Yulia
Fil, Nikolay Karpitsky
Bhaktivinoda
Thakur in modern rational criticism of traditional beliefs
Translated by V. Bozhkova
The
article deals with the relationship between faith and rational knowledge in
modern Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It is shown that the position of modern Vaishnavas
regarding revelation and critical knowledge is defined in the books of the
reformer of Gaudiya Vaishnavism Bhaktivinoda Thakur. The positions of modern
teachers of Gaudiya Vaishnavism – Bhaktivendanta Sadhu Swami and Dandi Maharaja
are explained, the importance of their position for the development of
interreligious dialogue in modern conditions is shown. The points of contact
between Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Christianity in matters of understanding time,
eternity, revelation and rational cognition are shown.
Keywords: Gaudiya Vaishnavism; revelation; faith; rational knowledge;
interreligious dialogue; time; eternity; Bhaktivinoda Thakur; Śrīmad Bhāgavatam;
Christianity.
Introduction
The mythological picture of
the world of the ancient Indian epic Mahabharata and Puranas determines the
national and cultural identity of the majority of the population of modern India.
At the same time, Western science is developing successfully in India, which has
a variety of cultural ties with other countries. Under these conditions, the
Hindus faced a rational criticism of their worldview. This raised the question:
to what extent is it permissible to deviate from tradition, critically rethink the
spiritual knowledge, and change the rules of life? In India, there are both conservatives
and reformers who give different answers. However, for the first time, this
question was not faced by the Hindus now, but in the British colonial era.
The 19th century was the time of
British colonial rule in India, when Indian traditional society faced the
challenge of European culture. This challenge has given rise to various reform movements
designed to assert their own identity in the face of European cultural influence.
Among the outstanding Indian reformers of the time, Bhaktivinoda Thakur (1838–1914)
can be mentioned. First, because it was grateful to him that, after a period of
decline, a new revival of the Gaudiya Vaishnavism tradition, one of the most influential
movements of modern India, began to spread beyond its borders. And, secondly,
because in the new paradigm of the relationship between faith and critical
thinking, he showed how, taking into account the modern view of the world, it is
necessary to follow the traditional ideas about the world and the principles of
life. This is also important because new movements have begun to emerge in Gaudiya
Vaishnavism, which attract adherents in different countries of the world, and
Vaishnavas of non-Indian origin need to understand and justify the need for their
transition to the spiritual tradition of a distant country.
The
relationship between faith and critical thinking in the new paradigm of
Bhaktivinoda Thakur
In the medieval era, the Vedic
tradition was perceived as the basis of the worldview, giving ready-made
answers to any questions about the life of Hindu. Getting to know European
culture during the colonial era changed the way we look at the world. India was
previously perceived not as a separate country, but as a whole world. During
the colonial period, the people of India found that they lived in a much larger
world, and they needed to find their place in it again. This gave rise to new
questions about their own identity, about the traditional social way of life
and everyday life. It was necessary to determine their attitude to Western
science and technology, to participate in political life, to the caste system,
to travel outside India, to early marriage, to increase the role of women in society,
etc. In this situation, the main challenge for the Hindus was the European type
of rationality, which called into question the traditional Indian picture of
the world.
Although logic and philosophy have
a rich tradition in India, however, the peculiarity of Indian rationality was that
it did not conflict with mythological thinking, but complemented it. Therefore,
before the arrival of Europeans in India, there was not even such a thing as "prejudice".
In European rationality, there is a division of knowledge into what is proved by
rational methods and into prejudices, to which the British attributed all the traditional
ideas of the Hindus. It was impossible to ignore the European rationality, it penetrated
into the Indian public consciousness along with European education, science and
technology. In this regard, the Indian reform movements set out to justify their
own religious tradition, but already cleansed of prejudice. In a situation of
facing the European rationality, it was important to reaffirm traditional
Indian beliefs, and this task was solved by Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
The religious tradition of
Gaudiya Vaishnavism, also called Bengali Vaishnavism or Chaitanya Vaishnavism,
was founded by the Indian spiritual master Chaitanya (1486–1534), who is revered
as the incarnation in one person of Krishna and his eternal beloved Radharani.
