And now, in the order of their appearance, Dr. Visva Parägdåñöi (a scientist), Vedasara dasa (a Bhakti-Vedantist), Khagäkña (a religious rationalist), Vidyaviruddha (an impersonal monist), and Svapnarätri (a subjective idealist), will discuss some of the topics raised in the previous chapters.
Dr. Parägdåñöi: The fact is that scientists are not ideologists. We are practical men and women, most of whom are not very concerned with philosophy. That's why I suppose Paul Feyerabend declared back in 1975 that the only principle of progress we scientists really have is anything goes. Speaking as a scientist myself, that's what makes science so exciting. Within the range of modern scientific disciplines you'll find believers in Christianity, Vedänta, Platonism, Cartesian dualism, logical positivism, materialism, idealism, functionalism, phenomenology, and more. But scientists share the same common denominator, which is the scientific work ethic: get off your theoretical backside, go into the lab or out in the field, and come back with some hard results, something the rest of the world can get their hands on. That's the criterion I think a method of knowledge has to be judged by what it does for the rest of the world. Science is what works. And what is special about the scientific community, what sets us apart from religious people and even philosophers, is that we make sure it works, or we just don't have time for it. It's got to stand up to criticism yes, rigorous and unforgiving criticism. But that's how you tell if something works or not. Hermetic logic, pure theory, abstruse super- sophistication, secret wisdom from ancient texts, doesn't impress me. There is nothing certain in any of that. Just give me something that passes the tests. Then I'll use it. Among my scientist friends, I don't know a single one who does not believe that the universe is governed by objective laws from which all phenomena can be deduced. On the basis of this belief, we theorize the big picture. But to see that big picture, you've got to inductively investigate what's out there, bit by bit. See what works, see what's real, and as you fit the pieces together, the deductive logic of the universe is made manifest.
Vedasära däsa: Thank you, Dr. Parägdåñöi, for your defense of the method of modern science. I must say with all respect to you that your remarks confirm our analysis of the modern scientific method. You told us there's a bottom line in science, and that is getting tangible results in the lab and in the field results the world can get its hands on. From this, I gather you mean technology, which enhances material life. But material life is in the hands of death, the ultimate suffering. At the time of death, our hands lose their grip on technology. Then how is technology a tangible gain? Whatever the results of the scientific method may be, they do not answer life's substantial questions: why was I born, why must I die, and what is the purpose of this temporary human life? You've quoted Mr. Feyerabend's phrase, anything goes, as if he meant to say that the scientific method is freethinking. Actually, what he really meant he made clear in another phrase: there is no scientific method. I agree. Science is insubstantial, both in method and in goal. You said that scientists are not ideologists. You've suggested that the attitude of science is one of philosophical uncertainty. I think what you're getting at is that the philosophy of science is uncertainty. Science does not know whether anything it does is based upon fact. Herbert Feigl, a leading philosopher of science, admitted that it may very well be that all the theories of science are born false. Yet scientists continue to give birth to new theories. This is why we insist the whole enterprise of scientific induction is just gambling.
Khagäkña: I'd like reply to that. Vedasära, you and I share a theistic view of the world. But unlike you, I firmly believe that from knowledge of a part of a thing, a valid inductive conclusion may be drawn about the whole thing. May I remind you, Vedasära, that your äcärya Çréla Prabhupäda taught this very principle himself when he said that the test of a single grain of rice can prove whether the whole pot is cooked. You seem to only want to look at the whole pot, not at any one grain. Of course, any individual rice grain cannot be the whole pot. But that does not mean we should reject the testimony of a grain of rice about the whole pot. We should learn how to test the whole by induction from the single grain. There are so many religious people in the world, so many philosophers, scientists, and other people with insight into the meaning of life. Any one of them won't have the whole truth. But from any one of them you can get a sense of the truth, one that will help you see the truth of the whole pot. You have to keep an open mind. I suggest you may be forgetting that in your own Kåñëa conscious philosophy, utility is the principle. Dr. Parägdåñöi was saying that the bottom-line principle of science is practicality. So didn't Çréla Prabhupäda mean the same when he said utility is the principle? In utility you have the possibility of a common ground between Kåñëa and modern science. You've unnecessarily closed your mind to the good use the inductive method can be put to in service to Kåñëa. You've said the scientific method is gambling; well, I say your method is dogmatic.
Vedasära däsa: We are in agreement that utility is the principle. Modern science and technology can be used in Kåñëa's service, there is no doubt about that. But utility is not just knowing how to use something. We have to know why. However expert we may be in technique, if we use Kåñëa's energy with wrong intentions, we will remain sunk in the ocean of repeated birth and death. Çréla Prabhupäda taught us that the why of utility is understood by the basis, essence and force of our intention. The intention to serve mäyä is based upon material instinct (svabhäva), which is our ignorance. But the intention to serve Kåñëa is based upon knowledge for example, the books of his pure devotee, Çréla Prabhu-päda. Devotees sometimes read other books to learn how to do certain things. But the actual basis of intention is seen not in how but in why we do a thing. And the essence of our intention is seen in the message we broadcast by our use of Kåñëa's energy. Materialistic utility broadcasts egoism, I and mine. But the essence of a devotee's use of Kåñëa's energy is that Kåñëa is the Supreme Self, and everything belongs to Him. Thus preaching Kåñëa consciousness is the essence. The force that powers Kåñëa conscious utility is purity of intention. Purity depends upon anurakta (attachment to guru), not svabhäva-rakta (attachment to our material inclinations). As for your example of the single grain and whole pot of rice, this is how Çréla Prabhupäda explained that analogy:
So everything, what you have got, the same thing God has also got. The difference is that you are like a drop of seawater and He is vast sea. That's all. Big quantity. Quantitatively, we are different, but qualitatively, we are one. The same quality. ... If you are cooking rice, you take one grain of rice and you press it, if you see that it is now soft, then the whole rice is cooked.*
Çréla Prabhupäda is not being inductive. Though he uses the analogy of cooking rice, he is not referring it to a material experience or experiment. You cannot test What you have got, the same thing God has also got by trial and error. Remember, induction is the logic of empiricism. Can you empirically measure that what you've got, God has also got? No. You have to accept on authority that there is a God, that He is the cause, and that you are related to God as an effect is related to a cause. Then, through the use of deductive and abductive reasoning, you can try to understand more about this relationship, guided by çästra. Even if you take the grain/pot example as a lesson in nothing more philosophical than cooking, you have to first accept on authority that one cooked grain means the whole pot is cooked. Once you've accepted that, you can deduce a conclusion about any pot of rice by testing just one grain. If you assume the inductive stance, then the grain/pot example can only be a hypothesis. That hypothesis would have to be tested by pressing every grain of rice in the pot to prove that one grain is the measure of them all. Finally, the question is not why a devotee of Kåñëa is forbidden to use inductive logic. It is common, everyday logic, and of course we use it in the Lord's service. For instance, in 1966, when ISKCON was just a storefront on New York's Second Avenue, Çréla Prabhupäda sent a disciple to the IBM company. He'd heard of its policy of donating typewriters to educational institutions, and told that devotee to ask for one. You might say it was a kind of an inductive gamble to approach IBM on behalf of such a small, unknown and highly unusual society as ours was then. The company representative refused, saying ISKCON didn't qualify. Still, there was nothing lost in trying. Even though he did not get a typewriter, to this very day that disciple considers himself fortunate to have had the chance to serve Çréla Prabhupäda in that way. Çréla Prabhupäda encouraged his disciples to take risks in preaching. So there is plenty of scope for engaging the inductive method in Kåñëa's service. The question we are disputing is whether metaphysical induction has validity as a method of higher knowledge. The Vedic answer is no. On the basis of pratyakña and anumäna, we do not hypothesize what the original cause of sense perception might be. Knowledge of that, the substance of reality, comes to us as çabda. When induction is applied to çabda, it immediately thwarts the proper understanding, as Çré Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya-lélä 6.137 confirms:
svataù-pramäëa veda satya yei kaya
'lakñaëä' karila svataù-prämäëya-häni haya
The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost.
