By Karnamrita dasa
This could be a trick question if you look at it from a certain perspective. However, this is not a math question. In math zero is important in relation to numbers having value as a placeholder, and in other ways. There would be no computers as we know them without zero etc. Anyway I never liked math, which says something about me I suppose. One thing it says is I am not good at finances, but that is of no importance for this discussion.
My question is in regard to the goal of religious or philosophical paths. I originally thought of this topic after attending a Sunday feast class where the speaker was rather unnecessary harsh and “over the top” with a guests’ impersonal statement. I have personally had the opportunity to kindly deal with impersonal views in class, saying, “Yes, that is one perspective. However, our philosophy includes this, yet develops the idea further” etc. I was respectful, yet I didn’t compromise and tried to speak so I could be heard.
As most of us here know some interpretations of the Vedas arrive at a conclusion of no eternal individual soul, but one supreme formless energy that temporarily manifests as individuals. Another popular conception, Buddhism, posits that there is reincarnation, and suffering, yet ultimately all there is, is matter, and liberation or nirvana really amounts to….. well nothing—to be straight. Impersonal destinations for the soul, or “voidistic” ocean doctrines, though in modern times put in flowery language, like cosmic oneness, or all love, are really saying that our individuality is zero, and our love, feelings etc. are in the ultimate sense also zero.
Even beginners on the path of Bhakti, or cultivating the service and love of the Supreme Lovable, Shri Krishna find such doctrines, very unattractive. Great devotees in their Bhava (spiritual emotion) or love for Krishna have spoken very harshly of such depictions of their Lord, the love of their life, who is also none other than the Supreme Brahman. Should we, who are beginners, or unrealized devotees also speak in such harsh ways to those we meet who expose such doctrines? Sometimes devotees can be quick to condemn others with impersonal views without relating to them on the human level, and giving them some credit for their spiritual search.
Although there are many verses in the Upanisads and other Vedic literature that apparently speak of the ultimate truth as impersonal, the overwhelming evidence of the Vedic literature as a whole is that the ultimate reality, or the primal source of everything is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Shri Krishna, with his diverse energies or saktis though which he expands himself and accomplishes his purposes.
Such depictions of the Supreme Truth as having no eyes, nose, face etc., are really to distinguish him from material eyes, ears, noses, etc, since he has a purely spiritual form and personality. The innumerable references for that are throughout Shrila Prabhupada’s books, and the writings of the main followers of Lord Chaitanya, the famous six Gosvamis of Vrindavana. Their arguments will be accepted by devotees, or personalists, but not by those who have a bias for impersonalism or voidism. They are not charmed by Krishna like the devotees.
Nowadays devotees are often involved in some type of inter religious dialog where we try to connect with different groups to promote more religious understanding and acceptance. I think this is good, yet it can be challenging. Once a friend of ours was hosting one such gathering at his house, with a number of different groups attending, including devotees. One of the groups of Western followers of Tibetan Buddhism, lead the group in a chant first in Sanskrit, and then in English, that “Nothing is everything, and everything is nothing.” I wasn’t able to hide my disgust, and my wife looked at my expression and had to elbow me.
I have to admit that when I first began my spiritual search almost 40 years ago, I used to say this same slogan….. but that was a long time ago, and much has changed in my life and heart. It was hard for me on this occasion to be neutral to hearing that chant in the name of political correctness.
Nevertheless in other circumstances, remembering my own history as well as how many paths are in the market place today, I recommend that we should be understanding and accommodating of people we meet or who ask us questions. This means to be tactful and respectful in presenting our views.
Our KC philosophy is strong about the superior spiritual position of personalism, and we can find many reference to take a strong stance to explain it. Yet at the same time we don’t want to be like so many groups who are known for their religious fanaticism, extremism, and intolerance of other views. This is called in our tradition, “kanistha adhikari”, or those of weak faith who have to make others wrong in order to be right.
So do these paths having what to us is a goal of “zero” have any value? How should we present it to others? Here is one way: If the plane of karma, which means taking from the environment and incurring a debt(reaction) for it, is taken as the path of negative numbers (causing samsara or birth and death), then coming to “zero” has a positive value. While giving appreciation for zero here, we question now, are there are any positive numbers?
