By Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur
Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur (1874 – 1937) is a renowned spiritual master in the lineage of the Chaitanya Vaishnava school of Bengal. Known for his erudite scholarship, he wrote and published many books in Bengali, Sanskrit and English which conclusively presented to the world the teachings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He traveled to many parts of India delivering lectures on Vedanta and the science of devotion, and established 64 temples. He is also one of the greatest revivalists of the Vedanta tradition in early 20th century India, pioneering the synthesis of science and technology with ancient Vedic wisdom.
RELATIVE WORLDS
Excerpts of a lecture given on 28 August 1932
Summary: Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur argues that our negative experiences with the phenomenal material world have led some philosophers to conclude that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, formless and without qualities. This mutilates the non-material, spiritual limbs of the Absolute Truth. This mistaken conclusion is derived out of our experience with non-sentient things, which we then project on the Absolute. Therefore, this methodology of understanding the Absolute Truth is contaminated by the philosopher’s biases. He also argues that our material senses are inadequate to perceive the Absolute Truth. Rather, the Absolute Truth being transcendent to the mundane, could only be perceived through a process of humble enquiry.
My friends,
With profound respect I come to offer a few words on relativity and the Absolute, which may prove to be conflicting with each other at first sight. But the harmony wanted by both of them should be secured to reach the unique position of the Truth who has no deviation. The negative idea of our present day experience, through inadequate senses on the temporal plane, does not include the full description of the Absolute Truth, in whom some other phases cannot have lien to co-share. The synthetic method[i] need not be confused with the analytic process; neither the darkness should be accepted as light to explain our observing stand.
The activities of our present senses over phenomenal representations have impressed us with a particular designation which should in no case be ascribed to the manifested region of the Absolute, where our deformed senses and their objects should not be thrust with equal vehemence as we are apt to apply in our present sphere. The transcendental specification does not submit to any limited sense of an enjoyer, but the cogent energy of transcendence always exhibits a supernatural predominating and justifying aspect, to regulate the shortsighted views entertained in the temporal region. A close attention will, I am sure, convince every recipient if he is amenable to see things from different positions; so I take the liberty of asking everybody not to submit to the current views of many bearing an enjoying mood. A real enquiry, with submission for utilising the same, will ensure the safety of Truth. In cases of non-absolute subjects, an opposing party can have full claim to contradict or challenge, whereas in the Absolute no such second part is possible.
Among the considerate who were watching the career of the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya,[ii] on His return to Nadia from Gaya, the people of Sri Mayapur noticed His marked deviation from the former character of the Lord. They observed Him to discourage the impersonalism of the ascetic Prakasananda, who was alleged to have been inculcating an unassorted epistemology which went to show the dragging of the conception of the Absolute to a region devoid of manifestive sentiency.[iii] So the Supreme Lord compared the ascetic’s ways and methods to those of a villain wanting to sever asunder the all-charming eternal limbs of the personality of Godhead.
The discouraging tone and positive nullification of the theory of the ascetic from the lips of the fountainhead of the theistic thesaurus (Sri Caitanya) brought a revolutionary effect on the pedantic mentality of the members of the then centre of learning. These discouraging remarks of the Supreme Lord caused them to hold a poorer conception of the Lord, whom they found to have been belittling the mental acme of pedantic insinuation. The pedagogic function of Lord Visvambhar (Sri Chaitanya) was changed into that of a platform speaker, to the world teacher closely demonstrating His instructions in practice. This simple and illustrated version gave a clear understanding to those who had a scope of honest reading of the absolute eternal blissful knowledge. They understood that it was a part and parcel of blasphemy to do away with the different parts of the transcendental structural entity of the Fountainhead, who is instrumental, ablative, and locative of all immanence, transcendence, and phenomena.
The disclaiming of the spiritual aspect of the Absolute had done a great mischief in the cosmological enterprise of tracing the genesis of phenomenal existence. The sensuous speculation of the phenomena made them confident of their advancement in the search of knowledge in their alleged thesaurus. The impersonalists have found facilities to explain by a suicidal commission the amalgamating of the three manifestive positions. The relativity observed amongst sentient and insentient phenomenal things shows qualitative difference among them; whereas among the sentients the distinctions are traced by the rhetoricians in five different connections. The esoteric interpretations of sentiency by impersonalists are more or less associated with the insentient, as their conceptions are drawn from the mundane concrete. So they cannot be strictly relied upon as being free from the contamination of a foreign opposite element. The quantitative as well as qualitative features have participated a good deal in the discourse on the relativity of knowledge.
The Supreme Lord Caitanya, during His association with the members of theistic society, planned an idea of proceeding to the den of impersonalists at Benares, where He could meet all who had proselytised themselves as subscribing to the erroneous views insisted by Prakasananda, at that time the head of the so-called monistic community. In order to do so, He also thought that He should pose as an ascetic of their order, who could influence the members of that pedantic society, despite their hollow arrogance.