Vidyäviruddha: But it is admitted that there is a stage when a person sufficiently learned in Vedic knowledge explains the çästra- pramäëa from his or her realization aparokña. I don't see the difference between this and imagination.
Vedasära däsa: In the purport to the verse I just quoted, Çréla Prabhupäda writes that imagination proceeds from our intention (what we want to do). The intention of a scientist to bring material nature under his control manifests as his attempt to measure matter by observation and imagination. Similarly, one who attempts to measure the Vedic knowledge has a wrong intention. His measurement is his imagination. But aparokña, or vicära philosophical speculation, does not try to confine the Absolute Truth within human limits. Çré Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya-lélä 21.16 explains:
seha rahuvraje yabe kåñëa avatära
täìra caritra vicärite mana nä päya pära
Apart from all argument, logic and negative or positive processes, when Lord Çré Kåñëa was present as the Supreme Personality of Godhead at Våndävana, one could not find a limit to His potencies by studying His characteristics and activities.
Vidyäviruddha: I agree that Vedic knowledge is as vast as an ocean. The çästra says, ekaà sad viprä bahudhä vadanti, the truth, though one, was described differently by different sages.* The sages are people, people are limited, and so no one sage's explanation can represent the pure, original Vedic intention. They all had to fill out the gaps of their limited realization with some amount of imaginative interpretation. That's why you end up with different explanations from different gurus. But that's all right, since the Vedas are meant to be explained differently. They have unlimited meaning. I don't think the authoritarian approach you take does justice to the true Vedic tradition, which always invites new ideas.
Vedasära däsa: The intention of the Vedas is clear: that we stop mental speculation. The various kinds of mental speculation, word jugglery and bluffing are clearly defined in the Vedas, and they are just as clearly rejected. For instance, we have verse 4.30 from Manu-saàhitä:
päñaëòino vikarma-sthän baiòäla-vratikäï chaöhän
haitukän baka-våttéàç ca väòmätreëäpi närcayet
One should not give honor, even with mere words, to päñaëòis (those who argue that God can be worshiped in some imaginary way), vikarmés (those who are engaged in sinful actions), baiòäla- vratikas (those whose meditation is like that of a cat before a mousehole), çaöhas (those who are hypocrites), haitukas (metaphysicians who try to make çästra subservient to inductive logic), and baka- våttis (people who behave like wicked herons and yet think they are superior to the haàsas, the swan-like devotees).
What impels such speculators to speak is the false ego, another term for ignorance. They are ignorant, yet still they opine, each trying to outdo the other. A genuine Vedic sage is pratibuddha-västu. He knows that Kåñëa, not the ego, is the very substance (vastu) of reality. That vastu, Lord Çré Kåñëa, is an unlimited ocean of wonderful qualities. Different sages do explain Him from different angles of vision but not for argument's sake. In modern science, new theories are put forward for argument's sake, simply to refute other theories. This is egoism. àcäryas in the line of disciplic succession do not argue against the explanations of previous äcäryas. The example is given of a valuable gemstone that reflects different colors of light according to the angle from which it is observed. I may say it is a green stone, you may say it is a red stone, but if our purpose is to glorify the substance this wonderful gem we have no occasion to argue. The argumentative approach of the speculators is condemned in the Mahäbhärata as being apratiñöhä, without any basis or foundation.* It ushers one into the shadow of Vedic knowledge. Lost in that shadow, one imagines a sage to be just someone who has a different opinion from other sages. For one lost in that shadow, the various Vedic texts are full of contradictions. For one lost in that shadow, the factual goal of the Vedas Lord Kåñëa is never found, because he is too busy splitting hairs.
Svapnarätri: I have a point to make about the logic of Vedänta. If I understood correctly, the followers of the Vedas think that their logic is unique, in that it is the only real deductive logic. An example was given from the Vedänta-sütra. The logic there is that the goal of life must be the cause of all desirable objects. Hence, the goal is the cause, and the cause is the goal. I would say this logic is not unique at all. Buddhist philosophers say asmin sati, idaà bhavati, When this is, that is. Now, this, the cause, is abhütaparikalpa, the imagination of unreality. And that is çünyatä, the void. In other words, imagination creates all the many objects of perception, which are actually just void. So the object of life is just our own imagination. But that's not an object either, because there is no object. All objects are only imaginary. Thus the only real cause is the void, and the only real goal is the void. When imagination arises from the void, the void appears to have attributes. These illusory attributes simultaneously provoke imagination. When this is, that is.
Dr. Parägdåñöi: Now this is interesting. According to Niels Bohr's Complementary Principle, the only things we can say about matter arise from the act of measurement. The material attributes we experience are the joint relationship of the object observed and the method of observation. If you take one or the other away, there can be no attributes.
Svapnarätri: Yes, that is my point exactly. The logic of the cause as the effect and the effect as the cause is self-evident and universal. It can be understood from many points of view, not just the Vedic way.
Dr. Parägdåñöi: The Buddhist conclusion is not that far away from Bohr's principle: there is no big truth, no deep reality, to talk about. We can only describe what things seem to us to be. But that doesn't really mean there is nothing to know. As Bohr himself said, The opposite of a big truth is also a big truth.
Svapnarätri: That reminds me of the old Chinese paradox of Chuang-tzu's dream: One night I dreamed I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither. Suddenly I awoke and I was Chuang-tzu again. Who am I in reality? A butterfly dreaming he is Chuang-tzu or Chuang-tzu dreaming he is a butterfly? When you said the opposite of a big truth is also a big truth, I remembered this riddle. Is the world a dream, and am I the dreamer? Or am I the dream, and the world the dreamer? Or do I and the world dream of one another? Any one is a big truth. And any one is just a dream at the same time. Does it matter which truth we choose to dream?
Vedasära däsa: Thank you both for making it so clear that material knowledge rests upon ignorance. Regarding the dream of the butterfly, the story is cute. But if he were a real person in the world today, Chuang-tzu would probably be advised to seek professional help. In any case, the philosophy is not sound. We know the difference between dreamer and the dream because when we awake from our dreams, we are the same person. One night I may dream I am a butterfly. Another night I may dream I am a king. But each morning I awake as the same person I was the day before. That's how I know I dreamed of the butterfly, and not that the butterfly dreamed of me. Our perception of attributes is not caused by imagination, but by vastu, a real substance. That substance is the Supreme Person and His energy. But our perception of Him is limited and imperfect. To compensate for our ignorance, we invent imaginary ways to measure the substance empiricism, voidism, whatever. Imagination (mänina) arises from our wrong intention (duräçaya) towards the substance. Mäyä (illusion) then reciprocates with our imagination and captures us. Why does a thief intend to steal? That intention is nothing else than his wrong attitude towards Kåñëa, the supreme proprietor. So he takes measures to burgle houses at night. Mäyä gives him the chance to commit crimes. But in the end he is caught and punished. It is here that the thief's illusion becomes clear. It is not that the illusion is his perception of a house. The thief's imagination does not create ex nihilo a house to plunder. His perception of the house is caused by Kåñëa. Then what does the thief imagine? He imagines how to rob the house and get away with it. But the fact is that while he may or may not be caught by the police, he will surely be caught by the law of karma.
