Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga

by

I appreciate the contributions to this discussion made by the various members of this forum. It is not unexpected but still disappointing that the philosophical basis behind the issue of religion and its universal manifestation was not touched in any of the responses. The two-part post on "What is Religion" was intended to presents the rational basis in regard to this issue. Somehow that post received no replies or comments. Only when a name was put on that description of universal religion did it become a matter of controversy.

Reason is the process of thinking from premise to conclusion via logical necessity. Simply presenting opinions, whether popularly held ones, or uniquely personal ones is quite the opposite of the rational process.  The latter may be called argumentative thinking because it poses uncritical presumptions as conclusive in mere opposition to other similarly held presuppositions. On the other hand, rational discourse requires collectively analyzing the logical necessity in thinking from a premise to a conclusion. This is generally called 'proving' the validity of a statement.

Reason is what brings intelligent men (and women) together. In the Bible we find, “Come now let us reason together” (Isaiah 1.18). In Rig Veda (10, 191) it is similarly stated, "Give us reason to be together, speak together,..."  But the key is to recognize the difference between argumentative thinking - the immediate assertion of a premise as a conclusion, and the rational process involving an essential logical mediation between premise and conclusion.

The central philosophical issue is whether the universal must necessarily be an individual, i.e., whether the universal must necessarily be manifest in the world. If this can be verified or falsified then the controversy has been resolved. So let us take a careful look at this issue and also explain why it is so important.

First of all let us consider the idea that the universal should not be identified with any of its individual manifestations. In this view, all religions, etc. are partial truths of the eternal truth or sanatan dharma.  The only attribute such proponents are willing to give this eternal truth is that it is One. All other attributes or variegated determinations belong to the various manifestations only. This is actually the viewpoint of the monists, or followers of Shankaracharya. So it is hardly to be considered an impartial viewpoint when compared to other schools of thought (sampradayas) in India.

In other words, while claiming to be a non sectarian view, it is actually quite sectarian. This is the general problem with the idea that universals are mere abstractions from all other determinate manifestations. An abstract universal or Platonic universal (which Plato’s philosophy has wrongly been identified with) is supposed to belong only to the ideal world of thought that is completely distinct from the real world of sense. Thus one never meets up with an animal in the jungle.  One only comes in contact with tigers, lions, monkeys, etc. The animal as such does not exist.  Yet ‘animal’ is something that cannot be taken away from tiger, lion, monkey, etc. and still have them remain what they are. In other words, ‘animal’ is an essential substance that defines those creatures. This is closer to what Plato actually taught about universals.

The conclusion is that instead of being mere abstractions, universal are rather the actual substance of individuals. This unity of universal and individual is not only something that exists in the material world but is an eternal principle that is a determination of sanatan dharma itself.  Thus sanatan dharma has its own individuality even though it is universal. This individuality of the eternal truth is called Visnu or Krishna in vaisnava dharma.

If we insist that the eternal truth is One, and has no other determination, then how is it that the determinate variety of various religions arose from that which lacks all such determinations? How does determinate variety arise from indeterminate oneness? There is no possibility for an impulse to arise in One that could impel it to become many. This viewpoint therefore suffers many logical challenges. Still Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu harmonized this viewpoint with the vaisnava conception of truth by His principle of acintya-bhedâbheda-tattva, inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference. This allows for the oneness of truth in its many determinations. In other words, a sugar cube, for example, retains one identity as a sugar cube despite the fact that it has many qualities such as sweetness, whiteness, hardness, etc. In this way one and many coexist in all things. It is therefore not an impossible proposition to understand.

The principle of the unity of universal and individual is the foundation of the whole concept of incarnation that is so fundamental to Vedic culture, in which the universal divine truth appears as an Individual in this world.  In the Bhagavad-gita 4.9  Krsihna says, janma karma ca me divyam, evam yo vetti tattvatah; one who knows My birth and activities as transcendental (divyam) achieves liberation from the material conception of life.  This divyam or divinity is universal in nature, yet appearing in individual form. In this verse we find why it is so important to understand the principle involved. One who can realize the dialectical unity of universal and individual gains liberation from the duality of material existence.

Another important place where this principle is found is in the concept of Guru. Here Krishna announces, acharya mam vijani yat, “know that I am the acharya.” The universal manifests Himself through the acharya who in turn surrenders to the universal Lord to act as His transparent medium. In this way we can see that this principle plays a central role in much of Vedic culture.

The conclusion of all this is that the universal not only does exist but must exist in individual form. If we accept that sanatan dharma is universal religion, then we must ask in what individual form does it manifests itself. Only a monist would refuse to answer this question, or ignore it with, “Can’t we all just be nice to one another.”  This is a hard question to confront, and it is only by rational inquiry and understanding that progress can be made beyond the comfortable and non committal position of monism, which fails to recognize itself as a sectarian viewpoint. In other words, it does not solve the problem.

If Vaisnavism is indeed universal then it cannot be in conflict with any other faith because it must see itself in all other faiths since this is what it means to be universal. Any faith that claims to be universal must also embrace that same principle. This means that once a standard of universality is established then every religion can be measured accordingly. A standard does not exclude, it merely measures. Whatever meets the standard becomes equal to the standard, even though it is different from it. Rather than excluding or diminishing differences, a standard inspires excellence and unity without suppressing individual  difference.

Vaisnavism in practice has to live up to its own standards. A rational discussion of those standards is required before flippantly dismissing them without consideration simply on a sectarian basis. Unless there is a willingness to rise above subjective sectarianism and argumentative thinking, to the rational process that distinguishes civilized and scientific culture, then the problems of a multicultural global world will not be solved.

There are sound philosophical and theological principles in vaisnavism that have to be studied and understood, and that will bring sanatan dharma to the attention of the world religions. Knowledge of these principles is an absolute necessity in any discussion of religion. We expect such discussions in our planned journal to be rationally conducted by those who are educated in the philosophy and practice of religion. For those who are not so educated, we hope that the journal will serve to rectify that deficiency and/or inspire greater study in religion and philosophy.