The fourth order of life (sannyasa or monkhood) was considered as the civic guardian of society. The Lord wanted to show Himself as an ascetic to attract the attention of all, instead of being received as one of them or less, in their comparative vision. Though the Supreme Lord underwent the different stages of life, He exhibited the highest position of the fourth order, by not adhering to the rigorous regulations and privations, and by not abstaining from dancing, singing, and playing with musical instruments, which are essential relativities of the transcendence.
Perplexing Questions
When there was a quest to know the true position of relativity, the renunciating attitude of the monist was exposed by the instructive reply of the unlimited Thesaurus. The delineation by full knowledge of the scope of non-cooperation with mundane relativity, gave us the occasion to survey the true manifestive plane of transcendence, apart from the impression of degraded mundane sty, though the indolent mentality posed its stuporous standpoint of getting rid of relative blissful knowledge.
There is a qualitative relational difference between the transcendence and phenomena, so relativity cannot be ignored. If such temper is maintained of establishing the undifferenced and non-distinctive Unit, the rationalist school would not set much value to their posit. The undesirable imperfection observed in the temporal relativity of nature should not be carried to an unknown region where there is no such anthropomorphic, ephemeral, defective welcoming. The weight of such measuring temperament, and to ascribe the same shortcomings in the transcendence, would prove too heavy to be carried by the feeble porter with mundane relative reasons. Moreover, there is no warranty of exact dovetailing in the transcendental vacuum.
Our imperfect knowledge is now captivated within the mundane horizon, and we earnestly crave a release from the prison-walls of unwholesome relativity. That experience will necessarily lead us to conclude the desirability of non-cooperation with finitudinal relativity. But when infinite relativity is talked of, we should not ascribe any defects of finitudinal reference as per our experience here. To curtail the extension of mundane relativity we may proceed to immanence by minimising our sensuous activities, which are the measuring instruments to dispel our ignorance, by removing the opaque barrier. If we trace out the cause of renouncing mundane relativity, we will prefer non-relative hallucination to give us the facility of vanishing such function. The measuring instruments or, in other words, senses, require to be stopped artificially to remove our inspection of temporal or phenomenal existence. But this would not preclude us to remove transcendental irremovable eternal existence from our inspection.
The Supreme Lord did not confirm the impersonal phase of the Fountainhead of nature and eternal supernature, but targeted a long track which we should adopt in our sojourn in this temporal world, as well as in proceeding to the transcendence. He did not prescribe the short-sighted policy of non-cooperation with perishable limited things of this world, but instructed to utilise them in the proper direction to get our desired end.
Our reliance on petty reasonings of mundane relativity would show a stuporous temperament to receive the Transcendental Truth unexplored hitherto by our defective aural reception but a lucky moment would give us an accidental opportunity for paying a little more attention to the remedy volunteered to serve as the greatest relishing sauce for a thirsty soul.
Too much attachment for any limited thing will deny us the facility of extensional gains, though the policy of concentration is talked of very highly for our amelioration. Too much affinity for a thing has produced marvellous results in a research scholar, whose object is to bring out hidden knowledge inherent in the outward object. The question of time has set up the function of acquired durability, thereby resembling the existence of an ephemera. As the research scholar, or the lover of a transitory object, is observed to be shifted elsewhere from the object of his quest, and as the object has a temporary existence with the susceptibility of transformation, such exertions are meant to be analogous to time-serving exploits.
The question of inadequacy, and the quantity of exuberance, will also prove the non-desirability of such temporary fruitive acts. In the emporium of phenomena, our senses are found to engage themselves with all earnestness. When the senses are gratified from the ample service of their need, the satiative sequel does not later on suit their purpose.
The problem comes to be solved, “Where to keep those objects of the senses if we require any relief from their exploiting invasions? Are we to stop the actuating of our senses, or destroy the objects of our senses by devising some means?”
The Answers Revealed
The enjoyer of the objects, as well as the enjoyed objects, are both situated in a tentative position of time. As the provisional existence and activities are captivated in a part of time, these discrepancies should be redressed to have a proper solution of these puzzling questions. We deal with shaky non-absolute things. So we should have an inner desire to know the direction of the Absolute. We have had an irrepressible function of handling the phenomena by our senses, and also the objects of manipulation of the senses are found to be transformable. Because we are compelled to select our position at a place where there is no trouble, we therefore seek for deserting ourselves from all limited platforms.
Association with the phenomenal objects has given vent to disruption, so dissociation is picked up as a remedy. How to handle this function should be the next question. By dissociation we mean to get rid of the relativity of knowledge, i.e. to sacrifice our cognitive principle, as is inculcated by a certain school. Maximisation of knowledge might swallow up the two different positions of observed and observer, and will proselytise to singular observation. In that case the uninterrupted knowledge cannot fly rationally without the two wings of eternity and bliss, although this seems to be secured by laboured dissociation of manifestation.
