Is the Warkari sampradaya personalist or impersonalist?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, that is how it’s a conceptual tool.
And that’s how it’s not entirely false, but it’s certainly not entirely true. That’s how we understand the word Kalpita. So, you want to speak of Varkara Sampradaya, which is largely devotional.
Even people who may be associated with impersonalist organizations, they may also not be impersonalists themselves. See, there are, in India, in general, anybody who becomes spiritual, they think he, no, I. They think that is the rule of life, to merge into one. And they have not really thought of that very philosophically deep before.
That is just a general conception that is there. So, there are nominal impersonalists and there are hardcore impersonalists. Hardcore impersonalists are those who actually say that we have to go beyond the form of Krishna and this is the form of Krishna’s evolution.
But nominal impersonalists, this is the conception that they have acquired from the cultural upbringing that they have got, from whatever readings they have done here and there. It’s not that they have intellectually deliberated on personalism and impersonalism and come to the conclusion of impersonalism. So, Ramanuj’s commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is translated, there are many translations of it.
But one of the best translations is, I think, by Swami Atman Jivedanand or somebody like that. Now, he was a sannyasi in a Mayavadi organization, an impersonal organization. When the foreword is written, that although he belonged to the impersonal organization, throughout his life, he was practicing Vaishnavism.
Now, how he reconciled his Vaishnavism with the impersonalism that organization, we don’t know. But his commentary, what he says, it’s a good commentary, it’s a translation of Ramanuj’s commentary. It’s from the point of view of the accuracy of the translations, it is the best on whatever level.
Even Sri Vaishnavas recommend it. So, the point is that we can’t label people based on their institutional affiliation. Even when people are within an institution, they are individuals, I think.
And they have their own understandings. So, even among impersonalists, there are different degrees of impersonalists. Some may be very favorable to devotion also.
And they may almost have devotional understandings. And if they present themselves properly, they become devotees, proper devotees. Others, there may be some who are hostile also.
And we may have to keep a distance from them. So, it’s important that we not judge or label people or to speak of organizations. See, an organization may have some official ideology.
But it is not that every organization’s individual’s worldview is congruent to that organization’s ideology. Every individual is different. Even in this moment itself, if you ask what is Krishna Consciousness to each of you, if you are going to give a rote rapid definition, Krishna Consciousness is to remember Krishna constantly.
That’s what we may say. But if we are asked what is our understanding of Krishna Consciousness, we may all give different understandings. What does it mean to be Krishna Conscious? So, like that, we shouldn’t label people based on their institutional affiliations.
Each individual is different. And we have to see what is their understanding and present accordingly. Broadly speaking, even what we call the Valkari movement, it’s a very big and influential movement in Maharashtra especially.
And it has been shaped by a large tradition of states starting from Gyaneshwar. There were some before also. Gyaneshwar was the most prominent.
And down to Tukaram and there are other saints also. Now, some of them, they are impersonalists, some of them are impersonalists. And there has been some internal tension between them also.
So, for example, Tukaram Maharaj is in many places quite strongly condemning impersonalism. And there are many places that Gyaneshwar seems to be promoting impersonalism. But there is no direct point where Tukaram Maharaj is criticizing Gyaneshwar as far as I have seen.
He criticizes the ideology of impersonalism. So, now whether Gyaneshwar was actually speaking impersonalism or whether he was using such some words and phrases which had a different meaning at that time which have a different meaning now to us, we don’t know that. So, it’s difficult to, as I said again, we have a category of personalism and impersonalism.
But it’s very difficult to fit real life institutions in a neat intellectual manner. Just like in the border there will be a disputed territory. So, is this disputed territory in India or Pakistan? It’s difficult to say, be partially alive, partially dead.
So, in real life, even one saint’s writings, one saint’s writings may also thereby be something which is impersonalistic. Even Bhagavatam itself you read, there are some sections. At the end of the Ramayana, at the end of the Ramlila, the 9th Canto, it says, thus Lord Ram, after placing his feet in the hearts of his devotees, entered into the Brahma Jyoti.
Atma Jyoti Raga Naha. What is this? Ram went to Brahma Jyoti. Where are we going to do if we worship Ram? Now the problem here is that when Bhagavatam uses the word Atma Jyoti, what is it referring to? Words have, this is a little subtle subject.
But we have to understand that words have technical meanings and words have general meanings. So, for example, if a scientist is doing research in laboratory and he tells us, we have run out of energy. Probably what he means is maybe the battery is discharged or they have some power transformer or generator which is run out of power.
Then he comes back home and he tells his wife, I have run out of energy now. He is not using it, there is no battery inside and he is saying, I am exhausted. So, here the word energy is used in a non-technical sense.
So, it’s just that the same word energy can be used in a technical sense in some place and non-technical sense in some place by the same person. Similarly, the word Brahma Jyoti or Brahman or Atma or what is the word for superimposition? Aarog or not Aarog? Anyway, there is a concept of superimposition within the impersonal and impersonalism. That material illusion has been superimposed on Brahman.
So, there are conceptions that are there. But what they mean in particular contexts is very difficult to see. So, the Bhagavatam if you see, the Bhagavatam is not a philosophical analysis over there.
