by Suhotra Maharaja
From one of
our readers we have received the following letter, which is a reaction to the
article "Guruism - A Hindu Counter-mission" published in Up-date IV
1/2:
Dear Sirs,
Tantrism is a phenomena which is
little understood by Western scholars. Because tantrism is largely a "lost
science", only a few rudiments of which are left to inspect. Modern
tantrism is only a degenerate remnant of what was once a vast body of
knowledge, of which only a small portion of books are now known and read (and
very poorly understood). Different tantras are employed in different yugas and
about 64 are applicable at all times. 108 main tantras are said to have
emanated from Shiva. and mostly consist of philosophy and ritual meant to elevate
living beings from the tama-guna. or mode of ignorance. In the tantras Shiva
discusses 5 topics with Durga: 1) the creation of the world, 2) destruction of
the world. 3) worship of devas, 4) mystic powers, 5) five kinds of liberation.
There are only a few tantras which are applicable to vaisnava philosophy (e.g.
Brhad-vaisnava tantra, brahma yamala. vishnu yamala, etc.), but none of these
can be said to have anything to do with the sexeo-religious practices described
on page 13 of Up-date.
Modern so-called tantrism as put
forward by "gurus" like Rajneesh is simply good old-fashioned
hedonism in the guise of spirituality. Hedonists like Hugh Hefner made illicit
sex socially acceptable, and now Rajneesh is making it spiritually acceptable. But
ochre robe or not, it all boils down to the same genital-consciousness. Yogis
and swamis who teach this tantrism have not attained true rasa. or divine
pleasure. from their disciplines. This is a ma-lady which plagues the spiritual
development of all members of the imperso-nalist schools of so-called Hinduism.
Because they ignore the spiritualization of the senses in bhakti-yoga, or
service to Hrishikesha (Krsna - the Lord of the Senses), and strive instead to
merge into the brahman effulgence, their uncontrolled senses get the better of
them in the end. They are impelled by nature to move from tyaga (renunciation)
to bhaga (material enjoyment). To cover up their fall-down from the real path
of advancement. they make a religion out of sex. and claim that their ordinary
biological drives are somehow spiritual. A perfect faith for the sex-addicted
Western world! No wonder Rajneesh has so many followers.
This modern tantrism is the
necessary conclusion of mayavadi philosophy, made popular in India by
Sankaracharya. The assertation on page 11 of the Up-Date editorial that
tantrism has "penetrated into Hinduism at large under the cover of
orthodox religion" is true, insofar as the mayavada (impersonalist)
teachings have almost totally subverted Hinduism since Sankaracharya's time. It
is maintained by Chaitanya that one of the results of Sankara's teachings is
the gradual destruction of the family system, due to the increase of illicit
sex. Ramkrishna, Aurobindo and others who declared themselves as God enjoyed
the pleasures of maitunya with selected "Divine Mothers". The issue
here is enjoyment, not procreation - the Divine Mother is not a vehicle for
conception, but an object of enjoyment. Mayavadi philosophy, by denying a
higher God than the self, denies the possibility of pleasure other than
material pleasure. This pleasure becomes the goal of the Godless spiritualist,
and to find it, he must take shelter of sexual enjoyment. But God's plan for
sex includes reproduction of Godly children, as determined by the Vedic samskaras.
Krsna conscious householders, therefore, are enjoined to preserve their sexual
energies only for specific times of procreation in accordance with sastric
injuction. This sort of sex can be seen as service to Krsna - dharma-virrudho
bhutesu kamo'smi, "I am sex which is not contrary to religious
principles" (Bhagavad-gita VII-11).
So, in Krsna consciousness, sex life
is allowed when it does not deviate from the Vedic conclusion, meaning that
both partners must be married in the eyes of God and understand that they are
but servants of God, and that sex is a facility given by God for natural
procreation, and therefore should be engaged in as a service to Him. The
tantrists owe no allegiance to God or God's laws of procreation - their mission
is to deny God and supplant the natural spiritual pleasures of serving Him
lawfully with unrestricted sense gratification. There is no question of
"liberation" from maya on this path. The tantrists are surrendering
to maya.
I hope the next issue of Up-Date, in
which the article by Achyatananda swami is to be published, will clearly
distinguish these two points of view on sexuality. As any self-respecting
student of Hinduism knows, the personalists have a different point of view on
everything from the impersonalists.
A point overlooked on page 5-6: I
would venture that practically every sect of Hinduism considers Christianity to
be a Western adaptation of the Vedic religion, and Christ to be a guru in the
jnana-bhakti-mishra tradition (school of devotion to God mixed with mystic
knowledge). The so-called Hindu missionaries are not thinking themselves as
driving out a heathen pseudo-religion by supplanting Christianity with their
own, but as fulfilling Christ's teachings which have been neglected by the
Westerners themselves. Many Hindus firmly believe that in Christ's "lost
years" from age 12 to 33 - which are not recounted in the Bible, He
journeyed from the Holy Land to India
and Himself accepted a guru. Also, many Hindus believe, along with the Moslems
and early Gnostics, that Christ did not die on the cross, but that rather His
crucifixion was a mystic illusion meant to bewilder the envious. Christ is said
to have later left Jerusalem and returned to India. There is
a shrine in present-day Pakistan
which is visited by thousands of pilgrims yearly which (s professed by seers to
be the actual samadhi, or tomb, of Jesus Christ.
