by David Norman Willmott
From a Morning walk, Oct. 7, 1975, Durban...
...Preacher—there are four things for him. One thing is he should love God. He should make friendship with devotees. He should preach amongst the innocent, and he should kick on the face of the atheist. Upeksha. "Hut! (laughter) I don't like you." That's all, no business with him. This is preacher. Preacher should love God; preacher should make friendship with devotees; preacher will preach amongst the innocent, poor; and those who are atheist, nonbeliever, kick on his face. Don't care for him. "Go away. Get out." That's all. That much mercy upon them. "Get out, rascal." But sometimes we take the risk of talking with these rascals also. That is our mercy. But according to shastra, they are to be kicked out. They are not to be taken care of because it is waste of time...”
Now let us presume a friend of yours writes for all his “friends” to see:
What's on my mind........here is what's on my mind..........Atheists are egocentric idiots..............O.K. if you don't believe in God fine................ be an agnostic...........admit that you really don’t know if God exists or not..............but being an atheist is a statement..........'I cannot possibly be wrong'.............sorry dude but you could be.............
And let us presume next that he is more or less barraged by an assortment of responses expressing: woundedness; anti-theistic and anti-religious feeling justifying itself with blame attributed to religion for personal and global strife; the right to any old speculative opinion based on the fact of one’s mere existence; and, well......all kinds of egocentrism really, that betray a failure to grasp the simplicity of the outset statement... And let us presume that—to your own horror and dismay—Vaishnavas even score own-goals for the away team’s appeasement............It’s just not cricket.
Now presuming that you observe this gamut of nonsensical exchanges, and get a tad bamboozled by the jargon of the “oh-so-poor-me-being-called-names-while-I-make-my-own-self-out-to-be-utterly-liberal-and-open-minded-forever-having-the-right-to-believe-what-I-like-and-no-one-should-bother-me-about-it-even-as-my-own-words-will-likely-insult-you” kind of impersonal speculative atheist, or even just the grossly stupid verbiage of the blunt in-your-face-type atheist......then you would do well to remember the following:
Essentially one would have to BE God to be able to claim there wasn't one. Therefore "egocentric idiot" is a fairly kind designation. An atheist is necessarily egocentric because his anti-theistic identity rests completely on the theistic principle. What is the nature of the God he doesn't believe in? And how is it possible to talk about or consider something that doesn't exist, let alone stand against it? To assert your own identity while defying another identity that you have not as yet managed to circumspect amounts to egocentricity; but sadly not good egocentricity. Good egocentricity would be ego-centred on the most central of all egos; and if one doubts an ego-centre, then good egocentricity would at least focus on the collectivity of multitudinous egos, and not exclude any one... not even 'God'. An atheist is thus a poor egocentrist.
Atheism is idiotic because it unintelligently arrives at a conclusion without conducting complete research. But relying from the start on the researching path to knowledge is idiotic enough. With his defective and infinitely inadequate senses of perception, the atheist—aided by his pea-brain—has decided through his own amazing observations and synaptic reactions that there is no superior intelligent person in the vast cosmic creation that is finally responsible for the arrangement and maintenance of this entire manifestation, even down to the complex and intelligent workings of the atheist's little body, which the atheist has no clue how to operate by his own power... or why does he have to die? So better be in ignorance and admit "I don't know" and "Can anyone explain it?", than be so wonderfully foolish as to pronounce like an insect who could be dead in the morning that, "There is no God".
The atheist may not have had direct experience of a Supreme Person that is the origin of causation, but the atheist is not the only individual in the universe with a voice. There are plenty of other sentient beings who have had partial experience of something more complete than themselves and there are enough theists of rigorous credibility who have claimed to have had full and satisfying experience of an absolute Divinity that is neither their competitor nor their enemy. That Divinity is in fact the most attractive and enchanting personality they have ever encountered. And that Divinity fills in them every need for happiness ...How could anyone be so stupid as to announce or to think that "no-one has ever seen God or proved his existence". No, asshole... YOU haven't. Have you talked to everybody? And what makes you so special that God should just show Himself to you? Who are you? Does the President or some other big mundane person have to show themselves to you just because you want? ...First you have to be qualified to see.
So if you don't believe in God, ask yourself, "Which God is it I don't believe in?" And then ask yourself, "If a God exists that is actually extremely charming/cool/sound/nice (choose any adjective you like), and capable of solving my all-too-apparent problems......then would I like to know Him?" If the answer is “yes”, then find those people who know God as an extremely comfortable and friendly person. They think He's great, and they are so impressed by Him that they want YOU to know Him... because they know you'll like Him too; and then you won't have to piss out your short life with no consequence worthy of mention. FIND THOSE PEOPLE. But if one doggedly sticks to one’s uninformed and un-researched conclusions...then one could pleasantly be described as an egocentric idiot.”
