Crucifixion of the Logos

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna.

 

Those of you who are concerned about the current secularization of ISKCON,

its causes and cures may find the following article by Suhotra Swami

invigorating.

 

yhs

 

Shyamasundar Dasa

 

________________________________

 

http://www.in2-mec.com/J-Pages04/J040812.htm

 

 

Timisoara, Romania

12 August 2004

 

Crucifixion of the Logos

My "Search and Destroy" of Chapter 5 of

Hindu Encounter with Modernity

by Shukavak N. Dasa

 

Hindu Encounter with Modernity was published five years ago. I purchased a

volume at that time but only got through about half of it. No, it is no

coincidence that the chapter I am dealing with today is midway through the

book. It was after I read this portion that I stopped reading more.

 

A few days ago I came across this statement--

 

Waves of Devotion, along with Sukavaka's Hindu Encounter were

potentially the most effective books that circulated widely within ISKCON

for the past few years.

 

--which was posted to a website that attracts self-proclaimed Gaudiya

Vaisnava intellectuals, many of whom are former members of ISKCON. I could

not make out what the writer of this post exactly intended by the word

"effective." Someone else on that site asked him to explain that, but he did

not answer to the point. My guess is, he means something like "effective in

provoking the kind of mental speculation that could lead the ISKCON readers

of Hindu Encounter with Modernity to become like us", i.e. to become

self-proclaimed Gaudiya Vaisnava intellectuals formerly of ISKCON. After

reading this post, I decided to go back and write something about Hindu

Encounter with Modernity, in particular Chapter 5 which I believe is the

most "effective" of the whole book (again, "effective" according to the

outlook of those who flock to the website I am referring to).

 

Let me establish right away why I titled this essay Crucifixion of the

Logos. On the same website I found praise of Mel Gibson's recent blockbuster

movie The Passion of the Christ. You see, not only are the participants of

the site self-proclaimed intellectuals, they are self-proclaimed

raganuga-bhaktas. In the discerning opinion of some of the leaders of this

flock of intellectual Gaudiyas, Mel Gibson's film succeeds in immersing its

audience in divine sakhya-rasa. Well, well, well. I found irony in the fact

that St. John (shown in the film following Jesus's torturous way up to

Golgotha) declares in his Gospel of the New Testament that Jesus is the

logos (the Word of God) incarnate. The Passion of the Christ is about one

thing: how the intellectuals of Jerusalem, the scribes and the Pharisees,

conspired to have the word of God incarnate scourged and hung to die upon

the cross.

 

Let us see what this has to do with Chapter 5 of Hindu Encounter with

Modernity.

 

The chapter, covering pages 119 to 151, is entitled "Reason and Religious

Faith". It is divided into sections with headings like "A Crisis in Faith",

"The Rationalism of Bankim Candra", "Bhaktivinoda and British Orientalism",

"Three Kinds of Spiritual Seekers", and "Two Modes of Religious

Understanding". The focus of the chapter is a work by Srila Bhaktivinoda

Thakura called Sri Krsna-samhita, which he wrote in 1879. Shukavak N. Dasa

explains that Srila Bhaktivinoda wrote this book for the bhadraloka, the

educated class of Bengal which in the nineteenth century was steeped in

rationalism and thus was disinclined to a simple, faithful approach to

religious topics. The Thakura's purpose was to explain Krsna to the

bhadraloka according to adhunika-vada, "the modern approach" which

incorporated ideas from British Orientalism (the forerunner of what is known

today as Indology).

 

My comment at this point is that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura undertook a very

grave mission of mercy in writing Sri Krsna-samhita. His transcendental son,

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, used to say, Vaisnava saralata

atva, "the essence of a Vaisnava is simplicity." The bhadraloka of the

nineteenth century had strayed very far from that essence. Sadhu guru

mahajana patita-pavana kapata-pavava noi, it is said: "The sadhus, the

spiritual master, and great personalities like Lords Gaura-Nitai, come to

deliver the fallen, yet they are not deliverers of crooked (kapatya)

persons." The word kapatya is an opposite of the word saralata (simple).

