. But this problem comes because of trying to express in words what cannot be expressed by words. It is not to be taken literally. Just think, how can anyone fall from Goloka because of envy and delusion? It is so mayavadi and such a big offense. It is like saying that someday our guru may fall to our level and we have to liberate him -- don't even endorse it. I'm not harsh, but its like that. I don't even want to think about it.
4) The process of chanting the names is both the means and the end itself. Chanting to get out of the material world is only a shadow (namabhasa) but the real name is both the means and the end to endless love of the Lord. Although you mentioned that later, _____ doesn't seem to have noticed that though. Chanting is the method to remember, but it is also the remembrance itself!
5) He understands that at the highest stage, there is not more need for liberation or transcending or striving and everything is all there. Very good. But he contradicts himself elsewhere when he asks us what's the need of chanting with all rules and regulations. You see that itself indicates a fundamental problem that is not very obvious to the eye immediately. But it has serious implications. I will elaborate shortly.
6) Realising Lord Gauranga Krishna isn't a seeking process, neither is chanting or hearing or etc... Who said anything about transcending the Lord anyway? Not you Venkat. The mayavadis equate realisation with seeking or speculation, but realising is actually our life.
7) Getting out of the material world : Not a matter of physical distance, but the aspect of removing the ignorance and impersonalism within us. Actually the spiritual world is always with us and we are there, but we deny that and so get caught in illusion.
8) This person that your friend has mentioned is not only an impersonalist but also a sahajiya in my opinion. As a matter of fact, I should say that sahajiya and mayavada are two interchangeable terms representing impersonalism in two forms. Though this man is not like a material prakrta sahajiya who is mad after women wealth etc.....(he is a strict impersonalist.....) his theory that the attaining the Lord through a process is inferior and that God must be attained spontaneously without any endeavour is bogus speculation. Actually the original sahajiyas proposed this artificial theory of 'easy and natural' way to realise the Lord. That is the meaning of the word sahajiya -- it means spontaneous or easy. No one can stop acting, to be acting one has to be dead!
The Mayavadis are very fond of using this to blaspheme the sublimely natural and easiest process of sravanam and kirtanam, which they see as unnecessary endeavour. Krishna loves his devotees they say and He is happy when they are happy and enjoying life. Dylan asks why should we see this world as a place for suffering. Its true at the highest level there isn't anything material in our vision anymore, but such statements are uttered with a motive for enjoying the material world as spiritual by aritificial imitation and imaginary speculations of pure devotional realisations. The concept of God as the father is simply used by the children to enjoy God and not serve God. We may be happy spiritually though we still remain in the material world to ordinary eyes, but what about others? Even the Mayavadi comes to a fatal flaw in talking about love because love necessary means plural. If the mayavadis believed their own words, there is no need to do any preaching. Why do they preach this idea to their devoted followers then? They give this reason, "What about others?" So they contradict their own statements that everything is one and everything is God and ultimately fail miserably.
You see, this is the problem between Vaisnava and sahajiya. Mayavadis talk about love and happiness, but in all that there is selfishness mixed with their understanding or talk of love. Its they who are doing the enjoying. This one little flaw makes all the difference between them. Although their idea of love sounds identical to ours, please obseve for yourself that it is only an imitation and an imaginary experience. They imagine their way through everything and those are accepted as real love and experiences. Do you understand now why and what prabhu wrote in his newsletter intro this week?
The sahajiyas artifically try to do raganuga (spontaneous in loving attraction) bhakti by completly bypassing vaidhi bhakti (bhakti with rules) and then claiming vaidhi bhakti as inferior and calling it a seeking process. Bhaktivinode Thakur has clearly pointed out in Jaiva Dharma that vaidhi bhakti is also eternal. At a higher stage the rules of the scriptures are superseded by the rules of love, but it is only by the process of vaidhi bhakti that raganuga bhakti itself develops, not otherwise. Raganuga bhakti develops only when vaidhi bhakti reaches perfection, but it must not be artificially attempted. You see the raga path comes on its own!.... 
. The Sahajiyas are contradicting themselves as they are actually "trying for raganuga bhakti when they claim they are being spontaneous". Vadhi bhakti is eternal and does not end after attaining the Raga path, but how to explain that is so much beyond words.....