Krishna is considered the supreme divine personality and the source of all
existence. The main spiritual practice of Gaudiya Vaishnavism adherents is
bhakti yoga, and the main spiritual method is the chanting of the Hare Krishna
mantra. The Gaudiya Vaishnavism tradition is based on the authority of the Vedas,
but the most important books that adepts study daily are the Bhagavad-gita and
Srimad-Bhagavatam. In the XVIII–XIX centuries, the tradition was in decline,
but at the turn of the XIX–XX centuries, it was revived again thanks to the preaching
of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, who wrote books not only in Sanskrit and Bengali, but
also in English, initiating the spread of the teachings of Chaitanya outside of
India. Bhaktivinoda Thakura's work was continued by his son, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati
(1874–1937), who founded the Gaudiya Math missionary organization to spread
Gaudiya Vaishnavism. After his death, the Gaudiya Math was divided into several
maths – independent religious associations. In 1941, Sridhara Goswami founded the
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, which later spread throughout the world. A quarter
of a century later, in 1966, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (1896–1977) founded
the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in New York,
which, continuing the tradition of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Bhaktisiddhanta
Saraswati has become the largest Hindu society outside of India.
These movements are very close
to each other, and they have a common task – to open the way to Vedic knowledge
and Vedic traditions not only to Indians, but also to representatives of other people.
The preaching of Hinduism outside of India was a completely new phenomenon and
faced a question: how to convince a person in the truth of the Hindu picture of
the world, which in his culture are perceived as prejudices that have no
rational justification?
Vaishnava missionaries who spread
the Mahabharata-era world view in Western countries can no longer simply ignore
modern scientific knowledge. Bhaktivinoda Thakur, having shown how one can consciously
choose spiritual knowledge based on the authority of the scriptures, taking into
account the rational criticism of modern science, formed the paradigm of the relationship
between faith and critical knowledge, in which modern spiritual teachers of
Gaudiya Vaishnavism preach.
Modern
Gaudiya Vaishnavas
The highest spiritual rank in
Vaishnavism is sannyas, which is accepted only by a few, but now it has become
accepted by philosophically educated intellectuals who are able to conduct
scientific and interreligious dialogue. Among them are Sadhu Maharaja
(Bhaktivedanta Sadhu Swami), an authoritative spiritual mentor at ISKCON, who
proposed a philosophical method of asymmetric dialectics for understanding the
Vedic tradition, and Dandi Maharaja, a spiritual teacher at Sri Chaitanya
Saraswat Math.
In 2011, Sadhu Maharaja
initiated an interfaith round table in Tomsk, which was attended not only by representatives
of other faiths, but also by academic scientists, specialists in philosophy,
history and sociology. The method of "asymmetric dialectics", which
determines the relationship of knowledge on the authority of the scriptures and
on the basis of logic and practical experience, allowed the Sadhu Maharaja to
use rational arguments to explain to his interlocutors a position based on
non-rational knowledge of revelation, which in the Vedic tradition is passed
down through the line of succession from teacher to student.
Sadhu Maharaja’s method of asymmetric
dialectics proved to be the most adequate to the task that Bhaktivinoda Thakur
was solving – to meet the challenges of modernity, while maintaining a firm
commitment to tradition, and at the same time not to fall into either dogmatism
or formalism. An example of the solution of this problem is the attitude of
Bhaktivinoda Thakur to varnasrama – the rules that determine the duties of the
varna estates. "According to the holy scriptures, a person has the right
to engage in only those activities that correspond to his varna" (Bhaktivinoda
Thakur, 2004. P. 131), but should modern society live according to these rules?
Currently, India is the largest democracy in the world, in which equality is legally
enshrined, but the caste division that has developed on the basis of varna
still affects the position of a person in society.
On the one hand, Bhaktivinoda
Thakur argued that "a country where there is no varnasrama-dharma can not be
considered civilized" (Bhaktivinoda Thakur, 2004. P. 106). India was
prosperous in the era when varnasrama existed in its original form. The decline
of India is associated with the decline of the varnasrama system. Moreover, in
his opinion, no society can exist without division into varnas: "Whatever European
culture we take as an example, upon closer examination it becomes clear that its
achievements are due to the system of estates that takes into account the
natural qualities of a person" (Bhaktivinoda Thakur, 2004. P. 128). Thus,
Bhaktivinoda Thakur not only accepts varnasrama on the basis of the authority
of the scriptures, but also evaluates it in the broader context of the
experience of European culture, and already with this in mind defends his
position: "It may be argued that there is no need for the varna system,
since Europeans have achieved success in many areas and have earned the respect
of other peoples even without it. However, such objections are groundless. It should
be noted that European culture has emerged relatively recently. Brave and energetic
Europeans took advantage of the knowledge already existing at that time in the
field of science and art. But sooner or later their countries will fall into decline
due to the lack of a scientifically based system of social structure"
(Bhaktivinoda Thakur, 2004. P. 127).