Now if you express anything like the above, don’t be surprised if it provokes the following type of reaction from a random targeted atheist, whom we shall refer to as person ‘P’:
David. It's not just the fact that I was called names frequently throughout your tirade. It's also the fact that it was smug, judgmental, arrogant and full of assumptions.
One comment I will make is this... God is a man made word. An English word. When I utter the words that I do not believe in god I am clearly not saying that I disbelieve in any number of things of which I have no understanding of or have not even considered. I am talking about a disbelief in a very specific well defined concept, which is as defined a stance as belief in god.
I would also say that if you cannot open your mind far enough to respect that another person’s view is as valid as yours without resorting to name calling and insults, then there is nothing to be gained by debate. So I will bow out. Have a good day.
[Importantly, P goes on to offer the following statement for another partaker of the dialogue:] An atheist is specifically one who doesn't believe in a deity, as a being. Common usage of the term has come to mean a being who is sentient and capable of emotion. I personally do believe in a state of enlightenment, a higher self, a state that arises from constant focus on compassion and acceptance. So to express an atheistic view does not mean one has given up spiritual life. Maybe it's a semantic issue but some of us who would identify as atheists are also quite spiritual.”
... We will address this fascinating statement later. In the meantime, let us presume that some devotee expresses concern about the style of your attempt to defend theism from the brutish onslaught of unthinking God-denouncers, who, God forbid, might go on the defensive and become afflicted with an egoistic inability to hear or acknowledge all the sound philosophical advice that you proffered but disempowered by dressing it in abrasive language.
You might then reply like this:
My sincere thanks to x, y, or z devotee(s). I take your concerns regarding the use of strong or pointed language, and you are absolutely correct that as theists our business is to inspire the theistic disposition in others, not aggravate their enmity. It is acceptable to speak on things that one himself contemplates; and since the atheistic asshole is lingering in my own body... I know what to say to him when he gives me his attitude. And that's the point: I can speak very nice philosophy couched in gentle and sensitive language when the audience is gentle and sensitive. But that language and knowledge never deserves to be cheapened by those who would disregard it because it doesn't tally with their own imagination. I will never serve up the finest commodity, only for the recipient to throw it on the garbage. ...Knowledge cannot be insulted.
Besides that, the point here is that I like Krsna. And I cannot tolerate anyone defying or minimizing Him, especially when that defiance only works to their detriment. We are so worried about not putting people off the idea of God, and yes — we should be when we are talking to the innocent or unknowing. But when talking with the flag-waving card-carrying anti-God-ists, then I'm not worried about putting them off because they are already so far off by their own choice. I avoid them. I don't give fuel to their quarrel with God and so I avoid giving them a chance to insult God any further and cause them more harm than they already cause themselves... But if they come at me or my friends with their atheistic attitude then I won't hesitate to put them in their place.
Sometimes strong language can be used when other methods fail to get across. The idea is to get the attention and emotions; to make them take notice. Once you have the mind's interest, then your philosophy can do its work. But if the mind is a brick wall from the start, then all the pleasant plain reasoning in the world will never penetrate. So when talking with someone whose intelligence is driving, I can be purely intellectual. But when talking with someone whose mind is driving, then I must address that mind, sweetly or harshly... I must acknowledge that mind's attitude. Lord Caitanya was ready to kill Jagai and Madhai without thinking twice. He is the most liberal, most mercifully disposed personality in the universe! And yet He was absolutely furious at them... Why? — Because they defied and injured Nityananda and Haridas, i.e. the Lord and His devotee. Then having been put in their place by Lord Caitanya, Jagai and Madhai were saved by the most liberal and gentle consideration of Nityananda. So we may graciously tolerate insults to our own person, but we will never accept insults to the Lord and His devotees. And the bottom line is that the atheistic attitude is insulting. It's insulting to God. It's insulting to His devotees, and it's insulting to the intelligence, which is why if anyone committedly professes it, then they will get a dose of intelligence and a face full of attitude back; not a push-over plea to maybe think harder. Besides, the Vedas say that anyone who teaches a bogus philosophy receives proliferated bad reactions. So do the atheists a favour by shutting them down early.
I apologise if I upset anyone and turned them off. But we are not attacking souls here. We are attacking a mentality that a soul takes on (and can equally drop), and we’re attacking that mentality because it stops real people from enjoying life fully. It also insults my friends...and we can't have that.