Thus it means "to make unnecessarily complicated." In this way the

bhadraloka of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's time had become worse than fallen. Due

to imbibing foreign ideas, these sophisticated upper-class Bengalis had

become too crooked in their thinking. Anything religious, any item of simple

faith, they felt obliged to deconstruct and reassemble according to the zigs

and the zags of prevailing rationalist-materialist speculations. It was

beneath their station, so they believed, to simply accept religion "as it

is." That was for the villagers to do, not the sophisticates. Seeing the

bhakdraloka so shut off from the mercy of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila

Bhaktivinoda Thakura compassionately composed his Sri Krsna-samhita for

their deliverance.

 

On page 136 of Chapter 5, Shukavak summarizes:

 

In other words, Bhaktivinoda is saying: My fellow bhadraloka, your minds

are trained to accept the conclusions of rational analysis fashioned with

the tools of modern scholarship, so we shall employ these tools to examine

our religious traditions.

 

On page 128 he characterizes rational analysis a crude tool. On page 140 he

points out that by today's scholarly standards the historiography

Bhaktivinoda Thakura used to make the Hindu religious tradition seem

rational to the bhadraloka is completely out of date.

 

So far I have no objection.

 

But then in the section subheaded "Two Modes of Religious Understanding",

Shukavak trots out an argument that the adhunika-vada (the modern approach)

is to be employed today.

 

The Krsna-samhita is as much a statement about the relationship between

reason and religious faith as it is a study of the life of Sri Krsna and a

summary of India's religious history. It is Bhaktivinoda's unique blend of

these components that gives his synthesis of modernity and tradition its

extraordinary utility even today, perhaps also beyond the realm of Caitanya

Vaisnavism.

 

[From page 146; I have italicized the phrase "its extraordinary utility..."

to emphasize the author's intent.]

 

If ever there was one, this is a logical non sequitur. It is admitted that

125 years ago Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote a book he aimed at a specific

section of people. Obviously, this section of people is no longer with us.

Nor is the specific form of rationalism still with us that this section

embraced. Rational analysis in general is admitted to be a crude tool. Yet

suddenly--tah dah!--the synthesis of modern rationalism and ancient

tradition is proclaimed to have extraordinary utility even today.

 

Who says?

 

Is it that Shukavak can say this because he is a learned disciple of Srila

Prabhupada who took the trouble to earn a PhD at a Western university?

 

Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one

should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently

surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one

should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama

because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and

piety and the blessings of all the world.

 

[srimad-Bhagavatam 3.4.26p]

 

The offense so described is relavent here for the reason that unless Srila

Bhaktivinoda Thakura can be shown to have specifically requested his

disciples, grand-disciples, and great-grand-disciples to synthesize

modernity with scriptural tradition, then one who claims he is authorized to

do so by the Thakura's writings is being impertinent. Certainly we get from

Srila Prabhupada no green light for adjusting sastra to the theories of

modern scholarship. But Prabhupada, in the opinion of the intellectual

crowd, is way too conservative.

 

So then let's take a step back in the parampara, to Srila Bhaktisiddhanata

Sarasvati Thakura. From birth he was trained in Krsna consciousness by Srila

Bhaktivinoda. About those who synthesize modern theories with the sastric

tradition, he has this to say.

 

The writings of Thakura Bhaktivinoda provided the golden bridge by which

the mental speculationists can safely cross the raging waters of fruitless

empiric controversies that trouble the peace of those who choose to trust in

their guidance for finding the truth. As soon as the sympathetic reader is

in position to appreciate the sterling quality of Thakura Bhaktivinoda's

philosophy, the entire vista of the revealed literature of the world will

automatically open out to his reclaimed vision.

 

There have, however, already arisen serious misunderstandings regarding

the proper interpretation of the life and teachings of Srila Thakura

Bhaktivinoda. Those who suppose they understand the meaning of his message

without securing the guiding grace of the acharya are disposed to unduly

favor the method of empiric study of his writings. There are persons who

have got by heart almost everything that he wrote without being able to

catch the least particle of his meaning. Such study cannot benefit those who

are not prepared to act up to the instructions lucidly conveyed by his

words. There is no honest chance of missing the warnings of Thakura

Bhaktivinoda. Those, therefore, who are misled by the perusal of his

writings are led astray by their own obstinate perversity in sticking to the

empiric course which they prefer to cherish against his explicit warnings.

Let these unfortunate persons look more carefully into their own hearts for

the cause of their misfortunes.