On the other hand,
Bhaktivinoda Thakur understood that formal adherence to the rules is
meaningless, they need to be adjusted in accordance with the conditions and
opportunities of modern life. He argues that a person's Varna is not always
determined by his birth. Varnasrama-dharma itself is only a stage on the path
of bhakti, the highest religious love, and without bhakti it has no value. "Thanks
to the purifying power of bhakti, the line between sudra and brahman is blurred.
A sudra who has attained enlightenment through the service of God and the
devotees rises to the same level as a sinless brahmana" (Bhaktivinoda
Thakur, 2004. P. 19).
Thus, by the example of the attitude
to varnasrama, Bhaktivinoda Thakur, first, demonstrated how to relate
unchanging principles to changing conditions of life, and, secondly, gave the
basis for choosing the authority of the tradition, taking into account its understanding
in a broader cultural context. His example is followed by modern Vaishnavas
outside of India, who received European education and upbringing.
Modern adherents of Gaudiya
Vaishnavism in the post-Soviet space perceive their tradition as integral and self-sufficient,
not needing any additional justification in Western culture. But they also cannot
completely ignore the rational criticism and scientific knowledge that they use
in practice. The situation resembles that of the early Christians in the ancient
world. Among Christian apologists, two tendencies emerged: some opposed faith to
knowledge, Christian revelation to ancient culture, while others, on the
contrary, sought agreement between faith and reason, using ancient philosophy
to explain the Christian faith. Similarly, among modern Vaishnavas, there are those
who believe that all rational knowledge that is not derived from the scriptures
is useless. But there are also those who believe that it is necessary to strive
for mutual understanding in interreligious and intercultural dialogue, taking into
account modern knowledge and rational methods of cognition.
Vaishnava-Christian
Dialogue on Revelation and Rational Knowledge
The interreligious dialogue in
Tomsk initiated by Sadhu Maharaja has transformed into a full-fledged scientific
cooperation between Vaishnavas and representatives of the scientific community,
perhaps also because Tomsk is a university city, and many Vaishnavas themselves
are graduates of Tomsk universities. One of the organizers of the Tomsk interreligious
dialogue, professor of philosophy N. N. Karpitsky, initiated a Christian-Vaishnava
discussion on revelation and rational knowledge in the fall of 2020. He noted that
the academic approach implies a critical attitude to the scriptures, the authority
of which is absolute for Vaishnavas, and this imposes restrictions on cooperation
between secular and Vaishnava researchers of the Vedic tradition. To reach a
new level of mutual understanding and cooperation, we need "our own
philosophy of the ISKCON tradition with its own system of concepts, methods and
principles of critical thinking, which would not only allow other people to have
meaningful discussions with Vaishnavas and adequately understand the Vaishnava
tradition, but also to rethink it not as something imported from outside, but
as an integral part of the multifaceted culture of their own country. The first
such purely philosophical book in Russian in the ISKCON tradition was The Code of
the Absolute by Bhaktivedanta Sadhu Swami, published in 2012*. It is possible
to discuss these or other ideas of the book, but the author has proposed a
language and a method of asymmetric dialectics, thanks to which such a
discussion becomes generally possible"**.
_______________________
* Bhaktivedanta Sadhu Swami.
The Code of the Absolute: The path to perfect reason. Moscow: Philosophical
Book, 2012. 256 p.
** Christian-Vaishnava
dialogue "Revelation and Rational Knowledge": based on the materials
of discussions on the Internet, comp. Pavel Urvantsev // Portal of interreligious
dialogue "Dialogi. Online". December 10, 2020. URL: https://dialogi.online/hristiansko-vajshnavskij-dialog-otkrovenie-i-racionalnoe-znanie/
_______________________
However, many Vaishnavas would
disagree with this position, believing that rational knowledge is useless when there
is faith. In this regard, one of the participants of the discussion, Kala Chandra
Das (Moscow), criticized this judgment of N. N. Karpitsky: "The main thing
for bhakti is faith (shraddha), while intellectuals measure everything by logic.
This is the difference of approaches. Logic is powerless in obtaining a transcendental
experience, which can only be obtained through proper communication with truly exalted
Vaishnavas" (Ibid.). However, if we recognize the uselessness of rational
knowledge in the field of religion, then it becomes unclear how inter-religious
dialogue is possible at all.