Ending suffering is good. If we are being chased by those wanting to harm us, and we find shelter in a room and lock the door, then our hiding has positive value. However, how long can we do nothing or hide? Eventually we will want some positive activity. Our positive activity, or the plane of positive numbers, is devotional service. Being in the plane of negative numbers (karma) is only bondage. Although coming to zero has positive value in relationship to karma, from the devotional perspective, having a positive relationship to the most positive person, Krishna is really the best option. Krishna consciousness is the process of becoming convinced of this positive truth, and acting on it–positively. This is the life of devotion or Bhakti-yoga.
The first thought that came to mind while reading this nice article is how Srila Prabhupada never compromised. But then, he was Srila Prabhupada; elderly in appearence, as sober as a judge, as learned as a scholar and so on. With all these attributes he could call a member of an audience who thought he was God “A Dog!” He could call others rascals, fools, demons and the like.
Mind you, in my early years of preaching, being a definite kanistha, I too would display intolerance of other’s veiwpoints and strenuously proclaim our way as the only way. But one incident occured which made me become more tactful therafter.
It happened on the streets of Liverpool where I was distributing books. I had a knack for debating, so I engaged in debating with an impersonalist. After a good few minutes of lively argy-bargy I made a statement which virtualy ended the conversation: I won the debate. But I could not hide my pleasure; I smiled in a sneering way as if to say, “What do you expect from a Hare Krishna? We are always right.”
He picked up on this attitude however and said to me, “So now that you won your agument, is that the way you celebrate, with that wry concealed smile of yours? Spiritual people are not supposed to gloat like this.” That statement of his hurt me, but it was true. He was feeling somewhat dejected, which enlisted my sympathy. I apologized for my neophyte behavior then parted ways.
The lesson I learnt from this is, however right we are, we have to consider the personality behind such presentations. Thay also have mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and friends. They laugh and cry just like we do. They feel insulted too. So our vantage point must always be from a position of humility, love and compassion.
We may not have the powerful personal presence Srila Prabhupada has, but according to our own judgement we should be able to speak in ways befitting the receptivity of the audience. Besides, the humble approach will nearly always earn respectful hearing.
Ys, Kesava Krsna dasa.
This is a nice, thoughtful article. Sometimes it *is* hard for us to hide our disgust, and Lord Caitanya does teach that Mayavadis are offenders.
It is not necessarily just the kanistha adhikaris who make a point of strongly criticizing that philosophy (although Karnamrta Prabhu is probably right that for kanisthas like me, our weak faith may depend on it).
Srila Prabhupada rarely if ever had any kind words for Mayavadis who openly denied Krishna’s transcendental form and personality (as opposed to transcendentalists who, for want of exposure to association with devotees, had no information regarding the Lord’s all-attractive, personal feature).
For kanistha adhikaris like myself, at least, it is better to avoid associating with the offenders who actually try to convince me that Krishna’s form is material, or atheists who insist that even the ego which travels from one body to the next is itself a product of maya to be extinguished by meditation.
As a weak devotee, I do not need to learn how to tolerate their association. I really need to learn how to avoid it. (My problem is, I am not enough afraid of bad association).
But I wanted to share something funny I learned in a book distribution seminar. Someone asked the teacher, what do you say if someone says, “I don’t want that book. I am a Buddhist.” He demonstrated how, without missing a beat, the distributor can cheerfully take back the book and say, “Great, let me show you the one for Buddhists” (handing them a different book . . . just some randomly chosen other book). :-)
At first this seemed a little too “cute” to me. It seemed insincere to not engage them on their own level, to talk about how there are interesting things for Buddhists and Vaisnavas to say to one another. The book distributor was treating them like “marks”, “stooges”, not letting them in on the private joke that this “other” book was not really especially of interest to Buddhists, but that handing them the other book was just a sales technique to avoid breaking the momentum of favorable interaction.
However, I soon realized that this is the extraordinary mercy of book distributors. They put aside the impulse to debate with those they meet, if such debating would interfere with their distribution of real mercy in the form of Prabhupada’s books.