 

[For the entire essay of Srila Sarasvati Thakura, see In2-MeC 20 June]

 

Shukavak argues his conviction on pages 140-142. He is authorized by Srila

Bhaktivinoda Thakura to pursue the rational-empirical approach to sastra.

"In fact, on two separate occasions he [bhaktivinoda] encourages subsequent

intellectuals to continue the study of Vedic history and geography using the

adhunika-vada." Two untranslated Bengali citations are given in a footnote.

 

Wow. With these two Bengali sentences, we see the Thakura as, like, reaching

across space and time, and right over the guru-parampara in between, to a

Western-educated devotee of year 2004, authorizing him or her to engage in

(I quote Shukavak on page 145) "human speculation and interpretation."

 

Of course, we have to take careful note that this allowance from the Thakura

is specifically for intellectuals. Well, how do you know if you are an

intellectual? Don't worry. It doesn't seem to be too difficult a thing to

join the club. Consider again the self-proclaimed intellectuals on that

website I referred to earlier. From the stories some of these fellows tell

about themselves, it seems that to realize oneself an intellectual, one

needs only to abandon the order of one's guru (even if the guru is Srila

Prabhupada) and to go shopping for whatever "truths" can be gleaned from

different sadhus (and so-called sadhus) of different traditions, from

different texts--both scriptural and academic--and from different kinds of

speculation: rational, empirical, historical, academic, hypnagogic,

hallucinogenic, whatever floats your boat, man. Yeah, to be an intellectual,

main thing is you gotta be different (nasau muni yasya matam na bhinnam).

 

You know--you gotta be like the bhadraloka in Bhaktivinoda's time.

 

Ergo, the same bhadraloka Srila Bhaktivinoda was trying to save by writing

Sri Krsna-samhita, he wants devotees of the present time to become like. Yes

indeed, the Thakura wants you to be puffed-up from the vantage point of

material knowledge, and to look down from there upon the simple faith of the

ordinary "village devotees", those who don't have the vision and gumption to

be different. On pages 140-142 of Chapter 5, Shukavak describes an encounter

he had with a devotee, his own Godbrother I suppose, who was pained to hear

Shukavak's arguments. Shukavak classifies this devotee as a komala-sraddha,

a neophyte with tender faith.

 

Neat formula for becoming advanced, right? Say something outrageous in the

assembly of devotees: "Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura stated the Bhagavatam may

only be 1000 years old, not 5000 years as the Bhagavatam itself claims" or

"the Thakura adapted the Dasavataras to Darwin's theory of evolution" or

"modern science has disproved the Bhagavatam atomic theory" or "even though

Srila Prabhupada disapproved it, I have authorization from Bhaktivinoda

Thakura to speculate in these ways." Then when devotees react by questioning

"how I could make such a presentation" and by accusing you "of disturbing

the spiritual peace" (to cite two of Shukavak's own phrases from page 141),

you can prance and preen, glorying in the satisfaction of having proved

yourself more sophisticated than the rabble.

 

To be fair to Shukavak, he does say that there is paramartha

(transcendental) knowledge in the sastra that is not subject to human

revision. It's just the history and geography of the sastra that are

legitimate targets of rational scrutiny. But in an instant the mind come up

with problems that call into question where such a dividing line ought to be

drawn. Some people argue, for example, that the Krsna of the geographic

region of Vrndavana is a historically different person from the Krsna of the

geographic Mathura, and that the Krsna of Dvaraka is yet a third

personality.

 

If that is so, then is the Bhagavad-gita really a bona fide scripture, since

it was spoken by a different Krsna from Vrndavana Krsna?

 

Where does temporal knowledge (of history and geography) end and eternal

spiritual knowledge begin?

 

Oh, that we have to discuss. And that's why intellectuals are important--to

help us keep these discussions going ad infinitum.

 

That we take part in this discussions ad infinitum is, according to

Shukavak, the true test of our religious faith. In a footnote on page 149,

he writes:

 

The distinction between religious faith and belief can also be shown to

exist outside the religious field. In philosophy, for example, it is not

what a philosopher believes that makes him a philosopher, but rather the

individual's faith in philosophy, out of which the beliefs, the particular

philosophies, are produced and sustained. The same can be said about

science. A person is a scientist because of his faith in science, in the

spirit of science, and not because of his beliefs in the particular

theorems, which unquestionably come and go.