On the other hand, the Indian
Vedic tradition has always developed a culture of dialogue, logic and rational philosophical
thinking. This is also true of the modern ISKCON movement, as demonstrated by
the position of Sadhu Maharaja, who proposed the method of "asymmetric dialectics":
"This method consists in the coordination of knowledge obtained in practice
and knowledge based on spiritual experience, which allows you to overcome the danger
of both skepticism and dogmatism. Based on the authoritative knowledge of the
mind, a thesis is formulated, which is opposed to another thesis obtained with the
support of practical knowledge. Then there is a dialectical agreement between knowledge
based on shabda and knowledge based on pratyaksha. However, these two opposing theses
are not equal, or, in other words, are not symmetrical. A thesis based on
shabda provides the basis for understanding, and a thesis based on pratyaksha
provides the basis for critical rethinking. However, critical analysis does not
lead to denial at all, but to the identification of a deeper knowledge that has
authority as its basis. At the same time, the formal side of authority is
overcome, thereby revealing the depth of spiritual life underlying this
knowledge" (Ibid.).
Nevertheless, the position
advocated by Kala Chandra Das adequately expresses the prevailing mood within
ISKCON. In his opinion, rationality is the "material" mind – buddhi, which,
along with other elements, makes up man and the universe. He is limited in his abilities
and is unable to comprehend his transcendental source. Since Vaishnavas do not understand
matter in the same way as it is understood in the European tradition, the use of
this term can cause misunderstanding. By matter, they mean the primordial
nature of everything – prakriti, as well as all its manifestations, not only
physical, but also psychical and mental. At the same time, matter, that is,
prakriti, together with all its manifestations, is also understood as the
energy of the transcendent God (Gupta, 2017. P. 206). In the ensuing
discussion, Kala Chandrа Dasa argued that
the path of knowledge is possible only through the purification of the heart
from desires that are not bound by the transcendental principle in association
with an exalted person. This happens through discipleship, service to this
person, respect, and true questioning. Self-study is useless, so it is
necessary to accept the guru and learn under his guidance.
During the discussion, Mikhail
Sheludko, a religious scholar and specialist in the philosophy of religion and theology,
pointed out the limitations of this position. He noted that there must be rational
reasons for choosing the scriptures, and for this it is necessary to study the
history of their origin, otherwise a person will follow someone's illusions. Therefore,
in the Indian tradition, along with shabda, pratyaksha and other ways of
knowledge are distinguished. Kala Chandrа Dasa replied that the desire to serve
Krishna is sufficient to understand the truth, and that the logical side is no longer
needed, but is manifested in the heart. However, Dandy Maharaja took a broader
position, pointing out that approaches can be different, and the historical-critical
approach of Mikhail Sheludko is not the only possible one, so you need to look for
mutual understanding even with differences in beliefs: "Often the obstacle
to mutual understanding is a difference in theoretical attitudes, and the will to
understand can overcome this difficulty without abandoning its most important
worldview principles" (Ibid.).
Both the opponents of the discussion,
Mikhail Sheludko and Dandi Maharaja, appealed to Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Mikhail Sheludko
pointed out that although the Vaishnava tradition teaches that the Vedas,
Upanishads, Puranas and Mahabharata were written by Vyasa 5,000 years ago, this
is refuted by scientific research. The Bhagavad-gita was formed not earlier than
the first century BC, and the key Gaudiya Vaishnava scripture Bhagavata Purana,
otherwise called Srimad-Bhagavatam, dates from the VIII–IX centuries AD. He also
stressed that Bhaktivinoda Thakur had made independent studies of the texts of the
scriptures and had come to results that are much closer to modern scientific research
than to the Vaishnava tradition: "The attempt to reconcile Vaishnavism with
academic science was made for the first time by Bhaktivinoda Thakur. It was he
who first voiced the real dating of the shastra – Gita of the I–II century AD
and the Bhagavata Purana of the X century, but it was more convenient to
reproduce the mythologems about the purely ancient Vedas and srutis to popularize
the teachings"*** (Ibit.).