The atheist says there's no God. However I find that there is. If the atheist says it in range of my hearing, I will object in range of his. The atheist offers a negative proposition, but I offer a positive proposition. If you want a positive proposition, I can give you details how to realize it; I can show you how to get the proof. Can the atheist show you how to realize there is no God? This is the challenge. I say that you can see God if you agree to take the proposition. But can the atheist show you no God? Where is that "no-God"? Show it. Go ahead. Show me nothing. I dare you... because I can tell you this: where the self-realized souls look, God is ALL they see. And God is willing to be seen by anyone who wants to see Him. But why should he show Himself to someone who's not even remotely into the idea? ...And that's His kindness: he doesn't force. As we think of Him, He reciprocates. You want Him to not exist: He won't show you His existence in your life. But if you want to know Him and interact, He will make Himself known and interactive...”
OK. So you’ve explained yourself a little bit, but you’ve also invited more reaction from your antagonistic Mr. P...whom you have yet to address:
David,
Your comments include a level of arrogance and small mindedness that render debate pointless.
I accept your view, but as long as your view assumes that you have "knowledge" then you can no longer learn. All of us have experiences, and we can interpret those experiences in very different ways. We can respond to them emotionally and intellectually. We can interpret those experiences as being passed into us from outside of ourself. It may well be true. But that is a rational judgement that we make. The only real truth is your experience. The meaning you attach to that is man-made. Maybe it's true. Maybe your god is speaking to you and maybe you are listening. But regardless, how that manifests itself to you is still your rational brain interpreting your own sensations and emotions. To elevate that to knowledge is a very limiting stance to take... Because you have no knowledge. You have experience. And to assume you do have knowledge informs every subsequent experience you may have inhibiting your chance to grow.
Now it is my view that all our sensations, and emotions and spiritual comfort are created within ourselves through a lifestyle of acceptance and compassion and experiencing the now without judgement. It is your view that your experiences are direct connection and a proof of the existence of god.
...Either of us could be right. Or more likely neither of us is right. There probably is no right... Just our own experiences.
But if you chose to believe that your view and interpretations constitute a knowledge and mine do not... Then debate between us is pointless as you approach that debate with a debilitating sense of superiority.
I am always delighted to discuss spiritual experiences with someone who is willing to share open-mindedly. But if you have decided you are right and I am wrong and in fact I don't even merit respectful language then debate is redundant and seems only to serve your own ego as I can see no other purpose for it.”
Waow ...And you didn’t even know you were talking to him. But his reactions suggest that he strongly identifies with the designation “atheist”...Anyway, you now owe him two responses... So let’s take the first one first...
Hi... P..., in case you read this, I thank you for your response. I regret that you were offended by my words; they were not written out of malice; but out of a desire to support the theistic disposition. They were directed at the atheist whom I define as someone who has stubbornly decided that no supreme authority exists on whom we are all dependent and to whom we are responsible. My language was strong because the arrogance it takes to commit to such a mulish decision is also strong. Earlier [in an exchange with someone else] you wrote that:
"It is my belief that there is no god, at least not a sentient emotive being with whom we may communicate. That's simply because I have no reason to believe it. Perfectly willing to accept such a thing could exist though."
So your belief is based on a lack of evidence to believe otherwise; but you are open to the possibility of that evidence... Then in that case I don't consider you an atheist and my earlier tone of presentation does not apply to you. I consider an atheist as one who determinedly denies or defies the existence of a supreme authority without exhausting his inquiry into that existence, and especially if invited to discover that existence.
Semantics aside, the principle of an absolute predominating Deity is found in many cultures and languages the world over. I am not interested in the specific word 'God', but I am interested in what that word denotes for me, which is: a supreme eternal and conscious person who maintains the experiences of innumerable other eternal and conscious entities. The Supreme individual and the subordinate individuals are qualitatively the same but are quantitatively different. The Supreme is the energetic source, whereas all others are His energetic expansions. He is like the sun, while the others are like its ray-particles. The purpose of their existence is to taste the pleasure of interaction, and the Supreme is the central reservoir of blissful interaction. He is the life and soul of the spiritual and material worlds and their inhabitants. The material manifestation is a changeable reflection of the substantial spiritual plane, and the minute spirit-souls within this inert world are changing their bodies by a continued process of death and birth owing to a forgetfulness of their original spiritual identity and relationship...... This information is given in India's ancient Vedic literatures. So while you may not believe in a sentient emotive being with whom we may communicate, it is yet a fact that there are vivid descriptions of the Personality of Godhead in the Vedas, that He incarnates and exhibits His uncommon strength and energy, and that He is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by learned scholars and saints like Vyasadeva, Narada, Asita, Devala, Arjuna, Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, and Sri Caitanya, throughout the ages. I humbly invite you to hear about the Supreme Personality of Godhead from these sources.