 

Ergo, a devotee is a devotee because of his abiding faith in the spirit of

bhakti, whatever outward form it may take from moment to moment. A devotee

is not a devotee because of his belief or participation in any particular

item or practice of bhakti. Such particularities unquestionably come and go.

 

"Gee Mom, that sounds like Mayavadi philosophy to me!"

 

"Hush, Junior, you're just a child. You can't understand these things!"

 

Shukavak's claim is that his model of what bhakti really is can be applied

in other fields. OK, let's see how it would work in household life. Husband

to wife: "Dear, I believe in marriage. Therefore I am a husband. It has

nothing to do with you in particular. You are my wife right now, true, but

tomorrow you could go. That wouldn't change my faith in the ongoing

institution of marriage." Wife to husband: "Well, if that's the way you

feel, then the ongoing institution of marriage can fix your dinner tonight."

 

Like, maybe the intellectuals will one day conclude from their discussions

that the Bhagavad-gita is a myth. OK, but if you are a real devotee you will

go on having faith in something Krsna taught, maybe not that particular

text, but whatever text the intellectuals deem valid at the moment.

 

This is supposed to be reasonable?

 

Actually, what Shukadeva writes about philosophers and scientists as being

faithful servants of the professional fields of philosophy and science can

quickly be shown to be garbage. That is especially seen to be so when the

revolutionaries of these fields are brought under consideration. Karl Marx

is certainly an influential philosopher. But as a revolutionary who broke

with the ongoing discussions of other philosophers, he famously asserted,

"Philosophers have tried to explain the world. The point is to change it."

Einstein, a revolutionary scientist, asserted, "I don't believe in

mathematics." Einstein was well-known for not much caring if his discoveries

were approved by the discussions of the scientific establishment. Until his

theory of relativity triumphed over classical physics, he was an outcaste.

 

Take careful note that Shukavak is arguing from his own personal bias, which

is that of the professional acadamician. Such fellows keep faith in the

professions of being philosophers, scientists and religious scholars because

that's how they earn their bread. Is it these fellows who make a difference

in history? Hardly.

 

It's the revolutionaries who break with plodding tradition that change

history. Of course, at this point I am only talking of famous philosophers

and scientists, people still in mundane consciousness. When we turn to

religion, we find the biggest revolutionaries are the transcendentalists.

Like Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Christ was certainly no professional religionist. He was not interested in

the ongoing discussions of the professional religionists of his time, the

scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem. One of the big issues of their

discussions was the coming of the awaited Messiah. At the time the scribes

and the Pharisees judged Jesus, he plainly and simply--without resorting to

historical and other rational justifications--declared himself the Messiah,

the word of God made flesh. For this he was voted by the intellectuals to be

crucified.

 

I'm not running down intellectuals here, i.e. people who are thoughtful. I

am a thoughtful person myself. But when intellectual people adopt a bias

like scepticism, empiricism or rationalism, and from that mundane standpoint

try to analyze the eternal truth, they become dangerous. More so when they

sit together on a panel of power and influence and cast votes. They really

do think that their collegial process of discussion and voting ensures

justice. But the world-shaking events in Jerusalem some 2000 years ago amply

demonstrated that a panel of bent-headed intellectuals is quite capable of

making a collossal error of judgement.

 

Christ had already walked upon water, fed the multitudes with only two

loaves, healed the sick with his touch, cast devils out of the insane, and

raised the dead. It was the most despicable kind of arrogance for the

scribes and Pharisees, who had no power to perform such wondrous feats (in

fact, being rationalists, they didn't even believe they could be done), to

judge Jesus under their petty rules of reasoning, historiography and other

such wooden concepts born of wooden heads and hearts.

 

Today's would-be Gaudiya intellectuals, who seek in Bhaktivinoda Thakura a

justification for their crucifixion of sastra on the cross of dead, wooden

reasoning, have no power to perform even a fraction of the wonderful service

to Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu that the Thakura did. Create a movement of pure

sankirtana that attracted the leaders of society? "Sorry, no can do." Write

dozens of books and hundreds of songs of pure devotion to Krsna? "Sorry, no

can do." Establish temples at important sites of the Lord's pastimes?