_________________
*** Christian-Vaishnava
dialogue "Revelation and Rational Knowledge"…
_________________
Bhaktivinoda Thakur formulated
the task of his own research in the preface to the Sri Krishna-samhita:
"First, we decided to date, in accordance with the modern point of view, the
main historical events of India. Later we will determine the dates of the
scriptures. As soon as the dates of the scriptures are established, I will explain,
in accordance with the modern point of view, the history of the Vaishnava
dharma that is set forth in these scriptures. Although we ourselves consider
the scriptures in accordance with ancient methods, I will now follow modern
methods for the benefit of the people of the present time" (Bhaktivinoda Thakur,
2019. P. 17). Based on the analysis of the sacred texts themselves, Bhaktivinoda
Thakur independently reconstructed the periodization of the events that are
reflected in them.
According to his calculations,
the Mahabharata was written after 1000 BC, while "it cannot be argued that
the author of the Mahabharata was the same Vyasa who divided the Vedas and received
the title of Vedavyasa in the time of Maharaja Yudhishthira" (Bhaktivinoda
Thakur, 2019. P. 42). Srimad-Bhagavatam was written in the ninth century (Bhaktivinoda
Thakur, 2019. P. 47). At the same time, Bhaktivinoda Thakur confesses: "I
could not determine the name of the author of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Whoever he is,
we are grateful to him and accept with great reverence this great personality, Vyasadeva,
as the spiritual teacher of people with pure, elevated consciousness"
(Bhaktivinoda Thakur, 2019. P. 47).
The chronology of events has
also changed. According to the Vaishnava tradition, the battle of Kurukshetra took
place five thousand years ago, but according to the calculations of
Bhaktivinoda Thakur – 3791 years before his research, which he cited in the
book in 1888 (Bhaktivinoda Thakur, 2019. P. 34). Similarly, the periodization
of the yugas in Bhaktivinoda Thakur differs significantly from that described in
the Puranas and Srimad-Bhagavatam. According to the traditional periodization,
the Satya yuga lasts for 1,728,000 years, the Treta yuga for 1,296,000 years, the
Dvapara yuga for 854,000 years, and the Kali yuga for 432,000 years. The ratio
between them is 4:3:2: 1. However, Bhaktivinoda Thakur gives a different calculation:
"Satya yuga lasts 650 years, Treta yuga – 1125 years, and Dvapara yuga –
775 years. Thus, the total number is 2550 years" (Bhaktivinoda Thakur, 2019.
P. 21). At the same time, he emphasizes that the Vedic scholars do not recognize
these calculations, and explains: "The history of the past of India and the
age of the various scriptures are presented according to the opinion of modern
scholars. Everyone has the right to accept it or reject it. Vaishnavism does
not depend on these statements. We know that Vaishnavism, the Vedas, and the
devotional scriptures, such as Srimad-Bhagavatam, are eternal"
(Bhaktivinoda Thakur, 2019. P. 50). In defending the traditional understanding
of the scriptures, Dandi Maharaja refers to the same book of Bhaktivinoda
Thakur that Mikhail Sheludko draws on in his critique of the Vaishnava
tradition. Dandi Maharaja points out that, contrary to the alternative historical
dating of the scriptures, Bhaktivinoda Thakur claimed that Srimad-Bhagavatam is
an eternal and ancient scripture, which, along with the Vedas, does not apply to
modern works: "We have presented the dating of events and scriptures according
to modern opinion. People like swans don't engage in useless arguments, so if
there are conflicting conclusions with true arguments, we will accept them. We hope
to hear opinions on these topics from future transcendentalists or intelligent
materialists. According to our scriptures, we do not accept such dates. We
believe only the statements of the scriptures. I have presented modern
conclusions for the benefit of interested people" (Bhaktivinoda Thakur,
2019. P. 49).
This double reading of Bhaktivinoda
Thakur is due to the peculiarity of his position: on the one hand, he recognizes
the authority of the scriptures, on the other hand, he takes into account their
rational criticism. In this way, he differs from his predecessors, who accepted
the authority of tradition by default, and from those of his contemporaries,
who, under the influence of Western rationality, perceived traditional beliefs as
a set of prejudices. The position of Bhaktivinoda Thakur defines a new paradigm
of understanding the Vedic tradition: first, critical views on the scriptures
are examined, and already with their consideration makes a conscious choice of the
scriptures as the unconditional and authoritative source of true knowledge: "Srimad-Bhagavatam
has no birth, no beginning, no end, because it is eternal. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to find out when, where and thanks to whom this work appeared,
according to modern opinion" (Bhaktivinoda Thakur, 2019. P. 46). However, the
transition from critical consideration to the recognition of authority in
Bhaktivinoda Thakur is made by leaps and bounds, because there is a gap between
these two views of the scriptures.