Dr. Parägdåñöi: I thought your standpoint is that empirical measurement is imagination. Yet now you say the thief's imagination does not create the house he plunders. But a house, or any object we can perceive, is just the result of our sensory measurement of the infinity of the total material energy. So why do you now say the house is a creation of God?
Vedasära däsa: The Lord is the efficient, material, formal and final cause of every object we perceive. In other words, why we perceive something is not due to empirical measurement. It is due to Kåñëa. Consider something very ordinary, like a cup filled with flour. It is an aspect of Kåñëa's infinite energy we are permitted to see with our material senses. Being an aspect of infinity, that cup of flour is infinite, meaning that we can never describe or quantify it completely. Still, we can see it, and we can try to measure it. Measurement is how we estimate a thing in relation to other things Kåñëa reveals before our mind and senses. It turns out that there is a valid reason why we may try to measure the flour in that cup. It is that Kåñëa makes certain objects manifest within our perception so that we may offer them back to Him in devotion. Therefore, when a devotee prepares an offering of food, he carefully measures the ingredients (such as flour) so that his cooking will please the Lord. It is only because empirical measurement is not capable of completely quantifying or describing something that we say it is imaginary. If we speak of a cup as a measurement of flour, we're talking about a mental image of an amount of flour. Our image is likely to be that one cup is a small amount of flour. But that much flour is made up of more tiny individual particles of finely ground wheat than we can possibly count. Each of these particles is made of smaller particles chemical, molecular, atomic, subatomic particles, on and on indefinitely. The notion of a cup as a small amount of flour says more about our state of mind than the state of the flour. Still, measurement is useful and desirable when done in Kåñëa's service. But if our intention towards the objects of perception is wrong, then our measurement of these objects is not only imaginary, it encourages a dangerously misleading goal of life: the domination of material nature. That goal is due to svabhäva, the lower instinct of the fallen soul, his ignorance, or egoism. The egoist that house robber, for instance is either ignorant of the punishment that awaits him for trying to dominate nature, or he knows but ignores it due to lust. Within the shadows of his ignorance, imagination makes visible many illusory ways to measure and take control of nature. These seem substantial by mäyä's grace. But mäyä has no substance. The explanations of cause and effect you've given are not based upon vastu, the substance of reality. They are your imagination, directed by mäyä. As Dr. Parägdåñöi said, There is no deep reality. This logic without depth, without substance, is mäyä, illusion. Logic with depth, with substance, is Vedänta. You must know what reality is first before you can explain illusion. To give a practical example, you cannot explain counterfeit money unless you know what real money is. Just as counterfeit money is the perverted reflection of real money, the realm of shadow is a perverted reflection of the realm of substance. Now, let's ask ourselves, why on earth do some people go through all the risk and botheration of printing illegal bank notes? You can say the cause is cheating. And you can say that the effect is illusion, because counterfeit money is unreal money. Now you have a logical formula similar to Svapnarätri's: cheating causes illusion. But what compels one to cheat by printing illusory bank notes? To answer this, Svapnarätri simply reverses the logic: illusion provokes cheating. However, this doesn't say anything substantial. It does not explain why anyone, either the cheater or the cheated, would see value in counterfeit money. The answer is that real money has value. Honest people will give goods in exchange for it. Therefore rascals try to cheat the unwitting with false money. Yes, the whole material world is nothing but an arrangement of cheaters and cheated. However, the world does not appear out of thin air by cheating or illusion. It is a perverted reflection of the spiritual world. Spirit is the substance upon which the shadow is based.
Vidyäviruddha: I don't find the example you gave of money very satisfying. Real money and counterfeit money are made exactly of the same substance paper. And real money can be used for cheating and illusion just as much as counterfeit money can.
Vedasära däsa: That may be. But that does not mean it's all one. The difference between real and counterfeit money remains. We can compare real money to the apara-vidyä of the Vedas. Apara-vidyä is Vedic knowledge appearing within the three modes of material nature: logic, grammar, astrology, medicine, social organization, martial arts, music, dance and so on. Though all this is material, it comes from Kåñëa. Because it is Vedic, it is backed up by Kåñëa. Kåñëa is the substance of Vedic knowledge. Similarly, money is just paper, but it is backed up by substance the government's gold reserves. When money is used lawfully, the government recognizes it as good as gold. When it is used to break the law, the same government will seize the money, nullify the illegal transaction and punish the cheater. So when it is not used for Kåñëa's satisfaction, apara-vidyä is mäyä. When it is, it is as good as He is. In other words, it is spiritual. Counterfeit money, however, is comparable to avidyä complete ignorance. This is so-called knowledge aimed only at sinful ends: how to slaughter animals and prepare the flesh for eating, how to brew intoxicants, how to seduce girls into prostitution, and how to gamble and speculate wildly, even in the name of philosophy and science. Avidyä promotes human degredation; but Vedic civilization promotes step-by-step human upliftment. The goal of all Vedic goals is para-vidyä, Kåñëa consciousness.
Khagäkña: So if we dedicate ourselves to truth in our daily lives, we'll see it right here in the so-called world of illusion. That's true oneness of cause and effect. But truth cannot be neatly packaged into a fixed doctrine. Truth calls for us to regularly revise our maps. I don't mean that we should revise the ultimate goal of life. I agree with you, Vedasära, that the goal is the original cause, God. But I also find resonance in Dr. Parägdåñöi's view that criticism is needed to make progress in understanding the truth. After all, the revealed scriptures from which we make our maps are unlimitedly deep. I may read scripture one way, and you may read it another. Correct me if I am wrong, Vedasära, but I think an avatära of Kåñëa named Caitanya explained just one verse from Çrémad-Bhägavatam in sixty-one different ways. The mind has to break out of narrow doctrines in order to locate the goal of scripture at the end of the journey of life. The only way we can be certain that our map to the goal is valid is to expose it to the criticisms and challenges of other map-makers.
Vedasära däsa: No doubt, because we are so imperfect, even with a good map, we can get lost. And if we get lost, we need criticism. But it should come from someone in knowledge. One in knowledge knows where we've gone wrong. He knows where we are supposed to be. He points this out to us on the map. If you are lost, what is the use of different conflicting opinions? Trying to redraw your map from various opinions is no way to get back on the right track. The method of reading the map of çabda is to take the help of those who know the waythe guru (spiritual master) and the sädhus (pure devotees of the Lord). This method brings us to the goal, or rather, this method satisfies Kåñëa, and svayam eva sphuraty adaù, by His kindness, He reveals Himself to His devotee. Khagäkña, Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu's manifold explanation of a single verse in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam is not a justification for interpreting çabda through anumäna. I noted already that Lord Caitanya taught:
The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost.