In light of the evidence of Vedic authority and of those teachers who follow and have followed it, I am happy and willing to accept as valid any knowledge that is as coherent, intricate, expansive, and sophisticated. I respect that everyone has a right to a particular faith or mode of seeing the world around them, and I could never hope to persuade someone to accept my own perspective. That perspective however was given to me by an unbroken chain of teachers of the Vedic wisdom and I did not invent or imagine it. So while I respect another person's free will to choose, I am also eager to convey to him or her an option that I believe will benefit him or her. Conveying that option is a compassionate duty. But the impetus to accept or follow that option is entirely up to the individual...
Of course, religionists who want to canvas adherents only for adding to the number of the collective identity and for wielding some sense of false possession are not the most useful teachers...... But if you find a source of beautiful jewels that you are unwilling to reveal and distribute amongst others, then that would be a truly "egocentric" act.
One whose experience of life has improved and whose direction now and after death is clear, certainly has the right to risk informing others of their experienced success and to encourage those others to gain the same kind of wealth. It's a positive proposition. What does one have to lose? ...If an atheist had a positive proposition, I wouldn't mind......but what is it? And what makes it valid? From what authority in knowledge does it stem? If an atheist cannot offer intelligent answers to these questions, then I will respect their desire to remain an atheist, but how can I regard their perspective with any weight?
P... I am an arrogant prick, but please don't mind. You are an open-minded and thoughtful person, so I humbly invite you to investigate the positive proposition of God described in the Bhagavad-gita and the Srimad Bhagavat Purana. These ancient books of knowledge have been very nicely translated and presented by Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada, who risked his life at a very elderly stage to bring some light to the lives of struggling people in the western world. Srila Prabhupada wrote many volumes of books expounding a comprehensive and heart-warming age-old theistic philosophy and its practical application in daily life. Kindly give his efforts your consideration... Thank you.”
Now, for addressing the second of Mr. P’s reactions, you might try the following:
Hi again...P... Good morning or good day to you! Perhaps you’re wondering why I am engaging in this dialogue. The simple reason is that in my experience there are very beautiful answers to the questions of life and it is my desire to make those answers available to people who would like to know them and feel their benefit. If someone’s not interested, then I won’t impose. But just as you have a right to propose that there is no supreme individual sentient emotive being capable of communicating with us, I also have the right to propose that there is, especially since your proposition contradicts my experience and since I also believe that my proposition can further your experience...... It might not. But I tend to be more convinced that it will, and so it’s worth presenting you the option.
I understand your grievance is not that I have my own experiences and interpretations of them. I get your grievance to be that I am unwilling to entertain the validity of how you interpret your experiences. However, I have no problem with experiences or their interpretation. My argument is with the idea that knowledge cannot be established. You said there is experience, and not knowledge; but why would I need to learn something then? If experience was all-important, you wouldn’t care whether I thought I was right or whether I thought you might be right or whether I thought neither of us was right. Because it wouldn’t matter, as long as I’m taking in experience......right? So if knowledge is an ontological fallacy, why make the effort to teach me that experience is of prime value while conclusion is false? Is that not a conclusion right there? Or is conclusion only false when that conclusion claims that conclusions are valid? Why are the things you value, like acceptance of the moment and compassion considered valuable? Accepting their value constitutes knowledge.
Socrates said there is an absolute truth and we must bring our existence in harmony with it; but the sophists contended that vox-populi rules. Whatever the mass of people believe, that’s what has to fly......Socrates was poisoned. (Right enough he didn’t mind because he was thoroughly convinced that his soul is eternal and his body was a meager covering)
So my proposal is that there are universal principles governing my existence as well as yours; and neither of us can opt out. We cannot opt out of breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping, moving, evacuating, taking shelter from the elements, taking care of dependents, answering to seniors, sharing with equals, putting out the garbage, charging our phone, filling the car, mowing the lawn, meeting our deadline, turning off the stove in time, dressing in an appropriate fashion............... In so many ways our lives are controlled by natural laws that we must respect, or else our social status will drop, we’ll have an identity crisis, we’ll become ill, or we’ll die. So the question is simply why? Why be born? Why grow up? Why stick around? Why make children? Why get sick? Why get old? And why die? ...Why? Why is it made like that? ........The Vedas enjoin that human life begins with this question. And the Vedas also supply answers.