In the discussion, Mikhail
Sheludko pointed out the insuperability of this gap, thus defending a position that
corresponds to the modern scientific and critical view of the Vedic tradition. Another
panelist, Kala Chandra Das, represented the most popular position in the
Vaishnava community of ignoring any rational and critical assessments of the Vedic
tradition. However, Dandy Maharaja, in objecting to Mikhail Sheludko,
demonstrated that the gap between a critical view of the scriptures and the
recognition of their absolute authority is quite surmountable. In this aspect, he
was closest to Bhaktivinoda Thakur, although he was in a more difficult position,
since he had to defend this position already in view of the new scientific
knowledge accumulated in the hundred and fifty years after the publication of
the book "Krishna-samhita".
Discussion
on the relationship between eternity and empirical events
The further development of the
discussion between Mikhail Sheludko and Dandi Maharaja demonstrated how modern Vaishnavas,
in the paradigm of the relationship between faith and rational knowledge formed
by Bhaktivinoda Thakur, can oppose the scientific and Christian-theological
positions:
"Dandi Maharaja:
Bhaktivinoda's point of view is clear: the scriptures are non-historical, so
there is no point in arguing about their historical origin…
Mikhail Sheludko:
Non-historical does not mean that their appearance in history cannot be dated.
Therefore, Bhaktivinoda dates it with his own research.
Dandi Maharaja:
Non-historicity means that there was no beginning in history, because there was
no beginning. They metaphysically belong to a different plane of being.
Mikhail Sheludko: You can't
date the content, the idea, and the form – why not? ... Bhaktivinoda diplomatically
avoids the direct explanation of the correlation between empirical dating and
faith dating. But it is the history of forms and the codification of the
sastras that can reconcile the two statements. And sometimes the idea can be
dated-it all depends on the data that we have. In the history of the Gaudiya
sampradaya, all the key ideas can be dated.
Dandi Maharaja: Obviously not.
Take the idea of Krishna at least. For example, in a dream yesterday, let's say
I saw my father. My dream has clear boundaries. I know I saw him yesterday. But
that doesn't mean my father showed up yesterday. In the same way, eternal
reality is different from a temporary dream" (Ibid.).
Like Bhaktivinoda Thakur,
Dandi Maharaja takes note of the rational criticism of the Vedic tradition and
already chooses religious truths based on the absolute authority of the
scriptures. At the same time, he justifies the transition from a
rational-critical to a religious position by philosophical means, and does it
in two stages.
First, it shows the
limitations of rational thinking and scientific knowledge of the world: "No
significant progress has occurred – no one has overcome death, disease,
despair, loneliness, depression – people are left with the same things they
have always struggled with. We have expanded our horizons a little, but the unfathomable
and mysterious part of our world remains as limitless as ever. And to this day,
we still refer to this incomprehensible part with some symbols and vague
abstractions. The dispute is only about which symbols are better, and what
terminology to choose. These discussions do not touch on the essence of the problem
– namely, that the world is still incomprehensible and magical for us, while our
science only systematizes everyday information" (Ibid.). The possibilities
of rational knowledge are limited, and there is nothing humiliating for the
mind, if we understand that the human mind is adapted to solve well-defined
tasks. However, the incorrect use of rational knowledge leads to the fact that traditional
worldviews are deconstructed, and nothing better comes to replace them. At the same
time, tradition does not suggest blindly believing in absurd prejudices, it
only asserts that the world is incomprehensible and cultivates a reverence for revelation.
And it is precisely in the traditional picture of the world that the use of
reason is defined as clearly as possible.
Secondly, Dandi Maharaja shows
the fundamental difference between the Vaishnava worldview and the Christian
one. In his opinion, the difficulty of combining the historicity and eternity
of the scriptures, which are identical with Krishna, arises only in the
Christian worldview. He sees a contradiction in the Christian position that each
event is unique in history and at the same time remains in eternity: "The
worldview dualism, in which one can say that Christ appeared in time and not in
time with the same degree of reality, is a characteristic paradox of Christian theology.
It would be more consistent to say that Christ did not appear in time, but that
his appearance is included in the calendar as a temporary symbol of an incomprehensible
spiritual act. This is the Vedantist model" (Ibid.).