When we ascertain that non-cooperation will give us what we have sought, do we mean to make ourselves abstain from all necessities of life, in order to gain perfect dissociation from the imperfected objects? The answer will be, “No”. We need not put a stop to receiving the necessities of life, but we accept those functional activities necessary for our definite purpose. We will welcome the manifestive aspect and finite inadequate things to serve as ingredients facilitating the eternal blissful knowledge, without any reference to our dislocated enjoying mood. If they form to be of any use to the Absolute, the temporal and faulty phases are indirectly removed from the conception of such things. So we need not have any apprehension as to their unsuitability and will discern the immaculated aspect of those things, which otherwise prove snares to us if they are monopolised for our impure purpose.
The insipid situation of an impersonal conception need not predominate over us as a settled fact. At the removal of our enjoying aspiration in connection with our temporal entities, we would naturally associate such things as elements incorporated with the Absolute.
Then comes the question, “What are the salient features of the Absolute and what should be the nomenclature of the Absolute?” The Absolute is evidently to welcome all sorts of manifestive nature, instead of lurking Himself as the unknown in a region beyond our sensuous scope. Our sensuous activities are hitherto confined in the non-Absolute, and when we care most for the immutable situation of the Absolute, no mutability should dissuade us from our targeted object. If we can clear our position from serving transformable objects, and when we have only singular motive of serving the immutable Absolute, we must trace the connection of all manifestive things within Him. This will give us the much coveted situation of continuing our living activities in His service in this world too, without an undesirable attitude of enjoying the same.
The burden of enjoyment is now shifted to the Absolute, and we, being His irregular subservients, help Him in serving by these ingredients, which are His imperishables, though they were acknowledged by us to have been meant for our use. So the greatest facility is accorded by our serving temper, in place of our wrong enjoying mood which proves fruitless in the long run.
Dissociation from undesirable things, when we have a view of the eternal blissful knowledge, will be exactly dovetailed if we can trace out their connection with the Absolute, having no bearing of co-sharing with them, but simply to welcome them with a consideration that they have only eternal association.
We meet men who cherish the view of dissociating themselves from all manifestive features of phenomena in their would-be emancipation, and who want to deprive them of their utility in order to gain the full scope of impersonalisation. They are found to non-cooperate with the earthly phenomena under the apprehension of having been entangled with such association. As they have no knowledge of their self, or have misguided conception of self—like a cow mistaking under an old apprehension the red clouds as flames of burning fire—they want to flee from the very nature of the transitory perspective aspects of the phenomena.
A failure of true detection compels them to exhibit their diffidence of accepting the wholesale manifestive nature of even transcendence. They want to carry their defective impression to transcendence, considering the transcendental region to be identical with the prison of mundane phenomena. So it should be a matter of grave consideration whether to show our back to all aspects, by turning ourselves to follow the undifferentiated monistic phase of the Absolute.
The view of transcendental subjectivity in our present activity is more or less misunderstood. So to get relief from such erroneous impression we must not neglect to utilise everything, as far as possible, for the service of the Absolute; and must not participate in the views of the miscarried decision of the impersonalists. If we do not do so, we will class ourselves among the imprudent.
Four years after His meeting with Ray Ramananda, in the early part of 1516, the Supreme Lord as an ascetic met Sanatan Goswami for the second time. The latter asked his Master to enlighten him regarding his own self and the threefold troubles he has to meet during his journey of life. The Lord taught him that human souls are eternal karsnas: they have originated from the borderland energy of Absolute, Sri Krishna, with the neighbouring dominions of phenomena and transcendence on two sides.
The subservient souls, being simultaneously associated with and dissociated from the Absolute, are themselves no positive substratum, but merely distinguished from the Absolute by their quantitative designation of energy. Forgetful of their true situation, they are susceptible to isolate themselves by enwrapping with foreign quality from the Absolute, whereas they have the same quality as the Absolute, with a magnitudinal variegated position.
This very transcendental Absolute Truth has disclosed the two-fold aspects of relativity, reigning in the temporal mundane sphere, as well as in the transcendental eternal plane. So the question of relativity is to be treated in these two aspects independently, without subscribing to opinions of impersonalists who have no other treasure to explain away the phenomena in the derogatory situation.
Endnotes
[i] According to logic, the synthetic method refers to the method of having truth determinable by recourse to experience.
[ii] According to Gaudiya Vaishnava theology, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabu (1486-1534) is the incarnation of Lord Krishna. He propagated the devotional practice of singing the names of Krishna as the prime method of self-realization in this age. He is also known for being the chief proponent of the Vedanta philosophy of acintya bheda-abheda tattva (inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference).
[iii] Impersonalism here refers to the concept that the Absolute Truth is formless and without personhood.