How are we to comprehend this term self-evident (svataù-pramäëa)? The sun is self-evident, obviously. But how are the Vedic scriptures self-evident? They are books. Books contain words, and from our experience, words are about things, they are not the things in themselves. To this it may be rightly replied, In the Vedas the words are çabda, spiritual sound. Thus they are not different from what they mean. So the next question is, But how can we realize that? The self-evidence of çabda is not obvious at first. This question, how the self-evidence of the Vedic scriptures is to be perceived, is answered in terms of taste:
çrémad-bhägavatärthänäm äsvädo rasikaiù saha
One should taste the meaning of Çrémad-Bhägavatam in the association of pure devotees.*
In Bengal, when the devotees of Kåñëa take their meals, a bitter vegetable called shukta is served first. This is the culinary culture. It's healthy. It helps your digestion. Now, if you come from the West to Bengal for the first time, you may be surprised and even disappointed when you taste that first morsel of prasädam they serve you. Oh, why this bitter stuff? Let me have a nice fried savory first. But if you just learn the culture of tasting prasädam in the association of those who know it, you quickly become attached to it. That does not mean you lose your personal preference for eating sweets or whatever. But if you follow the culture, it becomes self-evident that this way of taking meals, starting with bitter, is most healthy and satisfying. Similarly, there is a culture of tasting the scriptures that is to be learned from advanced devotees. To actually taste the meaning of scripture is different from just gulping down facts and figures any way you like off of a printed page. The message of Bhagavad-gétä and Çrémad-Bhägavatam is the Supreme Person Himself. So developing a taste for hearing and discussing that message means entering deeper and deeper into a personal relationship with Kåñëa. Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu is Kåñëa Himself come in the role of Kåñëa's own devotee. The Lord descended as His own devotee to show us what love and devotion to Kåñëa really means. His explaining one verse in sixty-one different ways was not a matter of mental speculation. It was a demonstration of His incomparable taste for the Çrémad-Bhägavatam. Not one of His explanations contradicted the other, because the substance of each one was the same Kåñëa. So there's no controversy. When a group of devotees come together to discuss scripture, if they are actually advanced, their mutual taste draws them together at the Lord's lotus feet. That does not mean that each devotee in the group sacrifices his or her individual point of view. Point of view is never lost, because the goal of the whole process of Kåñëa consciousness is personal. Every devotee has an eternal, individual relationship with the Supreme Person that becomes clearer and clearer as we develop our taste for serving Him. But the common ground shared by the whole group is the satisfaction of the Lord, not the mere satisfaction of individual minds. To interpret scripture by mental speculation is not pleasing to Kåñëa. It is a disservice. Arguing divisive points of view cannot be justified by Lord Caitanya's teachings.* Actually, it is a symptom of a lack of higher taste. Thus one's attraction is drawn away from serving the Lord to trying to control His energies. This results in agitation of the mind and senses, which produces divisive arguments. Lord Kåñëa confirms this in Çrémad- Bhägavatam 11.22.6:
yäsäà vyatikaräd äséd vikalpo vadatäà padam
präpte çama-dame 'pyeti vädas tam anu çämyati
By interaction of My energies different opinions arise. But for those who have fixed their intelligence on Me and controlled their senses, differences of perception disappear, and consequently the very cause for argument is removed.
Yes, because Lord Caitanya revealed many ways of appreciating a verse, let us appreciate that verse in those ways. Let us not invent new interpretations that conflict with Lord Caitanya, and then try to defend ourselves by citing His example. Kåñëa consciousness does not mean inventing new ways to imitate the éçvara. Kåñëa consciousness means getting liberated from that contaminated svabhäva by which we try to imitate Kåñëa whenever we see a chance to. Kåñëa declares in the Bhagavad-gétä that by hearing His message, the mind becomes attached to Him. This is yoga. In Kåñëa consciousness, the urges of the mind and the senses are subordinated in devotional service. Kåñëa is the center of our life, not passionate desires that inflame the mind with agitation, contradiction and argument.
Vidyäviruddha: I follow the Vedas. But there is much of what Vedasära says with which I cannot agree. He speaks of éçvara as the cause. But the éçvara is not the absolute truth. Éçvara is represented by the root of the Vedic çabda, which is the syllable oà or auà. The letters a-u-à stand for creation, maintenance and destruction, and also for the three phases of the mind, deep sleep, dreaming and wakefulness. This is material consciousness. Only in material consciousness does the logic of cause and effect apply. The éçvara is the ultimate logical conception. But beyond this conception of cause and effect is the eternal awareness of tat tvam asiI am that. Above éçvara, above logic, even above the Vedic çabda, the pure self is absolute. All of us here are one in that absolute self. That is the only reality. Everything else is duality, mäyä, illusion, and must be given up.
Vedasära däsa: So if we are one, then why do you say you don't agree with me?
Vidyäviruddha: It is on the lower platform of logic that we don't agree. On the higher platform of reality, we are one.
Vedasära däsa: Well, if the lower platform is just duality and illusion, then why are you trying to establish something on that platform by logical argument?
Vidyäviruddha: I just want you to know that I have realized the oneness, but you have not. Therefore my explanation of çabda surpasses yours.
Vedasära däsa: Your criticism is reflexive. You say that logic only applies to material consciousness, and you say you have transcended material consciousness. And yet you use logic to tell me that you have realized the oneness, and that your explanation is therefore better. But logically, if you know everything is one, why talk at all? Speech itself is logic, and your philosophy says logic must be given up. But in my philosophy, speech and logic are to be brought in line with çabda, not given up. So, if as you say, you follow the Vedas, as I do too, then why not let me do the talking? After all, according to your theory, you and I are one.
Svapnarätri: Vidyäviruddha's point, that éçvara is a logical construct, I agree with completely. I wish to add that it is a construct that fails in the end. Merely from extending the chain of cause backwards into time, all we could ever know of the first cause (éçvara) would be that it was a cause. It would therefore be perfectly in order to ask, What was the cause of éçvara? As soon as you posit éçvara as a cause of so many other causes, you face the paradox of infinite regress. What caused éçvara? And what caused the cause of éçvara? And what caused the cause of the cause of éçvara? Thus the logic of a first cause never reaches a conclusion. I find Vidyäviruddha's admission that éçvara is just an ultimate logical concept harmonizes very well with the points Dr. Parägdåñöi and I made earlier. Yes, cause and effect are the superficial logic of the material world. But there is no deep reality of causation. Causation has nothing to do with the Beyond. In the Beyond, there is no logic. There, being and non-being are one and the same.
Vedasära däsa: May I focus for a moment on the essence of what you've just said, to make sure I've understood you correctly? You said that éçvara is nothing more than a logical hypothesis. The truth beyond this hypothesis is that there can be no first cause. In the ultimate end, we can really make no logical sense out of anything.
Svapnarätri: Yes, I suppose you could put it that way.
Vedasära däsa: In other words, you're saying that what the Vedic scriptures teach about causation is imaginary. When Kåñëa declares in Bhagavad-gétä, I am the source of everything, your reply is that He is not telling the truth. In other words, Kåñëa and the Vedas have no authority.
Svapnarätri: Well ... I can't say that your analysis of what I said is wrong. Yes, that is what I mean.