Overcoming
the contradiction between the Christian and Vedic traditions in the question of
the temporal and eternal worlds of consciousness
According to Dandi Maharaja,
one should avoid the division into eternal spiritual content and temporal form,
as if they were two different existences in time and not in time. In accordance
with this, it is wrong to simultaneously recognize the eternity of the sastras
and immediately say that they were written by people in the Middle Ages. Events
in time are manifestations of maya and are not related to true reality, and everything
related to truth is not related to maya. References to events in time are necessary
for purely practical purposes, but they have no spiritual significance. This is
due to the fact that Indian culture is characterized by a cyclical
understanding of time, in which there are no unique events, therefore, the uniqueness
of religious revelation can only be explained by the fact that the shastras themselves
are identical with God and are an eternal reality.
In an attempt to clarify this position,
Nikolai Karpitsky asked in what sense Srimad-Bhagavatam is eternal. Since this book
contains a description of empirical events, the statement about its eternity can
be understood in different ways. The first option: only the general meaning of Srimad-Bhagavatam
is eternal, and this does not apply to the description of empirical events that
are conditioned by time and circumstances. The second option: the entire text is
eternal, including the style and features of the language. But then people are
deprived of free will, because they have to act out their roles in the play
exactly as it is written in the eternal book. The third option: people have
free will, but then their actions will be different from what is described in
Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this case, the description does not refer to the events that
happened in history themselves, but to what is either in God's plan or in some other
dimension of time. In this case, the description of events in the holy book
serves only as a sample of similar events in our history.
Dandi Maharaja replied that
the scriptures express the highest spiritual reality, and they have no
denotations in empirical reality. At the same time, the scriptures refer to objects
of empirical reality in order to be understandable to people. For example, the
waters of the Ganges carry many impurities, but this does not change the sacred
character of the Ganges in the higher reality, so that the river is the object
of worship for many millions of people. Here we can talk about the unsymmetrical
dialectic of the earthly image of the holy scriptures and their unearthly eternal
nature. Srimad-Bhagavatam contains descriptions of events that are cyclically
repeated, but not exactly to each specific detail. People have freedom, but they
don't have the ability to do anything, they don't have the ability not to die,
they don't have the ability to create their own universe, and so on. This allows
God to carry out a predetermined plot, such as changing the four yugas, leaving
people free to choose. In addition, free will is limited by karma, which allows
you to keep the overall outline of the events of the sacred plot, but each time
with its own unique features. Therefore, the same stories are presented
differently in different texts. Dandy Maharaja drew an analogy with the lives
of people in a state that allows its citizens to act freely, intervening when
they use freedom beyond the permissible limits. At the metaphysical level, such
a framework is set by karma. At the same time, such limited freedom is still
questionable and should not satisfy a person, so God calls for liberation from
the world of karma for the sake of eternity, true freedom and the perfection of
God's communion.
This understanding of eternity
differs from both the ancient and the Christian understanding. In the ancient
understanding, only the intelligible being has eternity – the world of aidos,
the world mind; in the Christian understanding, God from the position of eternity
contemplates the entire history, all events occurring in time, so eternal life
as the ideal of salvation includes empirical time together with specific unique
events.
In the Vaishnava tradition, eternity
is understood in the context of the cyclical concept of time. As Dandi Maharaja
explained, all events take place within the continuum of consciousness, so
there is no reality independent of consciousness. Under the influence of time is
only a part of consciousness, that is, the world, which is a conditioned reality.
This world within time is cyclical. The scriptures are the link between these
two worlds of consciousness: the temporal and the eternal. The difference
between the two worlds is relative. When consciousness is released, this difference
disappears, and then it becomes clear that in fact the world of consciousness is
one. From a conditioned point of view, the scriptures are presented as part of a
borrowed history, but in their original state they are eternal and perfect, and
this is how a person sees them from the position of an unconditioned, liberated
consciousness.
In this regard, Nikolai Karpitsky
pointed out the theoretical possibility of a synthesis of the Christian and
Vaishnava understanding of eternity: "In the Christian understanding,
revelation is also revealed in sacred history. But this story is unique, and
for God, the whole story is given in the present. That is, in addition to their
empirical temporal state, historical events also remain in eternity. However, this
understanding is still limited. After all, being in the present means being
able to act freely. Then, it turns out that people who act freely in empirical history,
from the position of eternity, are limited to those variants of their actions
that they have committed in time.
In the Vedic sense, the
opposite is true. There is an archetype, a pattern of history that repeats
itself endlessly in empirical time... But then the jivas ... find themselves
very limited within the cyclical empirical time, they can exercise freedom in
small things, but they cannot fundamentally influence history… In the Christian
understanding, we come to a limitation within eternity, and in the Vedic
understanding, we come to a limitation within the empirical world.