The point of all this is that, if
Hinduism became prominent in the Western culture, then Christianity would not
necessarily disappear, but would bec-me "Hinduized", much as other
Indian religions have been altered by borrowings and adaptations from the Vedic
tradition. Just look at Christianity itself in modern India! And is
not modern Christianity a compromise between the teachings of the apostles and
Germanic paganism? (It is, at least in a ritualistic sense). Some theological
historians argue that Gnosticism as delineated in the fragments of the Lucian
Bible may be the "pure" teachings of Christ, and that Roman
Christianity is corrupted with Paganism, but is successful because by brute
force it stamped out "heretical" forms of Christianity (including
Lucian Gnosticism). Lucian Gnosticism is almost identical to the picture of
Christianity we have gotten from Srila Prabhupada. Wouldn't the
"Hinduization" of Christianity mean that we've come full circle at
last?
P.S.
"Finding the thread" which
links the various sects of Hinduism together can be fun, like piecing together
an intricate puzzle, but in the interests of scholarly objectivity. I would
warn Dr. Aagaard not to go too far in his assertation that "the many gurus
are parts of one major countermission, connected with the 'order of the ochre
robe' and with tantra as its major sub-stance." The various sects of
Hinduism are similar to one another largely because their teachings spring as
different viewpoints of the mysteries of the Veda, and therefore terminology
and ritual is sometimes interchangeable among them. But this is not to say, as
insinuated by the merry portrayal of the Kumbha-mela gatherings and the World
Congress on Hinduism, that all these sects are consciously co-conspiring to
somehow or other derail Christianity from the track of Western spiritual
thinking and values.
For instance, as a senior member of
ISKCON I can firmly attest that we have no bloody agreement with TM or Rajneesh
to work in concordance. In our opinion, Maharishi is a charlatan and Rajneesh
is something akin to an Indian version of Dr. Timothy Leary, (perhaps) without
the drugs. Guru Maharaji's "Divine Light Mission" is a joke, and your
own Swami Narayananda is sadly misguided, though perhaps well-intentioned.
Interpretation is one thing. but
essence is clearly another. The essence of the Vedas is not tantra. Tantra is a
specific system with specific intents and purposes for specific classes of men,
which is included in the overall body of Vedic literatures. To argue that
tantra and Veda are synonymous, or that yoga and tantra are synonymous, or guru
and tantra are necessarily interrelated, is unscientific. As I have tried to
show, so-called gurus like Rajneesh are charismatic opportunists who are
dabbling in realms which they themselves cannot even explain properly, much
less fully understand. Why do the disciples become mindless? Because they only
reflect the consciousness of their master, who is to expert in foolishness that
he has succeeded in making a living from it.
We vociferously deny that the Vedic
teachings are meant to lead man to nothingness, or the ALL, or any other of the
common impersonalistic void-istic expressions of their so-called truth.
Maharishi's use of rituals and prayers is simply a charade to induce some sort
of psychological dependence in his disciples. but they have no spiritual
significance whatsoever. Who are these prayers addressing, pray tell? Certainly
not any concrete conception of God. God is you. God is me, God is everything,
God is Love, runs their childish prattle. This does not qualify as religion.
Yes, most of these sects do have one
thing in common - they deny a Supreme Being, and elevate the self (yourself) to
the status of God. The guru, they say, has realized that he is God, and if you
follow him, you'll become God too. And. as Dr. Aagaard has noted, the
Hindu sects resemble Buddhism - but for precisely the same reason. The padma purana
also points out this similarity - mayavadam asat shastram prapannam baudham
ucyate - Mayavadi philosophy is covered Buddhism, and is therefore asat-sastra.
or against scriptural codes, because like Buddhism, it denies the existence of
the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When I become God, then there is no need to
follow the rules of religion. I am free to "use sex to conquer sex".
Excuse me, but as I've pointed out, one should only use sex to have children.
If one wants to conquer sex, then according to the Vedic sage Yajnavalkya, he
must give up sex - sarva maitunya tyago brahmacaryam pracaksate.
Please keep in mind one thing -
Chaitanya denounced the Sankarites, the Buddhists and the sahajiyas for their
absorption in sexuality of different sorts. The so-called spiritualists of
these orders are condemned to fascination with bodily pleasures because they
disregard the adi-rasa, their original spiritual relationship with Krsna, which
is the end-point of all Vedic teachings. alodyasarva sastani vicarya ca punah
punah idam ekam sunispannam dhyayo narayanah sada - "After reviewing the
sastras and judging them again and again it must be concluded that Narayana is
the Supreme Absolute Truth and He alone should be worshipped", padma,
linga and skanda puranas.