Vedasära däsa: So the conclusion is that you are the authority.
Svapnarätri: No, not at all. Logic is the authority. I am not merely telling you what I believe. It is logical that if everything is caused, and Kåñëa says, I am the cause, then there must be a cause behind Kåñëa, since everything is caused. Everything includes Kåñëa too.
Vedasära däsa: No, my point still stands. The Vedas say that anumäna, logical thought, is subordinate to çabda, the Vedic sound. We should use logic in support of the Vedic revelation. Apart from that, logic has no authority. This is the Vedic method of knowledge. Now my question to you is, what is your authority to say the Vedic method is wrong? What is your authority to say that anumäna has authority over çabda?
Svapnarätri: Well, it makes sense to me.
Vedasära däsa: But a few moments ago you agreed that the conclusion of your philosophy is that we can really make no sense out of anything. Then how can you argue that it makes sense that anumäna is superior to çabda?
Svapnarätri: I am not saying Vedic testimony makes no sense. What the Vedas say may be logically correct. But beyond logic, being and non-being are one and the same. There is something other than the logic of causation. It is infinite, mysterious, and silent.
Vedasära däsa: It seems that the only way you can properly represent this doctrine of yours is by being infinitely mysterious and silent.
Svapnarätri: Yes, this is the teaching that cannot be taught.
Vedasära däsa: From çabda we learn that eternal being is logically consistent with causation. Sarvaà khalv idaà brahma, everything is Brahman. That means everything is eternal substance. Even matter (prakåti) is not created or destroyed. Éçvara is eternal, jéva is eternal, prakåti is eternal and käla is eternal. Only karma, or the activity seen within matter, is temporal. Matter, the insentient energy of éçvara from which unlimited universes are formed, periodically acts, periodically sustains, and periodically rests. When, on the order of éçvara, prakåti acts, that is called creation. When prakåti rests, creation dissolves into inert potential. The paradox of infinite regress troubles those who think that substance is created. If the chain of causation meant that a substance took being from a previous substance, and this previous substance took being from an even earlier substance, back and back until we arrive at a first substance, then we are left with the question why the chain of causes stops with this particular substance. In the Vedic version, causation starts with tattva, the eternal truth Kåñëa and His energies. Neither spirit, matter nor their source are ever created. All is eternal and all is substance, vastu. The chain of material causation is a chain of activity, sustenance and rest, activity, sustenance and rest, on and on. It is not a chain of one substance giving being to other substances, one after another.
Svapnarätri: But still, when you said neither spirit, matter nor the source of both are ever created, the word source implies that spirit and matter are not original. They come from something else.
Vedasära däsa: Source implies the source of stimulation. The dictionary definition of stimulate is, to rouse to activity or to increased action or interest; stir. This is a good description of the influence of the éçvara over His eternal energies. By His mere glance upon prakåti, He stimulates the endless chain of creation, maintenance and dissolution. In this way, because He inspires His energies to act creatively, Kåñëa is the source of creation.
Dr. Parägdåñöi: You're saying that God has no choice about whether to exist or not. Nor does God decide what shall exist and what shall not exist. Everything just is. This means God is subject to being, while nothingness is not subject to God.
Vedasära däsa: The choice between being and nothingness is really no choice at all. Nothing means no thing. It does not exist. The actual choice is between being and illusion the self as it is (the spirit soul) versus the self as it isn't (the false ego). For God, there is no illusion. But there is for us. It is clear that illusion exists. We know illusion by its consequences the sufferings of this material body. Yet though it exists, illusion is unreal (asat). The true vision (tattva-darçana) of the self reveals that the self we imagine this body to be is nonexistent.* But you are suggesting that nonexistence could be an entity in its own right: an abhava-tattva, a real nonexistence, a void state existing as an alternative to being. What can be more useless than discussing the existence of nonexistence? This is mäyä. Of course, if you insist on sustaining within your mind a choice between existence and nonexistence, mäyä will respond by keeping you here in the material world, which is subject to destruction by time. During the dissolution, the deluded living entities are plunged into the illusion of nonexistence for aeons of time. Each of you is desirous of knowledge. There is a verse spoken by Uddhava in Çrémad-Bhägavatam (11.29.3) that explains what true knowledge is:
athäta änanda-dughaà padämbhujaà
haàsäù çrayerann aravinda-locana
sukhaà nu viçveçvara yoga-karmabhis
tvan-mäyayämé vihatä na mäninaù
Athäta means now therefore, and änanda-dughaà pada-ambhujam means Kåñëa's lotus feet, the source of all ecstasy. Haàsäù refers to the transcendentalists, those who are truly wise. Çrayeran means they take shelter of, they surrender. Aravinda-locana is a name of Kåñëa, meaning He has lotus eyes. Sukhaà nu viçveçvara means the devotees are happy under the shelter of the viçva-éçvara, the Lord of the universe. So, the meaning so far is that the devotees happily take shelter of Lord Kåñëa's lotus feet, which are the source of all spiritual ecstasy. This is real knowledge. The verse goes on to say yoga-karmabhis tvan-mäyayä amé vihatä na mäninaù, those who take pride in their accomplishments in yoga and karma fail to take shelter of Kåñëa and are defeated by His illusory energy. The word yoga here refers to all kinds of physical, mental and mystical sciences and philosophies. Karma refers to works of accomplishment in these areas. Mäninaù is the mental plane, where egoistic speculation flourishes. Vihatäù means defeated or obstructed, and tvan-mäyayä means by Your material energy. The message is that anyone who remains on the mental platform, even if he is greatly accomplished in works of speculation, is sure to be overcome by illusion. To get beyond the mental platform, we must surrender to Kåñëa's lotus feet, for the happiness we seek is there, not in egoistic speculation. The mind bereft of änanda is dragged by mäyä down to the most abominable state of consciousness all in the name of so-called knowledge. Lately, there was a report from China that scientists managed to artificially impregnate a woman with the embryo of a chimpanzee. But a public outcry forced them to abort that pregnancy. An Indian biologist expressed regret over the termination of the experiment, as so much new knowledge was lost. But such works of speculation are not knowledge. This is mäyä's degradation of the human mind, which may lead to birth in lower species. Knowledge without änanda is called çuñka-jïäna, dry knowledge. It is said in Çré Caitanya-caritämåta (Madhya-lélä 24.130) that, çuñka-jïane jévan-mukta aparädhe adho maje. Even if by dry knowledge someone achieves jévan-mukta, the release of his soul from material distress, that knowledge becomes perverted for want of änanda. Perverted knowledge leads to offensive activities, which throw the living entity down into the pit of illusion again.
Dr. Parägdåñöi: If you take away the choice of nonexistence, then existence is eternal, timeless, and necessary. But then how is it possible for the universe to be ever-changing? Unless, of course, everything that happens is planned out to the smallest detail, and free will is just an illusion.