If all reality is given in
eternity in infinitely different versions, as God sees it, then the contradiction
between Christianity and the Vedic tradition is overcome. Then Christians can recognize
that from the point of view of eternity there is not one, but many variants of history,
and Vaishnavas-that all descriptions of cyclically repeated events are the
disclosure of different variants that are already given in eternity, and from
the point of view of God they occur in the present.
Then the question of the eternity
of the scriptures is removed, because they describe events from the perspective
of eternity. Within historical time, the scriptures refer precisely to those
variants of events that occurred in empirical history, and at the same time convey
through them an eternal meaning that is common to all variants of these events
from the perspective of eternity" (Ibid.).
Dandi Maharaja replied that there
was nothing in this conclusion that could be disagreed with from the Gaudiya Vaishnava
point of view: "In this light, one can understand the position of Baladeva
Vidyabhushana, who said that the Scriptures have no denotations in the earthly
world, that all the names in them are common names. But the presence of many
variants of the earth's history in eternity is, as far as I understand, a bit
like origenism, and I do not know how much Christians will be willing to agree
with this" (Ibid.). Responding to the doubt of the Dandy Maharaja, Nikolai
Karpitsky explained that religious and philosophical thought in Christianity develops
in parallel with theological thought and does not imply any restrictions in the
study of religious experience.
Conclusions
Gaudiya Vaishnavism provides a
holistic understanding of the world, the adept of this tradition does not need
any other principles of knowledge and organization of his life, and it is
unacceptable for him to critically rethink the revelation and authority of the
scriptures. In the medieval era, Gaudiya Vaishnavas could ignore any knowledge
based on someone else's type of rationality. This attitude is quite common today,
but it excludes the possibility of scientific and interreligious dialogue between
Gaudiya Vaishnavas and representatives of other cultural traditions.
When Hindus faced criticism of
their worldview from the standpoint of European rationality during the British
colonial period, Bhaktivinoda Thakur formed a paradigm of the relationship between
faith and critical knowledge. He independently conducts research from the
perspective of modern scientists and, taking into account the rational
criticism of his own tradition, consciously chooses the revelation and authority
of the holy scriptures. This position expands the possibilities of rational knowledge
by understanding other positions and promotes scientific and interreligious dialogue.
In addition, it allows you to adjust the rules of life in the modern
multicultural world, while maintaining support in your own tradition.
The transition from a critical
position to a conscious choice of the authority of tradition requires a philosophical
justification, which predetermined the intellectual trend in modern Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
An example is the philosophical idea of asymmetric dialectics, which was founded
by the initiator of interreligious dialogue, Sadhu Maharaja.
In the process of developing interreligious
dialogue, both Vaishnavas and their opponents turn to the ideas of Bhaktivinoda
Thakur, in particular, to his critical study of the dating of the scriptures.
Although it is unacceptable for a Vaishnava to deny the eternity and authority
of the scriptures, the very possibility of discussing them from a critical
perspective requires a deeper understanding of eternity that opens up points of
contact with the Christian understanding and serves as an example of the
fruitfulness of interreligious dialogue in the paradigm of the relationship between
faith and critical knowledge set by Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
References
Bhaktivinoda Thakur. (2004). Sri
Chaitanya Shikshamrta. The nectar of the teachings of Sri Chaitanya /
Translated from the English by N. Kravtsov. M.: Publishing House
"Philosophical Book", 464 p.
Bhaktivedanta Sadhu Swami. (2012).The
Code of the Absolute: The path to perfect reason. Moscow: Philosophical Book,
256 p.
Pavel Urvantsev. (2020).
Christian-Vaishnava dialogue. Revelation and rational knowledge: based on the
materials of discussions on the Internet, comp. // Portal of interreligious dialogue
"Dialog. Online". December 10. URL: https://dialogi.online/hristiansko-vajshnavskij-dialog-otkrovenie-i-racionalnoe-znanie/
Gupta R. M. (2017). Chaitanya-vaishnava
Vedanta Jiva Gоsvami: koli znanya zustrichae viddanist
/ by M. M. Karpatsky, prov. z engl. O. Yu. Kuharuk, Yu. Yu. Zavgorodny. Lutsk: Drukmarket, 256 p.
Bhaktivinoda
Thakur. (2019). Sri Krishna-samhita. M.: Philosophical Book.
.jpg)
.png)