The same technique can be used if someone says, “I am a Muslim, a Christian, an Existentialist, a Humanist.” “Here, let me give you the one for ____ (scientists, free thinkers, Jehova’s Witnesses, martial artists)”
Of course, this is just a technique of “qualifying” them and getting a book into their hands. The consummate book distributor will then have to move to the next stage of presenting whatever book has been selected. The customer may want to know *why* this is the book for Buddhists, Pagans, Falun Gong, or whatever self-identified “ism” they initially expected would end the conversation and disqualify them. Krishna often will reveal just what to say at this stage, but it is nice to have some words at the ready.
For Christians, I often change to SSR and open it up to the section on Krishna Consciouness and Christ. For Buddhists and Advaitins, Teaching of Lord Caitanya is a good weapon in the arsenal. But really anything will do. Bhagavad Gita, Hidden Glory of India, even smaller books like Sri Isopanisad or Chant and Be Happy all can be nicely presented to someone who initially tries to say, “I’m not interested because I follow Ramana Maharshi.”
Mainly, in such situations I present the books as attractive academically or philosophically, showing that they represent a very interesting and ancient tradition which is at its heart devotional. We are not trying to “convert” them, but we know they are well-informed, intelligent people who are intellectually curious about the world’s major philosphical and religious traditions and Classical literary statements.
But that’s just me. Not everyone has the same spiel. (It is amazing to me how many people I meet these days have heard of the Gita or have been studying one or another commentary. Thirty years ago I would only rarely meet a non-Indian in the U.S. who had even heard of the Gita. Now, in Santa Cruz, probably everyone who had some college education has heard of the Gita, whcih allows me to appeal to their academic interest.)
Sometimes they will buy, sometimes not, but generally the exchange will be pleasant and friendly and mutually respectful.
I have gotten repeat sales from Yogananda followers, Buddhist intellectuals, people who initially said they were noit interested because of their settled convictions. Later the same people have seen me again and bought additional books.
The main thing is, we probably are not going to convince mayavadis by the strength of our debating skills. But if they taste a little prasadam, join a kirtan, or do a little service by giving a donation and applying themselves to reading Srila Prabhupada’s books, anything can happen.
Book distribution is a nice situation where you can easily have just a short, favorable interaction, given your obvious job of contacting many people throughout the day and not having time to settle down into a prolonged discussion.
Positive conviction is different from doubtful fanaticism.
Thanks for your appreciation, and taking the time to comment. I wrote the above partly in response to some tendencies of certain devotees to do what I consider imitating Prabhupada (as you mentioned) without having the realization or knowing how to make KC points according to time and place. You are so right in appreciating how expert Prabhupada was in saying what needed to be said. Yet for anyone, “smashing” opposing views (as you did on the street) is not the sum and substance of KC.
We don’t want to preach “at” people but relate to them very individually. Many people who put forward impersonal or voidist doctrines haven’t really thought it through very carefully. Neither have they heard the personal Vaishnava philosophy. One thing is for sure, if they don’t feel we actually care about them and are just speaking dogmatically, they most likely won’t be receptive to whatever we say, no matter how eloquent. HOW we say something, is more important than WHAT we say. And WHO we are is much more important than what we say. Here is a great quote by Thoreau: “WHO YOU ARE IS SCREAMING SO LOUDLY I CAN’T HERE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING”.
I have my “new devotee on the street story also: When I was distributing Back to Godhead magazines someone replied to my preaching to them, “Are you trying to convince me—or yourself?”. Wow! That feedback took my back, and I really had to think about how convinced I was or wasn’t, that someone might have felt my doubt. So if we are truly convinced, we don’t need anyone else to confirm it. We don’t need everyone else to agree with us, or to make everyone else wrong.
Our Krishna consciousness will be enough for us, and out of our true compassion we will share with others what we have. In the beginning that can mean sharing what we like about KC. Prabhupada advised us to preach according to our realization. That will have power. Otherwise we are speaking dogma. Of course we may like Krishna lila, and have some faith in it though not realization, and be able to share our enthusiasm, but I am talking about trying to defeat someone when we haven’t defeated our own doubts.