Now if someone can supply me with other answers that are as impressive or more so, then I’m listening. I really am. But someone should be able to explain it. Why do dogs bark and not ‘meaow’? Why do we put food in our mouths and not our ears? Why do we have hair on our heads and not the soles of our feet? Why do we have to concentrate in an exam? Why are we joyful when our baby is born, or when we win the race? And why does our heart sink when the bills come in and we can’t now pay them? These belong to a very common field of experience... but if any of you out there live in a world where none of this is as I represent it, then please let me know and I’ll rethink it. No debate would be needed if we were each autonomous entities subject to our own independent environments and stimuli. But since we share a common field of interaction and experience then we are able to discuss how that common environment may be understood.
Now in this apparently consistent environment, I am a defined entity and my powers of perception are limited and do not permit me to be conscious of anything beyond their range of sensation. So I have two choices. I can think that whatever I perceive as present before me is all there may be, and I can try to inquire as to the laws that let me interact with my environment according to my need for a particular response from it. That’s called trial and error, and the means I employ to understand the environment and its components and identities are my sense perception and mental reasoning. In this way I may go on experimenting with the nature of my environment indefinitely. My research will never end because the environment will always offer up new instances of “others” that I must test if I am to understand and have a relationship with them. Thus conclusions about the nature of my own existence and that of what is “other” will always be prone to review and change. Knowledge is thus elusive; and that would be ok, except for one problem: I want to perpetuate my life experiences without stoppage, but there’s this thing called “death” that seems to have a different agenda. So who is going to make sense of that for me?
My second choice then is to think that there may well be phenomena beyond my range of perception, and therefore in matters where immediate sense perception and mental reasoning fail to reach, I have a third epistemological means, and it’s called “authority”. Oooooo......scary. But scary as it may be, not all authority is rotten. There is such a thing as an authority that is exactly that. So the authority that can tell me about matters beyond my scope of physical or mental inspection is the knower of whatever may be beyond that scope. And who knows the nature of everything except the knowing source of everything...... So that’s God. Now if one doesn’t gel with the idea of a sentient source of everything then one should be prepared to explain how something is generated out of nothing, how order is generated from chaos, and how conscious intelligence is generated from dead soup. If the cause doesn’t have it, how will the effect??? One should be able to explain how order, design, system and regulation are effected from a random combination of raw ingredients. One possible answer is that such order is eternal and has no causation for the event of its existence. But I’ve never heard a scientist or atheist come up with that one. They generally always appeal to causation—physical, ‘evolutionary’ causation. But order that is caused implies intelligence—intelligent ordering—and intelligence implies consciousness, or sentience. So if we accept cause, we have to accept that any cause must be potent with the qualities of its effects. Then what kind of insentience could ever originate consciousness? Could dead matter ever conspire to produce it? Would you actually give more credence to the idea that life comes from lifelessness than to the idea that life comes from life? ...And still claim to be ‘reasonable’? A more useful contemplation would be: “Does life have a primordial origin? And if so, what is that origin’s nature?”
Anyway, I was saying that God (the revealed origin) knows...... So God’s knowledge is given in the Vedas, just so we may know. Vedic knowledge is called avaroha, which means it descends from an authoritative source. And if one tries the Vedic knowledge one will find it works for both the material and spiritual spheres, and one will gain what one is looking for in either, without having to learn by a ‘school of hard knocks’.
...So it’s really not a matter here of who is right and who is wrong; it’s a matter of who is in the position to decide who is right and who is wrong. And yes, “right” and “wrong” are legitimate principles since it should be obvious that if you operate any component or participant of the environment “right”, it responds in a certain satisfactory way, and if you operate it “wrong”, then you have a bad day....... I’m not in the position to judge who may be right and who may be wrong, and so I must accept some authority. That authority can either be my own faculties of perception and discernment, or it can be something beyond that, something informative, though revealed to me (naturally) through auditory reception. Personally I choose the informing, ‘beyond’ option, but anybody is welcome to make themselves their own authority. I don’t mind. Go for it... If it doesn’t turn out so great, you can always pick up a Bhagavad–gita, and see if that works any better. But if being your own authority brings you eternal increasing happiness, then I’m happy for you, and I would certainly concede that you could well be right. Trouble is I’d have to bother myself, eternally, testing (and trusting your communication of) your experience, before I’m satisfied that it holds true ...Too bad eternity doesn’t finish. And since it appears that neither of us will live very long in any kind of close proximity anyway, I reckon my experiment would be cut short prematurely. So I’m just going to take a risk and bet that your incompletely-guided search for happiness won’t lead you to any eternally increasing experience of it... and my complete Vedic authority makes me confident about that.”