It is just narrating a pastime. And then it is not that every reference to the Jyoti has an ascribed record of Brahma Jyoti. It is just reference to the material world is Tamasoma Jyotirgama.
Now Tamasoma Jyotirgama is a famous Upanishadic aphorism. It simply means go from darkness to light. It doesn’t necessarily go from the material world to Brahma Jyoti and merge in Brahma Jyoti.
There the word Jyoti is used in general sense without using a technical sense to refer to Brahma Jyoti. So, like that there are words which can be used in a general sense and we may assume that they are referring to a technical sense. And we can get confused.
So, in general it is good, it is safe, it is sensitive to not judge or label people in a very generic sense. Try to understand what their philosophy is. And even when Prabhupada was a trained devotee is that if somebody would ask what do you think of this? Prabhupada would ask what is their philosophy? What is their philosophy? Now, one reason for asking this question is even if somebody says that okay what do you think about Swaraj’s spiritual teacher? Now, what is their philosophy when we ask this question? We are not just differentiating that person from their philosophy.
We are also differentiating that person from this questioner’s understanding of his philosophy. There are three different things. That person, his philosophy and this questioner’s understanding of his philosophy.
So, sometimes we may counter the philosophy and then this person is impersonalist. It’s like we are shooting on target at the wrong target. So, here is the person, here is the person’s philosophy and here is this questioner’s understanding of his philosophy.
So, for example, there is a famous impersonalist teacher. Now, everybody in India who is a spiritualist, they have heard of this teacher. But most of the things that they have heard about him is, you know, he went to Chicago and he gave a talk and he said bye brothers and sisters and everybody clapped hands.
And he has a very impressive looking pose and maybe some isolated quotes here and there. And that is all people know about him. And if we come back heavy, he was impersonalist.
I didn’t even know he was impersonalist. So, what happens is, when people, certain beliefs, whether it be of certain spiritual teachers or whether it be of certain organizations, people have sentiments associated with them. And if we criticize them, we may be actually also wrong.
Because as I said, we cannot put a particular organization or individual’s philosophy down neatly in any map, intellectual map. So, we would be wrong itself and even if we are not wrong, when it comes to specific names, people have sentiments associated with them. And when we alienate, when we hurt their sentiments, then their intellect closes down.
And afterwards, whatever we say, it doesn’t make sense to them. Because they just, they are not rational like that. They have become emotional.
So, in general, it’s good not to make specific statements about any particular organization or individual unless we have a proper background in which we understand this. Like I answered what Ambedkar just now. So, I gave a whole background about where he was coming from, how he formed his beliefs and what the whole social context was.
So, without that, just making a judgment, single statement, that’s a Mayavadi organization. It can be very alienating for people. So, best to avoid direct labeling of anyone, any organization or any individual belonging to a particular organization.
Second is, even when it comes to the philosophy, we may refute their philosophy, a particular philosophy. But that may not be that person’s understanding of that philosophy. That person, for example, may be attracted to a particular organization simply because that organization practices some kind of ethic construct.
Somebody likes Goseva. And there is some impersonalist organization that has been Goseva-adviced. And this person is attracted to that organization primarily because of Goseva.
Now, if you condemn that organization for its impersonalism, that impersonalism is never an attractive point for that person. So, we are not hitting the target only. So, if that person is attracted to Goseva, present how Krishna Consciousness Movement is also doing Goseva.
And then explain how Krishna Consciousness Movement reflects the Vedic Siddhant more precisely. So, that way, we can see what is it, rather than saying, oh, this person belongs to this organization. Understand that he is an individual.
And find out what is it that attracts this individual to his organization. And then explain how that same need or that same interest can be addressed only in Krishna Consciousness Movement. And it does not mean that a person will shift immediately to Krishna Consciousness.
But it means that a person will start developing an appreciation for Krishna Consciousness. And gradually from that appreciation, we can bring them closer and closer till they come to Krishna. It’s like, if you consider two mountains, Krishna Consciousness Movement, mountain of Krishna Consciousness Wisdom, this person has some other mountain, some other ideas he has got.
So, now we want to attract them. First thing we need to do is build a bridge. Build a bridge, that bridge building means helping them appreciate Krishna Consciousness.
And then as we start exploring, we start walking across the bridge. And when they have walked across this side of the bridge, when they have developed faith in the authorities in Krishna Consciousness Movement, at least some level, then we can break the bridge. That means we can counter their misconceptions, whatever they might be.
But if even before they start walking across the bridge, we break the bridge only. Then they are going to stay there forever. Isn’t it? Worst is, after they have walked halfway across the bridge, we break the bridge.
Somebody is worshipping Ganesh and then that person started appreciating Krishna. Ganesh is not God, Krishna is God. No, but this Puran says this, that Puran says this.
And person gets confused and says, this is very confusing. Let me become an atheist. And we did not do any service.
Person had some level of, then Devata Puja he was doing. He gave that up because of the confusion. So we have to be, we have to focus at least in initial stages on building bridges.
And our communication, our philosophy, our presentation of our message and our statements about their message, about whatever they are believing or practicing right now, they all should focus on bridge building. And after the bridge is being built, in due course, there can be the clarification of misconceptions. But that will come much later.
Does that answer your question? Thank you. We’ll continue.