Your friend in Vaishnava seva,
Karnamrita das
It is a good idea for devotees to understand the Western and as well as Eastern philosophies that ultimately all of modern human society bases their thinking patterns on. “Beyond Illusion & Doubt” is a good introductory comparison of a number of classical as well as modern philosophical doctrines. What is unique about the book is how Srila Prabhupada analyzes each thinker and explains their flaws and merits based on Vaishnava philosophy.
The Srimad Bhagavatam also mentions a number of Eastern philosophers as well. Srimad Bhagavatam states that all philosophies which do not promote direct devotional service of the Lord are to be considered atheism. Theism is bhakti-yoga, and atheism is anything which is against or which obscures bhakti-yoga.
It is important to be very fluent in our own philosophy, and to also know all other philosophies as well, so that we can, with great compassion, as the author suggests, help people find the best path to happiness and spiritual success.
At the same time, there are many warnings that we should be very careful about studying impersonal philosophy, and that listening to it can cause great harm to our spiritual lives.
Thanks to Suresh and Akruranath Prabhus for your thoughtful comments. (My previous one was for Kesava Krsna Prabhu)
The strength of writing (focusing on one point or perspective) is also its’ weakness, as this type of writing is one dimensional and can be interpreted variously even if we try to anticipate that. Discussion helps churn the topic so we can look at all angles.
I wasn’t really speaking of intimate association with Mayavadis and engaging in loving exchanges with them. However, in Shrila Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s Bhakyaloka in the chapter on Sanga-tyaga he defines “association” with others as done with love—–which is meant for the sadhus or saintly devotee. Those same activities if done out of duty and not out of love with materialists, are not considered “association”, so they can be done. For many of us in the world they must be done in the course of our job and family. This is an interesting but side point here.
I was mainly speaking in my post of people we may have some temporary connection with, like the guest at the feast I spoke about, or someone on the street etc. Of course we may have relationships with other Yoga groups and even friendships with those who are impersonalist, but not necessary Mayavadis who preach AGAINST the form of Krishna out of contempt. Often such persons are respectful of our views, and may become at least “friends of Krishna”. Every case is individual and has to be taken on its’ own merit.
Although to me, this last statement seems common sense, some devotees don’t apply it—which proves what many have said that “common sense is uncommon”. Everything in scripture can be understood or misunderstood, used properly, or misused. Again this is one of those simple statements, but it needs to be said and discussed. In every field, only becoming conscious of problems or misunderstanding can they be solved or changed.
A little more than 12 years ago Krishna stopped me as I was heading to the forest to live as a hermit meditating on brahman. I had been practicing sankhya yoga for a few years, to the best of my ability, and then studied Vasistha’s Yoga for two more years, augmented by the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharan. Every day I woke up thinking I was still dreaming. Believing that to advance to the next level I needed to sever my social conncetions, I packed up my little car and drove from Buffalo, NY, to Olympia, WA, where I intended to look for a hidden spot in the Olympic National Forest to sit and meditate. My first day in Olympia I found a used Bhagavad-gita As It Is in a new age bookstore and a painting of Krishna in an imports store across the street. I had read other translations, and wasn’t interested in the text, but I thought the scholarly presentation could help me learn Sanskrit. My hope was to read Vasistha’s Yoga in its original language.
Bhagavad-gita As It Is quickly and radically changed my life, and as by Srila Prabhupada’s grace I was gifted witha taste of Krishna’s mercy. I’m sure there is nothing more wonderful than Krishna consciousness.
Now I cannot resist debating with impersonalists. With Srila Prabhupada’s teachings it’s easy to defeat them. Often the biggest challenge is that they don’t understand their own philosphy, which I have to teach them while simulataneously revealing its contradictions and complete lack of taste.
I think it was to my credit that my interest was to find out the truth of existence. Apparently that’s not so common, because in my experience people often get upset when shown the faults in their philosophy. It seems to me that people pick a philosophy to support their preferred mode of sense gratification, so they take philsophical defeat as a threat.
Although my experience with impersonal philosophy gives some advantage in preaching to impersonalists, it also has a major drawback, which is that it still pollutes my intelligence to some degree. Thus I sometimes forget that not only is Krishna a person, but so is everyone else. I’m fairly certain that as I learn to be more sensitive to people’s feelings rather than chopping up their philosophy, I will have much more success in preaching. That will take some maturity, which hopefully will come sooner rather than later.