Now, let us presume that—owing to the littleness of your own personal realization—you are feeling a bit guilty about the designations you so aptly and faithfully applied to the atheists. ...Well you can always offer an apology:
By the way ...for such and such, such and such, and P..., and any other affected parties, I sincerely apologize for using offensive names that may have impaired the quality of my attempt to support theism. I'm like a barking dog at the heels of its master. When a gentleman is slighted, his dog may bark, but no one should put blame on the gentleman......Barking is a dog's business. I feel bad if any innocuous readers have been disturbed while passing-by my words. Please forgive me.”
And if after all of this, any devotee insists on continuing to score own-goals against the devotional team, then you can try to pleasantly take them out of commission:
My dear... such and such Prabhu..., I sincerely thank you for helping me to question my own motives and approach to engaging in the above dialogue, and I thank you so much for your very kind appreciation of how I represented the Vedanta ...The credit belongs to my teachers.
There are yet one or two things you mentioned that I find a difference with:
You wrote: “You see when we call a part and parcel of Krishna an "ass hole" as opposed to a "soul", are we not being impersonal and atheistic ourselves, as we see that jiva as separate from Krishna?”
My response is that it is precisely because the jiva is not separate from Isvara that he is acting in the status of the given derogatory designation. If I was an uttama-bhagavata and thought the jiva was exactly where he should be, then I wouldn’t be arguing on the internet, let alone addressing others as spirit-souls. I never at any stage addressed a part and parcel of Krsna with that word. I addressed the deluded jiva who proclaims, “No one has ever seen God, or proved his existence,” with that word, because let’s face it — one would have to be a bit over-confident to voice such a conclusion. And whom did I address? I addressed *anyone* who does like that, including myself. I addressed that universal a***ole who appears in varied peculiar instances within the evolutes of false ego. Now if someone finds that I was addressing them personally, then what does that mean? It means that they think or proclaim, “No one has ever seen God, or proved he exists”, in which case they are perfectly welcome to the designation. I am sorry if the word was unnecessarily crass, but I stand by the point. Perhaps I should have used the word “rascal” or “nonsense” or “demon” instead. Srila Prabhupada was not afraid to use these words for a person not using his inquisitive and logical brain. (Unfortunately I’m not the gentleman Srila Prabhupada is, and for that I am regretful). Now since Srila Prabhupada wanted us to take the position of preachers for pointing out the absolute truth, is it not in fact impersonal and atheistic to FAIL in addressing the perverted consciousness of the otherwise impeccable spirit-soul? I am extremely sorry if every harmless person who read my words felt I was calling them an a***ole. Please read the small print my friends...... And after studying the context, If you still take offense at the word, then you should classify yourself with people who think and speak, “No one has ever seen God, or proved He exists”, or with people who side with people who think like that. If you don’t think like that and you are not sympathetic to those who do, then relax......you haven’t been compared with something unpleasant. Don’t have a melt-down...... please.
Dear Prabhu, you also wrote:
“The irony is that, while P was claiming to be an impersonalist, his statements tended to be thoughtful, gentlemanly and very personal. While some of our theistic preaching came across as impersonal.”
Perhaps P unwittingly presented himself as an impersonalist, but he identified himself surely as an atheist. When it was obvious to me that the man had taken offense at my anti-atheist words (I had already written two statements before I saw his first address to me), then I endeavored to figure out what his perspective actually was by going over his previous comments. From those I could understand that his leanings were more to what we call “impersonalism” and I tried to adjust my presentation to suit him. (Perhaps I failed) But my real question Prabhu is this: what are the symptoms by which you judge personalism? Are they just that someone tries not to upset anyone by letting everyone else have their own relative speculative philosophies so that you don’t actually have to stand for something solid and deal with real identities? ......Because in my mind THAT’S impersonal. But P didn’t even live and let live (which is what he appears to have valued). He didn’t like the fact that I could take my own (or rather Krsna’s) conclusion as truth and so have no room for his......There is of course room for his, but not at the expense of God’s. The reality and value of subjective individual experience is an absolutely valid element of his philosophy, but if he wants to throw out God as well, then he can expect a fight... If I were to kowtow to his relativistic stance by saying, “Yes, I believe in God, but based on the limited nature of my subjective experience, I am also prepared to accept that your atheistic belief could be right”, then what the hell would be the meaning of my professing a theistic belief? Faith in God is like backing a thoroughbred (in a one-horse-race) that’s inspired to run in proportion to the measure of investment offered by the owner. The doubting man might think: “There are two horses in this race (well—maybe a thoroughbred and a donkey), and either of them could win. So I’ve decided to invest only a little time and energy in my thoroughbred (since I don’t like risking loss). If it wins I’ll cheer and collect my profit; but if it loses...well, what to expect—there were two horses in the race.” ......Will the thoroughbred be very much bothered to run?