Vedasära däsa: Please don't mind, but I feel I should point out a significance I note in your line of questioning. From existence or to be precise, from what you understand about your own existence you are trying to determine the plausibility of the existence of God. We share existence with God, so it is not unnatural for us to try to establish contact with Him on the ground of being. But He is not to repeat a phrase you used earlier subject to being. In His personhood, He transcends mere existence. It is we who are stuck with existence. The ground of being is sat, the eternal existence of consciousness, of which the jévas are a part. Sat is a feature of Kåñëa's spiritual potency. That potency playfully becomes different media through which the Lord enjoys Himself. So sat is the medium through which the Lord enjoys Himself as the infinite, all-pervading, effulgent Brahman. Through the medium of cit or perfect knowledge, the Lord enjoys Himself as the Supersoul, Çré Viñëu, who creates, maintains and destroys countless universes filled with countless living entities. He dwells transcendentally within the hearts of each of those living entities, giving them knowledge, remembrance and forgetfulness as they deserve. ànanda, unlimited happiness, is the medium of Kåñëa's confidential pastimes of divine love with His personal associates in the spiritual world. Now, we souls separated from Kåñëa are stuck on the sat platform. Even that fact, that we exist eternally, is obscured due to our strong attachment to this temporary body, the very form of our ignorance. Thus eternal existence becomes perpetual bondage. But if we rationally distinguish body from soul, renounce attachment and fix our minds upon the self, sat is as far as we can go. It is the limit of the ascending process (äroha-panthä), or the inductive method. I find it significant that because you are fixed in the inductive method, you see existence as a great problem. But it is a mistake to project your problem with existence upon Kåñëa. He enjoys His existence eternally. We can choose to likewise enjoy existence eternally if we turn to Him, and are thus blessed by the cit and änanda potencies to enter His direct association. Your question if existence is eternal, timeless, and necessary, how is it possible for the universe to be ever-changing? is a problem for the dualistic mind, not for Kåñëa. It simply speaks for the failure of our powers of measurement. Kåñëa is acintya, inconceivable, and His energy is acintya-çakti, inconceivably powerful. Because both are inconceivable, they act in ways that appear contradictory to the dualistic mind.
acintya-çakti éçvara jagad-rüpe pariëata
Inconceivably, the éçvara transforms His energy into the form of the universe (jagad-rüpa).
jagad-rüpa haya éçvara, tabu avikära
The éçvara Himself is the form of the universe. Yet at the same time He remains unchanged in His eternal, transcendental form.*
The jéva floating in the sky of the heart has the free will to choose between the éçvara Himself and His expanded jagad-rüpa. Which way he chooses depends on how he receives the Vedic çabda: in ignorant egoism, or in pure devotion.
Khagäkña: Vedasära, it is not fair of you to say that inductive thinkers can't get beyond the problem of existence to knowledge and bliss. Or are you just not aware of the vast wealth of knowledge and happiness to be found in the inductive tradition?
Vedasära däsa: But it is mundane knowledge and bliss. Induction is confined within the limits of human existence, which is always problematic. If there are always problems with material knowledge, then how is it real knowledge? If there are always problems with material happiness, then how is it real happiness?
Svapnarätri: I agree with you on this point. But I would go a step further to say that is not reasonable for you to argue that Vedic knowledge transcends human existence. Çabda depends upon pratyakña. You have to hear it to understand it. To hear something, both the sound and you have to exist materially. So Vedic çabda and the knowledge it conveys is also mundane.
Vedasära däsa: No, çabda is originally spiritual. Therefore it conveys meaning. Why words have meaning cannot be understood in terms of our material experience. It is true that we have to receive the Vedic sound through our material ears. But that does not mean the sound itself is material. To fully realize the spirituality of sound, you have to accept the Vedic method of knowledge, which starts with pratyakña as you've said. But that knowledge graduates through parokña, aparokña, adhokñaja and at the end comes to apräkåta. If you insist on staying at the pratyakña level, then you'll persist in perceiving sound as materialwhich just means that you're persisting in ignorance. But then be honest and don't ascribe any meaning to Vedic sound. If pratyakña is really all there is to knowing sound, then give up the concept that it can't be spiritual. That concept comes from your anumäna, not from pratyakña. If you are a pure pratyakñavädé, you shouldn't have any concept. On the pratyakña platform there are no conceptions of verbal meaning whatsoever, whether spiritual or material. A baby hears speech purely from the pratyakña platform. She can't understand a word, because her anumäna is undeveloped. As soon as you say, Vedic çabda and the knowledge it conveys is mundane, you've already gone beyond pratyakña. If you can't stop yourself from deriving meaning from çabda, then you should derive a meaning appropriate to the method of knowledge by which Vedic sound is transmitted. According to that method, Vedic sound is transcendental. If I am going to derive meaning from the words in a book about the ocean, I should derive a meaning appropriate to oceanography, the method of knowledge by which the book was written. I should not interpret the book according to my experience of the water in my bathroom sink. I have no right to suppose that the book is full of falsehoods about the size and depth of the ocean and the millions of life forms it contains, simply because my bathroom sink holds only a little water and exhibits no undersea life. I have no right to assume the book is sadly ignorant because it does not say that somewhere on the bottom of the sea is a plug, which when pulled, will empty the oceans of the world of all water. Similarly you have no right to assume Vedic sound is material simply from your limited experience of sound.
Vidyäviruddha: Çabda is but broken light upon the depth of the unspoken. The Vedic sound only points us in the direction of the truth, but as Kaöha Upaniñad declares, The Supreme is beyond çabda.
Vedasära däsa: Lord Kåñëa tells Arjuna that there are many followers of the Vedas who are attracted only by flowery words of heavenly sense enjoyment. These people He calls veda-vädés. They perform sacrifice (yajïa) for selfish purposes like material elevation and salvation from sin. Their egoism blinds them to the fact that beyond these sensual and mental fruits, Kåñëa is Yajïa, the supreme sacrifice.* Our English word sacrifice comes from a Latin expression that means to make sacred. So the actual purpose of yajïa, which begins with hearing and chanting the Vedic sound, is to transform our existence from material to spiritual. But for this to be accomplished, as Kåñëa tells Uddhava, the material rendition of Vedic sound must cease (vacasäà viräme). (Çrémad-Bhägavatam 11.28.35) To bring us over the obstacle of the egoistic material sounds of karma-väda and jïäna-väda, the Lord personally spoke the Bhagavad-gétä.
If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of conditioned life by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such consciousness but act through false ego, not hearing Me, you will be lost. (Bhagavad-gétä 18.58)
Na çroñyasi vinaìkñyasi: if you do not hear Me, you will be lost. Kåñëa is the supreme authority, the origin of Vedic knowledge. To know the true meaning of çabda, we have to hear His explanation. As long as we hear in our own way, the absolute truth will ever remain açabdama, outside of that egoistic sound. Hearing in our own way means to take anumäna as our guru. But the mind cannot give us real knowledge, because it is limited by the false ego. It is only logical that éçvara, being the Supreme Lord, is not within the range of our egoism. Therefore it is stated:
anumäne nahe éçvara-jïäne
One cannot attain real knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead by logical hypothesis and argument. (Çré Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya-lélä 6.81)
anumäna pramäëa nahe éçvara-tattva-jïäne
kåpä vinä éçvarere keha nähi jäne
One can understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead only by His mercy, not by guesswork or hypothesis. (Çré Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya-lélä 6.82)
Khagäkña: But how do you know that you're getting the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead?