"Sorry, no can do." Raise a pure devotee son to carry on the mission of

Krsna consciousness to the whole world? "Sorry, no can do." Interpret

scripture in a novel way--"Yes! YES! That we can do!"--wait! in order to

usher jaded pseudo-intellectuals beyond their anti-religious prejudices to

the exclusive shelter of the lotus feet of Krsna?

 

"Well, the first part about interpreting scripture in a novel way sounded

good. Let's forget about the rest."

 

These fellows can't make a difference in the world. They are not

revolutionaries, they are simply timeclock-punching wage-earners. Yet want

to interpret sastra differently, as per their useless, impotent

speculations, as if that was revolutionary. Challenge them and they often

morph into the tragic persona of a persecuted saint. "Christ you know it

ain't easy," sang John Lennon about those who criticized his outrageous

behavior before the public eye, "you know how hard it can be. The way things

are goin', They're gonna crucify me!"

 

But I won't call these guys sudras. Prabhupada already did that:

 

The title Ph.D. can also be interpreted as Plough Department, a title

meant for the tillers in the paddy field. The attempt of the tillers in the

paddy field to understand the cosmic manifestation and the cause behind such

wonderful work can be compared to the endeavor of the frog in the well to

calculate the measurement of the Pacific Ocean.

 

[bhag. 3.6.10p]

 

SB 1.2.12

 

tac chraddadhana munayo jnana-vairagya-yuktaya

pasyanty atmani catmana bhaktya sruta-grhitaya

 

The seriously inquisitive student or sage, well equipped with knowledge

and detachment, realizes that Absolute Truth by rendering devotional service

in terms of what he has heard from the Vedanta-sruti.

 

-------------

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura:

 

Translation: The sages, or the chanters of the holy name

(kirtan-kari-gon), endowed with firm faith in the transcendental truth, who

have, by hearing from the scriptures, accumulated auspicious activities

(sukrti) and attained the knowledge of the relationships (sambandha), and

who are free from enjoying or renouncing the sense objects can, as a result

of their service, constantly see in their pure hearts this Absolute Truth in

the form of Paramatma.

 

Explanation: When the sages become fixed in bhakti in the form of faith

in the transcendental worship of the Lord, brought about by refraining from

studies of what is Brahman as well as renouncing the instant enjoyment of

the fruits of one's activities or, in other words, giving up everything

which is not connected with Krsna - which are concomitant factors of

devotion to the Lord -, and when they thus take to devotional service based

on hearing and reject any reasoning that is not supported by hearing, then

they can see both Paramatma and Brahman in the Supreme Personality of

Godhead.

 

Those who are without bhakti and follow the path of logic and reasoning,

cannot see Paramatma and Brahman in the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Because of their lack of bhakti they are lacking in knowledge and

renunciation and they have no faith. Therefore they are Mayavadis. Where

there is a lack of knowledge and renunciation, there is unsteadiness and no

faith in the service to the Supreme Person. The process of serving the

worshipable object is a path based on hearing. Situated on this path of

bhakti, the pure living entity knows himself to be a devotee of the Lord,

and he is constantly serving the Lord in his heart. The heart of a

nondevotee is just a ground downtrodden by the enjoyments of the external

world. The devotee's heart is a site of the eternal variegated pastimes of

Krsna in Vrndavana. The nondevotee's heart is full of thoughts about the

perishable or ever-changing external world. Since it is bound by the

enjoyment of sense objects or of perishable truths, there is no faith there

in one's own eternal form (svarupa) dedicated to serving the Lord. Karmis

and Mayavadis, being devoid of the knowledge of the Absolute Truth, are busy

with enjoying or renouncing; one can see many kinds of nondevotees attached

to sense enjoyment or giving it up. They are deprived of the eternal mellows

of exchanges between the servant and the served. These can be understood by

the disciple who has achieved the mercy of his spiritual master, a devotee

on the path based on hearing, engaged in chanting the holy name, whereas the

mundane nondevotees, bewildered by the false ego, will never understand

them.

 

[Translated by Punya-palaka Prabhu of ISKCON Prague]

 

Click on this web address. Be patient, it takes a little while to download.

 

http://www.bullguard.com/badkarma/

 

The contents of this web site must not be reproduced without prior

permission of the author.

2003-2004