...Or I might even try it this way: “Ok. I’ll back this horse in style, put everything I’ve got on it — and if it wins, I’ll make a killing; but since I have already conceded before the race that there’s a chance it could lose...then if it does lose...I should get my money back, maybe even with the gains that should accrue to me on the other horse’s winning......as I said it might.” — No bookmaker would take you seriously since your faith in your own horse is nothing more than laughable. Put your money where your mouth is...as they say. So all this: “I think that..., but maybe it could be...” jargon is just nirvisesa-sunyavada: just faithlessness. But substance, personalism, means commitment. It means risk, and only risk, trust, yields profit. Yes: I choose to trust that there is an objective reality over and above my subjective experience. I choose to trust the testimony of the One that lays claim to the pure objectivity of infinite subjectivity. There’s a good chance I will never be privy to such a One’s infinite subjectivity, but if by accepting His testimony I find my own subjective experience to be perfectly complete, then what do I care if I can never objectively verify what ‘absolute’ might be? So yes, it really does come down to experience. But the genuine proponent of pure experience would broaden his horizons by permitting his experience to augment through trusting a testament that hails from beyond his experiential ability to verify it before trust awards him the experience to verify it. In other words, a true believer in experience would risk trusting the testimony that, for example, beyond the darkness of his enclosure, the sun is illuminating all directions...and thus he would step outside. ......It’s a risk — he might be cheated by his informant! (But at least he would gain a “cheated” experience to add to his collection of experience) Just as surely though, he could be vindicated with the realization of a wholly other and promised experience that would have been unattainable without his trust in testimony. The stifled empiricist, on the other hand, would rather be in his cell until the sun decides to join him.
Yes, P would like me to ‘live and let live’; but does he practice what he preaches? Living and letting me live would mean, “I think either of us or none of us could be right, but if you think that you’re right and I’m wrong, then you’re welcome to think like that and I won’t judge you for it.” ......But boy was I judged! So how personal are we talking here? People should be consistent. Accepting an absolute truth means drawing a line: “This is reality, and that’s illusion”. Accepting relative truth means no line; so what anyone wants to believe (or indeed do) should be perfectly cool — even if they want to believe in absolute truth...which inherently, necessarily, subjugates relative truth. So why give me a hard time about it??
Further to all this, Vaishnavas may not be so expert at representing the realized state of a personalist, but the fact that they attempt to take the personalist position and fight for it makes them more personal in the final analysis. It’s a matter of being “near to the goal by virtue of walking the path that goes there” as opposed to being near to the goal with no means of actually reaching it. The other important point is that impersonalism is disguised Buddhism and Buddhism is a “nastika” philosophy, which puts it squarely in the category of atheism. The sastras uphold this position: One who is on the personal path endeavouring for the devotional qualities is dear to Krsna, and one who has not accepted the devotional conclusion has no good qualities because whatever good qualities they have are not connected to the origin of those qualities. Those qualities have been effectively stolen and may or may not be manifest from one lifetime to the next. So while a person with socially congenial qualities has a lot of potential for interacting nicely in the devotional community and making advancement, such a person is not to be valued more than a neophyte Vaisnava who does not yet manifest socially congenial qualities but is situated properly, so that it really won’t be long before they far surpass in ‘niceness’ any other random nice person...................If the theistic position (which is the only factual personal position) is minimized in public view, then I will try to defend it in public view.
You also wrote:
“But when I read at the end of all this "Atheist are demoniac" it always makes me wonder about the quality of the people who joined this movement.”
My dear... such and such Prabhu..., forgive me. I understand that you are concerned that parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord are not put off from a chance to render bhakti, but if the method was to be coy around atheism, than I’m quite sure the Founder-Acarya would not have challenged atheism with the severity that he did.......... ‘Atheist’. What does it mean?? A-THEIST. Anti-God. Anti-Supreme authority. Now maybe people are anti-supreme authority because they’ve had bad experience with certain authorities in the past. But why does that happen? Are we all just victims here? Is the reason we’re in the material world because we got lost one day and it’s someone else's fault? ......No. We didn’t like the idea that the nice environment is God’s and not ours. Being in the marginal position, we saw two options, and it was God who got the flick. So authority should be established, and we should point out the authority that is our benefactor...... Thus while it’s true that we must not jump the gun on people before finding out their attitude, it is equally true that we must point out the value of authority and that anti-authority is demoniac, because in reality there is only one final authority...... and He is fairly wonderful. Being anti-authority means “I can still do whatever the hell I want.” (At least that’s the theory. Practice doesn’t work so good) And this idea of independence is our common disease.