Hare Krishna.
Thanks Panduji: It is always a privilege to get a glimpse into devotee’s lives, and also to hear how Krishna has attracted them. Thanks for sharing your story.
Many of us begin our spiritual life with some type of impersonist tinge. That was my background also, but I was no jnani, just an eclectic searching for meaning in what seemed a meaningless world. Personally I am quite sympathetic to anyone who is sincerely searching, and I do understand the impersonal path to some degree—thought not in the detail that you might. I think of Prabhupada’s purport to BG 7.19 where he mentions the initial leaning toward impersonalism and the eventual understanding that there are activities in spiritual life and these are called devotional service. Also in the SB, there is a purport that says that the impersonal path is good until one meets a pure devotee.
The impersonal conception of God at first glance seems more universal. Religious people who “give God a face” are often fanatic, and not very philosophical or spiritual. Therefore the “Supreme One” seems more transcendental and spiritual than the religious types who appear to be immature and little informed—until we hear from mature devotees who, can like you, explain a better perspective while acknowledging where the impersonalists fits into the scheme of things.
Most of the so-called impersonalists I meet are more like neo-impersonalists, which seem like the ones you are referring to—they don’t really know very much but have some flowery conception of universal loving oneness, without understanding that this philosophy is really about loosing not just your illusory kamic self but your self all together as you merge.
The metaphysic of Shri Chaitanya is just as much ONE, as DIFFERENCE, though to distinguish ourselves from impersonalists we stress the difference. For devotees, we have to be charmed by the vision of Krishna and his divine Lila, and understand that we want to be ONE with Krishna in purpose. In one sense, there is only Krishna and his saktis. We are a part of the ONE, Krishna as his jiva sakti. Our oneness is to have no separate interest than his. That is real selflessness, or our real self interest!
Your message about not being “fanatical” in preaching does come through loud and clear Karnamrta Prabhu. It is an important message.
Your story about someone saying “are you trying to convince me — or youself?” was good. We have all had similar experiences. Recently on Dandavats I told a story on myself about how Bob Dylan said a similar thing to me in LAX in 1979. I asked him, “Don’t you believe in Krishna?” and he responded, “Do you?”
His smirky smile suggested I was just a blind follower, which I was, and truth be told still am. At least I hope I qualify as *some* kind of follower. ;-)
A little while later (probably in 1980), on a sailboat in the Bahamas, I was “expounding” on Krishna consciousness for what probably was a little too long, and my father interrupted me and said something like, “You’ve told me what your religion says, now tell me what YOU really believe.”
[To the best of my recollection I stammered something about how what I really believe is unimportant, and that if I can just repeat what the enlightened authorities are saying, eventually I will come to completely realize it. But my dad wasn’t having any. He had successfully exposed that I was not truly speaking from a platform of deep conviction and realization, that I was just trying to accurately repeat some “doctrine”.]
Preaching to people means we do have to genuinely listen to them and respond from the heart. Otherwise we can never make a real connection.
On the other hand, we do not want to listen too much. Sometimes we have to strike a balance between trying to make a sincere connection with someone and wasting a lot of time listening to his nonsense. Not everybody we meet on book distribution is worth listening to, and we have to learn to discriminate.
[I’m sorry, I must have book distribution on the brain.]
My story about the “glib” book distributors was just to illustrate — I actually don’t know why I told that, to be honest — but it illustrates how there is more going on in a conversation than just the words people are saying. Slick salesmen can use a kind of verbal “judo”, using the customer’s own momentum to get to the next step, rather than unnecessarily disagreeing and shutting down the whole transaction. Devotee book distributors develop an almost mystical power to do this.
But at the next step the salesperson has to make a connection, and a mature book distributor has to be able to do that. That often requires more mystic powers.
Mostly all people are being led around by material nature. Shakespeare wrote, “Our thoughts are ours, their ends are not our own” (from the play within a play in Hamlet), but even our thoughts are usually just the result of some big chain of karma.