Vedasära däsa: Here is the answer:
vastu-viñaye haya vastu-jïäna
vastu-tattva-jïäna haya kåpäte pramäëa
Knowledge of the substance, the Absolute Truth, is evidence of the mercy of the Supreme Lord. (Çré Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya-lélä 6.89)
The word vastu is repeated three times to stress that knowledge of the substance is the pramäëa, evidence, of kåpa, mercy. Kåñëa, the éçvara, is the substance. His substance is expanded as the tattvas of jéva, prakåti, käla and karma. Vastu-tattva-jïäna means true knowledge of the tattvas of vastu. It is practical knowledge. If practically we are entangled in these tattvas, agitated by their influence and thus unable to check sinful activities that hold us fast to the gross bodily conception, we should know we are in ignorance. As mentioned before, one who actually knows the truth passes over all the obstacles of karma-väda and jïäna-väda by Kåñëa's mercy. There are so many obstacles that foil the progress of the karmés and jïänés: faultfinding, the desire for name and fame, envy of other living entities, accepting things forbidden in the çästra, desires for material gain, and hankering for popularity. Unless one has the mercy of Kåñëa, one's attempt to follow the Vedic method will be riddled by such defects, which are all symptomatic of ignorance. The mercy of Kåñëa is transmitted by pure sound vibrating from a devotee whose heart is completely bound to Him by attachment. That devotee is personally protected by the Lord, and thus he exhibits by his life's example vastu- tattva-jïäna. The instructions of such a devotee brings us in contact with Kåñëa's lotus feet.
Vidyäviruddha: But at the highest stage, so Çaìkaräcärya taught, each living being is the nameless, formless One Soul. Names, forms and distinctions are illusory. You speak of surrender to Kåñëa and His pure devotee. But these words are concerned with difference, not oneness. Oneness is absolute, for oneness is all-inclusive. As soon as you tell us to surrender to a particular individual, a particular person, you exclude others. You create a sectarian viewpoint. For humanitarian unity, the Supreme should not be given a name or a form. Rather, God should be seen and served within every human being. Then men and women all over the world will love and worship one another. Peace and brotherhood will reign everywhere.
Vedasära däsa: Yes, Çaìkaräcärya's philosophy is advaita, the non-duality of God and the soul. We agree that in pure spiritual consciousness, God and the souls share the same quality of eternality, knowledge and bliss. They are one. But since it is a oneness of love, there is a difference of love too. For example, a boy and a girl who love one another are one in that they are inseparable. Yet again, only the difference between them makes their mutual enjoyment possible. Now, a relationship of love is voluntary. Some souls choose not love Kåñëa in pure devotion. They would rather be independent lords. God sends them forth into material existence where they can attempt to enjoy separately from Him. In this condition of ignorance, the oneness between the soul and God seems lost, while the difference between them seems terrifying. You've said that when I advise you to surrender to guru and Kåñëa, I create a sectarian viewpoint by excluding others. But Çaìkaräcärya is a guru too. His followers surrender to him, and those who don't are excluded. You say that because the doctrine of difference is exclusive, it cannot be true, whereas Çaìkaräcärya's doctrine of oneness is the absolute truth because oneness is all-inclusive. But yet even the doctrine of oneness is not one. After Çaìkaräcärya departed this world, his followers split into two rival groups, the Bhämaté school and the Vivarana school. They found enough differences in Çaìkaräcäryas's teachings to disagree even over oneness. Down to this very day, the impersonalists continue to divide into more and more schools. The actual Vedic philosophy is that oneness is real and difference is real. Together, oneness and difference are all-inclusive. You cannot dispose of difference just by labelling it unreal. Even Çaìkaräcärya admitted this. In his Ñaö-padé-stotram (3) he wrote:
satyapi bhedäpagame nätha
taväham na mämakénas-tvam
sämudro hi taraìgaù kvacana
samudra na täraìgaù
O Lord, even when difference is removed, I am Yours (I am Your servant). You are not mine. As the wave belongs to the ocean, the ocean does not belong to the wave. A wave lives in the ocean. The ocean does not live in the wave.
You've said every human being is God, and men and women all over the world should love and worship one another. This will establish peace and brotherhood. My reply is that your formula is the problem, not the solution. The basis of material consciousness is the false ego. In this world, everybody already thinks they are God. There are humanitarian socio-political systems that try to get these gods to serve one another. But they never serve one another. They serve the demands of their senses. And that is animal life. Where is the peace and brotherhood in animal society? When men become servants of their senses, human society becomes a jungle. The downfall of impersonalism is that it does not have a method of subduing the five knowledge-acquiring senses (ear, tactile sense, eye, tongue and nose), the five active senses (hand, leg, belly, genitals and rectum), and the common sense, the mind. As things in themselves, to borrow Kant's phrase, these eleven are personal attendants of Håñékeça, the Master of the Senses Kåñëa. Lord Kapiladeva explains:
devänäà guëa-liìgänäm änuçravika-karmaëäm
sattva evaika-manaso våttiù sväbhäviké tu yä
animittä bhägavaté bhaktiù siddher garéyasé
The senses are symbolic representations of the demigods, and their natural inclination is to work under the direction of the Vedic injunctions. As the senses are representatives of the demigods, so the mind is the representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The mind's natural duty is to serve. When that service spirit is engaged in devotional service to the Personality of Godhead, without any motive, that is far better even than salvation. (Çrémad-Bhägavatam 3.25.32)
These attendants of the Lord, the mind and the senses, are devotees. If we do not take care to engage them carefully in Håñékeça's service, we offend them, and they punish us in return by dragging us into sinful activities. According to Çaìkaräcärya's philosophy, the absolute can be realized only after the functions of the senses and mind have been utterly stopped. The world's people are not going to do that. The real answer is given by Närada Muni in his Païcarätra:
sarvopädhi-vinirmuktaà tat paratvena nirmalam
håñékeëa håñékeça- sevanaà bhaktir ucyate
Sarvopädhi-vinirmuktam means liberation from bodily designation. Tat paratvena nirmalam means purification from all contamination. So how is that to be attained? By surrendering the senses in the service of Håñékeça, the Master of the Senses. As I mentioned before, He is also known as Yajïa, the supreme sacrifice. By sacrificing our senses and mind in His service, we realize in stages the original transcendental nature of the senses and mind in the spiritual world. The spiritual senses in turn reveal the true oneness: the inseparability of our desire from Kåñëa, Who is the only viñaya (object of desire). Finally, your argument that God should not be given a name or form for humanitarian reasons is mundane rationalism. It is a myth that God is a human invention. Humanitarianism is an insignificant, ephemeral mental concoction. God, His holy name and His form are the eternal absolute truth. Who among mortal men shall compel God to renounce His name and form? The sane course is for mortal men to renounce their arrogance, chant the holy name of the Lord and worship His transcendental form. Earlier you remarked that the éçvara is the ultimate logical conception, as if to say that Kåñëa is fabricated in the mind of some philosopher. But the Vedas are apauruñeya, not made by mankind. What gives you the right to interpret the Vedic knowledge as if it were just a hypothesis? That means that first of all you have hypothesized it is a hypothesis. You claim to be a follower of the Vedas, but your argument amounts to decrying the Vedas as mythology. But this is just your mythology. Do you think you know the Vedas better than Lord Kåñëa, Brahmä, Devarñi Närada, Vyäsadeva and Çukadeva Gosvämé? If you were a follower of another scriptural tradition, one with an uncertain philosophy of causation, I could understand your attempt to fill in the gap with hypothesis. But in the case of the Vedic scriptures, such an attempt is uncalled for. The tradition speaks for itself: äcäryavän puruño vedaone who knows the teachings of the äcärya, the paramparä authority, is a knower of the Veda.
