Q & A Impersonalism vs Personalism

[vijay]

In Srila Prabhupada's purports, a few times he has commented upon the Mayavadi, or Impersonalists, in a way that to me sometimes seems very disparaging.

 

It¹s important to understand this within the context of Indian religious history, and not within the context of Western religious history. Here¹s the difference.

In India, we don¹t find a long history of bloody wars fought over religion. Indian religion has always tended to be inclusivistic, rather than exclusivistic. Thus the different ³religions² in Hindu culture tended to accept each other as valid but to view other schools as subordinate or preliminary to their own view.

Following this tradition, Srila Prabhupada often states that the impersonalists are ³bona fide transcendentalists² but that their impersonal understanding is subordinate or preliminary to Vaishnavism.

This is quite distinct from, say, declaring that impersonalism is simply false and evil. Robust theological debate flourished in India within a safe, multi-religious environment in which debate was not a precursor to war.

 

All this stands in marked contrast to the bloody fanaticism which often typified the European and Middle Eastern approach to religion. The early Chrisitian church developed the notion of ³true² and ³false² religions, ³living² and ³dead² gods etc. In time, this strident, fanatical view led to crusades, inquisitions, religious wars etc. This type of thinking, and the violence it fostered, never became prominent in India.

 

Today, much of the liberal, eclectic, ³all paths are the same² ethos in the West is a direct reaction to centuries of European and Middle Eastern fanaticism. Thus as in Newtonian physics, we have here an equal and opposite reaction which is far more tolerant, but equally fanatical in its own way.

 

In general, liberal thinkers in the West do not reason their way to the conclusion that all paths are equally valid. Rather they tend to hold their view more as an ethical principle than a philosophical conclusion, more as an antidote to fanaticism than a serious, logical description of ultimate reality. Coming from a tolerant, inclusivistic culture, Prabhupada does not feel the need to emphasize the relativity of spiritual views, but rather rigorously seeks the logical truth about God.

 

 

I understand the basics of the Impersonalist beliefs, and I know how Vaishnavism and Krishna consciousness are different from them. I, personally, prefer Vaishnava beliefs and bhakti yoga to worshiping a formless God. But I'm unsettled by anything that seems to be a value judgment against another religion.

 

A preference IS a value judgment. The problem here, apparently, is not making a value judgment but rather making it publicly. It is fair to say that both the personal and the impersonal aspects of God exist simultaneously. However it is not fair, or logical, to say that both the personal and the impersonal aspects of God are supreme simultaneously.

A soul who sincerely, earnestly seeks the highest truth has a ³right² to know what that ultimate truth is. If I actually know that God is ultimately a person, and I don¹t publicly say it, then I am consciously misleading or deceiving those persons who sincerely and unconditionally seek the highest truth.

 

If I prefer bhakti yoga and being lovingly devoted to Krishna but an Impersonalist prefers something different, then what's wrong with that?

 

It is not ³wrong², in a mundane moral sense to prefer the impersonal. In a sense every soul prefers whatever seems best to that soul. Prabhupada never teaches that impersonalists are evil souls, however he does give deep insights into metaphysical psychology.

If there is a personal God, and I am duly informed of this fact, and I choose to reject that personal God, it is not then ³wrong² for an enlightened spiritual teacher to analyze my motives in making that decision. After all, if there is a unique value in knowing

God¹s ultimate nature, then there must, logically, be a loss of value in not knowing that fact.

To avoid that monumental loss, Prabhupada, who actually has the ultimate good of all souls at heart, speaks the truth. We cannot a priori reject his words simply because he does not relativize all spiritual claims. After all, to relativize all spiritual claims is to negate all of them. Consider the following:

 

The personalists claim God is ultimately a person. The impersonalists claim the opposite. Now if you claim that personalism and impersonalism are the same, you are actually disagreeing with, and rejecting, the claims of both personalists and impersonalists.

So metaphysical egalitarianism is only apparently liberal and tolerant. Actually it resembles fanatical Christianity in that it ultimately rejects the claims of virtually all

historical religions through the act of relativizing and equating them.

 

 

I consider all these other approaches as very valid ways to understand God. I am attracted to Krishna very much now, and I am a very enthusiastic student of Krishna consciousness, and I think that approach is best for me, as it is for all the other Vaishnavas I know. But I don't think I can say what's best for anyone else. My nonjudgmental approach, I believe, helps me to be more skilled and compassionate in the psychotherapy I do with others. I hope to maintain that perspective.

 

As explained above, different paths make different claims. Many of these claims are valid, however validity and equality are very different concepts and should not be confused.

Krishna states in the Gita that He is the source of everything. This claim, logically, is either true or false. If it is true, then other valid views must be understood within the context of Krishna¹s statement. If Krishna¹s claim is not true, then even if we politely say that Krishna¹s claim is valid, it is still not true.

 

Similarly some Buddhists deny the existence of God. If their claim is true, Krishna¹s claim is false. If Krishna¹s claim is true, their claim is false. If we say both claims are true, we deny both paths, since both traditions reject the notion that both claims are true.

 

Buddhism certainly teaches much that is true in regard to human psychology and the temporary nature of the world. However the validity of this teaching does not validate the claim made by some historical forms of Buddhism that God and the soul do not exist.

 

The simple point here is that we should avoid both fanatical exclusivism as well as fanatical inclusivism. We should recognize the wisdom and validity present in many of the world¹s traditions, but at the same time we should have the courage and wisdom to seek, and speak, the highest truth without compromise.

 

With best wishes,

Hridayananda das Goswami

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

Very nicely put; thanks vijayji.

 

As far as i know this "all paths are one" is a new age drama only while philosophical debates were common (in india at least) till quite recently. Nowadays some people imagine such debates as foolish.

[Guest guest]

a point for discussion...

 

why does logic have to hold in spirituality? We are limited by our minds and what is true and false from a perspective might be more fuzzy from another prespective. We see this in maths all the time - although a mathmetician will never admit it.

 

An example - one can point out contridictions in scripture. If one argument is true, does it neceesaily make th other argument false by virtue of simplistic understanding?

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

 

why does logic have to hold in spirituality? We are limited by our minds and what is true and false from a perspective might be more fuzzy from another prespective.

 

 

 

Yes, but then a philosophy should clearly specify what can be understood by logic and what cannot be, else it is incomplete. Suppose one gives conclusions which can be shown to be self-contradictory or contrary to simple observation then they should be rejected.

 

 

An example - one can point out contridictions in scripture. If one argument is true, does it neceesaily make th other argument false by virtue of simplistic understanding?

 

 

 

This is quite a valid point. Should we not accept an understanding which harmoniously resolves the contradictions by making the meanings self-evident? Vaishnava philosophies accept a deductive process of understanding by accepting all the statements of the scriptures and not an inductive one.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

The saving grace.

[hoolie]

An excellent article Hridayananda das Goswami.......well said, your words were nectar to the ears...sectarianism is disgusting and has nothing to do with true Krishna consciousness.....absolutely loved your article! Jai Sri Radhe...may more and more Vaisnavs read your article and learn.