They want to jump in to the highest principle at once and then they artificially condemn everything else as inferior materially. Spiritual superiority and inferiority are different from material comparisions. Its not vaidhi bhakti is inferior, but that raganuaga bhakti is superior. Not that Narayana is less perfect, but that Gauranga Krishna is more perfect. Its like that. It isn't a > b means b < a principle.
Actually there is a very intimate relationship between them that will tell you why vaidhi bhakti is eternal and not just a process, but to go so far is beyond my qualification. It also tells you how the different types of bhakti are both one bhakti, and yet they are different and how the Raga patha is superior. But the kamala has closed the door at this point. I cannot write further, but please understand that vaidhi bhakti is no seeking process but it is also the means and the end, although it appears like a process that leads to another end that looks different. It isn't so. At this point the language has reached its logical limit and writing anything further will only begin to contradict what was written earlier. It is impossible to properly describe acintya bheda abheda completely by words. Sometimes things are interchangeable, sometimes they are not. Logic can only approach either end of the tattva, either oneness or difference, but never both together.
Logically, this appears to be a contradiction. But it�s a fact and the proof of this pudding lies in the eating. Look at the damage the sahajiya opinion has done to pure devotion. The spontaneous jnanis simply become either impersonalists or they become materially addicted to women and in the end they all become asampradayis, etc..etc. The cult of Hita Harivamsa preaches this philosophy and it is endorsed by those who attempt the raga path not knowing that what they should attempt is vaidhi bhakti and let prema come on its own. So who's trying to attain God through a speculative, manufactured process?
These things are all demonaic and they are against the injunctions of the scriptures. "...kalau tat hari kirtanat" (SB 12.3.52) is what the scripture says. No one can just try for raganuga bhakti and get it. One must make some effort. The part of bhakti that is attempted is vaidhi bhakti and the path that comes on its own is raganuga. But without making the proper attempt, that which is spontaneous cannot come. Ultimately no one can avoid doing anything because one has to be eternally dead otherwise. We have to try because it�s a matter of free will and where there is a choice we have to take some action from our side. But we should try the right way. We must not try for that which cannot be attempted for. So trying and not trying are meant for different circumstances. They must never get mixed up.
This misconception is so subtle that only a spiritual eye can catch it, it was actually dictated to me what to write now. I had some doubts before, but it all came in a millisecond and everything was clear for a few seconds. I can't remember all, but now I am sure of what is written over here. Mayavadis talking of love and etc... is totally mental speculation at its finest. In the end they will add a line, "Impersonalism is the end". What blasphemy!
8) The smartas emphasise smaranam (remembering) over kirtana or sravana because of their own innate envy towards the movement of Mahaprabhu. So they don't even know the simple fact that kirtanam includes all other bhakti processes and it is impossible to attain perfect smaranam without kirtanam! Sometimes those who emphasise other processes like smaranam do so because they don't know what remembrance is and they think kirtana to be cheap stuff. Their remembrance is mental, while kirtana is spiritual remembrance.
9) Impersonalism has two dimensions. One form manifests itself directly as those who deny the form, name and the loving, blissful qualities of the Lord. This is obvious and is known as mayavada. But the other form is very subtle and cannot be distinguished so easily. This is impersonalism that appears as a carbon copy of personalism, but is ultimately caught in the act of imitation because its selfish in nature. This is called sahajiya. Real devotion is fully selfless.
10) This is the problem with people. People want to jump in to the highest at once. One has to go through kindergarten to reach Ph.D in spiritual matters. When we discuss class I principles, they immediately want to show their 'greatness' and they talk all class XII principles, but along the way they lose out the opportunity to get into class XII. You were quite right in discussing the basic things about material world and reaching the Lord. It's right when prabhu says it, but it isn't right when we say such things. Such high things do not look good in our mouth. We should only talk about what we are qualified to talk
Although I wrote about _____'s good points, still as I kept writing some thing came from above and I realised it was all mental imitation. All glories to the Lord full of transcendental mellows and spiritual knowledge! Thank you Hadai prabhu, for having been such a loving guru to guide me so mercifully despite all and I mean all my wretched disqualifications.
Your most worthless wretched servant,
Srinath
Comment on this Post
No comments yet