Khagäkña: Often authorities expect us to follow blindly. But one only becomes free from doubt and delusion by accepting nothing blindly. We cannot grow by giving up our capacity to observe and reason and apply critical thinking.
Vedasära däsa: But kindly look again at what you've just said from an epistemological point of view. You say authorities expect you to follow blindly but sense perception is blind. You say we cannot grow by giving up our capacity to observe, reason and apply critical thinking. What are these capacities? We observe sense impressions, not the substance of reality. We reason from svabhäva, our conditioned psychology. We apply critical thinking by measuring phenomena against standards we hatch from our imagination. This all amounts only to an imposition of our own intentions upon mäyä, who then deceives us into thinking we are right. Vedic knowledge is not mental speculation. It is a method. One must be trained to practice it properly.
Khagäkña: So are you saying that Vedic knowledge belongs to an elite intellectual circle? What if that circle is just an intellectual Mafia, brähmaëas whose only goal is to protect their privileged position in society?
Vedasära däsa: It is said, brahma jänätéti brähmaëa: one who knows the Absolute Truth he is a brähmaëa. But a brähmaëa is not an armchair intellectual. Neither is Vedic knowledge idle navel-gazing. It is a method. Anyone can become a brähmaëa and have Vedic knowledge by accepting the Vedic method of knowledge as his life's duty. Manu- saàhitä 4.14 defines the main duty of a brähmaëa thusly:
vedoditaà svakaà karma nityaà kuryäd atandritaù
tad dhi kurvan yathä-çakti präpnoti paramäà gatià
Tirelessly he should carry out the prescribed activities given in the Vedas, for by doing so to the best of his capacity he attains the supreme goal of life.
The method, then, is to hear the Vedic sound and act upon it. The following of the path of Vedic sound is defined in the Åg-Veda as yajïa. The Laws of Manu explain that the regular performance of yajïa gradually elevates the performer to knowledge. As Lord Kåñëa declares in Bhagavad- gétä 4.33:
çreyän dravya-mayäd yajïaj jïäna-yajïaù parantapa
sarvaà karmäkhilaà pärtha jïane parisamäpyate
O chastiser of the enemy, the sacrifice performed in knowledge is better than the mere sacrifice of material possessions. After all, O son of Prtha, all sacrifices of work culminate in transcendental knowledge.
In the next two verses, Kåñëa says that one can attain this knowledge of sacrifice (tad viddhi) in one step by approaching the tattva- darçé, the spiritual master who sees reality beyond pratyakña and anumäna. Having gained this knowledge from him, one is freed from the illusion of thinking the living entities are anything but the Lord's own parts and parcels. But we should not think that by accepting a spiritual master and becoming Kåñëa conscious, we are freed from sacrificial duties. Rather, they should be performed in higher knowledge.
sarva tu samavekñyedaà nikhilaà jïäna-cakñuñä
çruti-prämäëyato vidvän svadharme niviçeta vai
When a learned man has looked thoroughly at all this with the eye of knowledge, he should devote himself to his own duty in accordance with the authority of the revealed scriptures. (Manu-saàhitä 2.8)
As Lord Kåñëa confirms in Bhagavad-gétä 6.1, he who performs his prescribed sacrifices as a duty to the Lord is the real transcendentalist, not he who lights no fire and performs no work. The sacrifice of this age is the saìkértana-yajïa, the congregational chanting of the holy name of the Lord, which is meant to deliver all living entities. Manu says, kurvanyathä- çakti, sacrifice is to be performed with full power. This is how a brähmaëa, one in knowledge, is to be recognized.
saìkértana-yajïe kalau kåñëa-ärädhana
sei ta' sumedhä päya kåñëera caraëa
In this age of Kali, the process of worshiping Kåñëa is to perform sacrifice by chanting the holy name of the Lord. One who does so is certainly very intelligent, and he attains shelter at the lotus feet of the Lord. (Çré Caitanya-caritämåta, Antya-lélä 20.9)
Khagäkña, Vedic knowledge is not restricted to a small circle of intellectuals. It is available to anyone who takes the Vedic methodyajïa, which begins with çruti (hearing). Someone who does not take the method, but just speculates on the meaning of the Vedas, simply hovers on the mental plane. Conversely, one may not be a so-called intellectual, but yet attains the supreme goal simply by following the prescribed method:
kevala jïäna 'mukti' dite näre bhakti vine
kåñëonmukhe sei mukti haya vinä jïäne
Speculative knowledge alone, without devotional service, is not able to give liberation. On the other hand, even without knowledge one can obtain liberation if one engages in the Lord's devotional service. (Çré Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya-lélä 22.21)
The Vedic verdict is that dry speculative knowledge is dangerous:
çuñka-brahma-jïäné, nähi kåñëera 'sambandha'
sarva loka nindä kare, nindäte nirbandha
One who is attached to dry speculative knowledge has no relationship with Kåñëa. His occupation is criticizing Vaiñëavas. Thus he is situated in criticism. (Çré Caitanya-caritämåta, Antya-lélä 8.27)
Khagäkña: But criticism has priceless value. You don't grow from praise.
Vedasära däsa: You grow from love. A loving father criticizes his young son and so helps him grow into a self-disciplined adult. So criticism does have a place in love. A spiritual master sometimes has to criticize his disciples. But Çréla Prabhupäda said it is love that is the basic principle of obedience. If it were not for love, criticism would have no effect.
Khagäkña: That's not what I meant. You are justifying the way authorities play the sentiment card to get people to line up behind them. The real criticism takes place when the faults of the authorities are unsentimentally revealed in the cold light of logic and reason. Then society as a whole will progress.
Vedasära däsa: There is a line from the Mahäbhärata: äkroñöä cäbhivaktä ca brahmoväkya ca dvijäna, which means, I used to speak irreverently of the Vedas and of the brähmaëas. These are the words of a jackal who in his last life was himself a brähmaëa. That brähmaëa was tarkavidyämanurakto nirarthakämvery attached (anurakta) to dry arguments (tarka), and indifferent to the Vedic goal of human life (nirarthakäm).* Khagäkña, you've said it is sentimental to follow the rule of love laid down by spiritual authorities. Actually, the rule of love is the means to cross beyond the agitation of the mind and senses. The word sentiment is derived from the Latin word sentimentum, which refers to sense-impressions within the mind. Therefore, to be sentimental means to be subject to the rule of pratyakña and anumäna, as was this unfortunate jackal in his previous life. Under their rule, his intelligence became the breeding ground for argument and criticism. Dry argument and criticism offer society no means of purification. Without purification, there is no question of social progress. Purification comes through sacrifice. According to Bhagavad-gétä 3.10, yajïa is the God-given means of progress for human society. No doubt error will be found among human beings, even among those who take to the Vedic path. But egoistic fault-finding, dry argument and mental speculation are themselves human errors. Error versus error breeds more error, not the cure. The cure for human error is this: duñöaraà yasya säma cid ådhag yajïo na mänuñaù chanting unassailed (by error), that yajïa is perfect for the human.
No comments:
Post a Comment