Some thoughts are really deep convictions, others are just swirling words, reflections of numerous impressons and daily discussions. Still, the expert preacher can often make a spiritual connection with someone by finding a thought he or she cares about and saying something meaningful about it.
A lot of people profess atheism or one form of religious or political or other philosophical doctrine without very deep conviction. [The tender neophyte devotee may also have weak conviction in Krishna consciousness.] The expert preacher can often find something favorable in what a person says, even some seemingly atheistic or mayavadi statement, and make some connection at a deeper level.
A book distributor on the street generally only has a short time, after succeeding in stopping someone and overcoming his resistance long enough to get a book in his hand, to make that connection. Sometimes it works to make a pithy challenge to something someone says, but usually we go along with them and find something positive to say, something that affirms and glorifies their ideas and makes them want the book.
One thing we can say positive about impersonalists and voidists. At least theoretically they have recognized the futility of material enjoyment and all the activity that goes along with it. (Well, to be fair, there are a lot of “phony” impersonalists who have not really recognized this, but at least the thrust of their philosophy does recognize it. Either they or the authorities they follow have given up “raga” for “bhaya” or “krodha”.)
Many of the best customers for Srila Prabhupada’s books are people who have some general attraction for “Eastern” religion and spirituality, but may have heard mostly impersonalist-sounding stuff. These “sweetballs” (as Sura used to call them) still have an automatic attraction to seeing pictures of Krishna and want to know the authentic truth about karma, reincarnation, meditation, yoga, bhakti, kirtan. Some of them are devotees waiting to happen, and we have to avoid turning them off to ISKCON.
Naturally, people are going to be turned off by self-righteous, judgmental, insincere, incomplete devotees who cannot “connect”, or who are out there trying to win an argument for egotistical reasons. People like to be flattered and hate to be criticized. If we can find something to genuinely appreciate about them, they are going to like us.
Recently I talked to some chess players–I know something about chess, so we talked a little Nimzovitch, a little Balaram–and in the course of the discussion I said something like, “The Hare Krishnas are kind of like the Christians of Hinduism” (I think this person was a Christian), and then one of her friends said, “Yeah, that’s right”, with a wry expression as if to say both Christians and Hare Krishnas could be fanatics. We all agreed that devotional, personalistic traditions were more likely to produce zealous fanatics among the beginners. Overall it was a friendly, favorable exchange, but I do not think they took a book (I don’t remember, actually). Maybe they will later, though.
[We have to get over the notion that if they do not buy, it was unsuccessful, a waste of time. If we made some personal connection they will probably buy later. When people sense all we want is their money, it bothers them. Obviously. What do we expect?]
Of course there are also people who come up spouting that they are God and so on, and usually a book distributor can tell in short order not to waste any further time on them.
But one time in LAX I was making a spiel to an older man in a business suit and he started to tell me about how he was a Christian. I somehow read him wrong and thought he was going to waste my time, so I said “Have a nice day” and quickly walked away. The man then went over to Praghosa (ACBSP) and gave him $10 for a Gita and asked him why I had abruptly cut it off with him. So Praghosa chastised me later.
People can generally sense a lot of what is going on behind the words we say. Juries size up witnesses quickly. Social scientists say juries usually make up their minds from the opening statements, *before* they even hear the evidence.
Maybe one reason why new devotees are sometimes fanatical is that they are living an austere lifestyle and they really need to convince themselves that materialistic people who are apparently enjoying are making a big mistake. But then, it does make a poor impression, so we should try to learn how to be charming. It helps if we are happily situated and not envious of others.
Ultimately there is a lot of nonverbal stuff that goes on while preaching, and it makes a lot of difference.
Wow! Pandu’s story is fascinating. It is rare to meet such a truly committed and sincere impersonalist jnani as he was. Going to live alone in the forest to meditate and study Vasistha in Sanskrt.
And just see! When exposed to Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita As It Is he became a real Vaisnava. Any sincere philosopher will be charmed by this book. It is only a matter of them doing some little seva, just by reading it carefully, or eating a simply wonderful.
After many, many births and deaths, one who is truly in knowledge surrenders to Krishna, knowing “Vasudeva is everything”. Such a great soul is very rare.