So when... Y Mataji... [a lady who, let us presume, battled fiercely for the devotional team] puts it over that, “Atheists are demoniac”, what’s the problem??? The problem is that atheists might get upset, and mental speculators who don’t want to bother anyone—so no one will bother them—might also get upset. But if both these groups get upset, then at least it’s a sign that Krsna Consciousness is being spoken and not whimpering in some unseen corner. If a person is not willing to accept the principle of knowledge and authority based on intelligent argument, then, as Prabhupada put it: “Get out. I don’t like you.” ...I heard those same words from the mouth of Visnujana Maharaja (on tape), and HE was possibly the most personal devotee on the planet.
You remarked sarcastically: “Yea, tell them they're all demons, that'll have them coming in droves to join us.” ...Yes, sometimes statements might be imprudent (depending on the audience), and sometimes they don't win friends...but loyalty is still an ornament. Plus, Mataji didn't say "demons". She said "demoniac". There's an important difference there.
...You know, I heard that in the seventies when devotees were “fanatic” and not shy to point out what was what and have faith in it, people really WERE coming in droves......And how about now? What has so-called soft preaching accomplished? Being politically correct might work for politically correct obsessed people, and in such circles it can be a tool. But there’s also a big field of people who wouldn’t mind to get it straight from devotees with strong faith and a backbone. So if political correctness is a position we want to stand on, then there’s every chance that more Deities than devotees will continue to reside in many of our temples.
...When Lord Krsna appeared on earth five thousand years ago, His very presence divided the atheists from the theists. And Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has compared the Lord’s appearance to the awakening of the pure cognitive essence of the serving soul on the liberated platform; and he compares king Kamsa to “the typical aggressive empiricist”, who is “ever on the lookout for the appearance of the truth for the purpose of suppressing Him before He has time to develop.” The Acarya states: “THIS IS NO EXAGGERATION OF THE REAL CONNOTATION OF THE CONSISTENT EMPIRIC POSITION.” (“Empiric” = experience is valued as all-in-all = what Mr. P says) And the Acarya continues: “The materialist has a natural repugnance for the transcendent. He is disposed to link that faith in the incomprehensible is the parent of dogmatism and hypocrisy in the guise of religion. He is also equally under the delusion that there is no real dividing line between the material and the spiritual; he is strengthened in his delusion by the interpretation of scriptures by persons who are like-minded with himself...” Srila Sarasvati Prabhupada also compares pseudo-religious teachers to ‘Putanas’, or agents of Kamsa, who attempt to stifle the development of the theistic disposition...... “But as soon as theistic disposition proper makes its appearance in the pure cognitive essence, of the awakened soul, the Putanas are decisively silenced at the very earliest stage of their encounter with new-born Krsna. The would-be slayer is herself slain...”
In other words, by accepting the application of Krsna Consciousness, the dedicated soul will ultimately awaken a pure theistic disposition that is so incontrovertible as to silence all atheistic tendencies. The Acarya concludes: “...The effective silencing of the whole race of pseudo-teachers of religion is the first clear indication of the appearance of the Absolute on the mundane plane. The bona-fide teacher of the Absolute, heralds the Advent of Krsna by his uncompromising campaign against the pseudo-teachers of religion.”
In light of these words of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja Prabhupada, I think I should rather take seriously the practice of devotional service so that the theistic disposition proper will like to take birth in my consciousness. (Then I will make an effective preacher) And part of that devotional practice entails boldly advocating the devotional conclusion.
Finally Prabhu, I thank you for listing the twenty-six Vaisnava qualities. They are a wonderful meditation. I was a little unsure of the second one however: “Does not quarrel with anyone”. I understood that this quality, “akrta-droha”, means ‘humble’ or ‘not defiant’. So my understanding is that while we do not futilely quarrel over mundane matters, we are ready and eager to argue for the cause of our spiritual master and the Supreme Lord. Such boldness is truly humble, meaning: acting according to our position without seeking personal honour. And such boldness would not be in defiance of the order of our spiritual master to be fearless in the fight to establish the absolute Truth. Because let’s look around at the world a little bit......No atheists? No demons? Everything’s hunky-dory?
I think not.”
Well, that’s it folks. Happy scoring... And do try to nicely recruit team members before you decide they really only merit a kick on the face.
...There’s always prasadam and kirtana of course.
