Contentious Sankirtana or Compassionate Patience? Part-3

An Editorial Study in Four Parts by HG Mayesvara Dasa(ACBSP)

3. The Futility of a Non-Dual Dialogue

The Neo-Non-Duality Charade

The Non-dual path known in Sanskrit as Advaita has been around for a long time. Although it was made more prominent in recent history with the advent of Sankaracharya in 7th century, Krishna laid out the mechanical process of liberation in chapter six of the Gita starting with verses 11. It needs to be pointed out here that what is passed off as Advaita-consciousness in the world today is a complete bastardization of the Advaita path Krishna describes. That process is so rigorous even someone like Arjuna rejected it and considered it to be more difficult than controlling the wind! (Bg. 6.34)

Because Non-Duality discards all distinctions between good and bad behavior the current Neo-Non-Duality trend that has become very fashionable is actually just a clever excuse to avoid responsibility for one’s actions. The polish on this self-deluding mind-set is that those who take it up refer to it as Jnana Yoga which they incorrectly believe is the highest stage of consciousness. But even the Beatles were realized enough to sing All you Need is Love (Bhakti). Nobody sings: All you need is Google!

Although devotees are kind and wish the best for all living entities, when we encounter other individuals that are hopelessly entrenched in an irrational dogma Srila Prabhupada advised:

Prabhupäda: No, no, don’t waste your time with that. They are all third-class rascals. Not even first-class rascals. -December 11, 1973, Morning walk, Los Angeles.

Please note that this was how he felt about those who were incapable of using logic and reason when engaged in a philosophical investigation. Everyone who has done sankirtana knows that when you meet an evangelic Christian the smartest thing to do is politely side step their myopic world view. It is wiser instead to seek out those who are aware of their own conditioning and are open to hearing about how to transcend it. The exception to this rule is if there is a crowd of neutral bystanders. It is unlikely you will ever be able to have a coherent discussion with a fanatic but if you can present KC with patience it is very likely that those listening nearby might gain all sorts of insights from what you are saying. When Srila Prabhupada spoke in public he would sometimes engage his wit when responding to the comments of a provocateur to convey his wisdom for the benefit of all the others in the attending audience.

For example: When Srila Prabhupada was explaining how the purpose of life is not to live like a dog, he was interrupted. A hippy objected by declaring that he thought becoming a dog in his next life would be fun and the response he got was:”You Have My Blessings.”4
A female reporter asked, “Why do you shave your head?” In a heartbeat Prabhupada said, “Why do you shave your legs?” Everyone was stunned and scared. After a moment of silence Prabhupada said, “Better to have a cool head than cold legs.”5
One-time Srila Prabhupada was challenged, “Since you’re the guru and you know everything, how many windows are there in the Empire State Building?” Srila Prabhupada replied, “How much water is in a mirage?”6

Non-dualists may attempt to use this last exchange as a way to suggest that ANY question related to this illusionary world is equally silly, but it is evident here that the person who asked it was being condescending so Srila Prahupada replied with an equally flippant answer. It doesn’t matter if the protagonist realized how foolishly he behaved because others had an opportunity to learn from it. Playing Stump the Guru is a contemptuous gesture that is a completely different thing from the process of inquiring submissively as recommended in the Gita itself. (Bg. 4.34)

Leveling the Playing Field & Home Field Court

With the advent of the social media we now have a venue that levels the playing field for public debate. If you attend any gathering hosted by any of the organizations listed below, they will always control the playing field even if they are generous enough to ask for questions. Some of the self-appointed prophets of the New Age are quite adroit at manipulating the audience as suggested in the second section of this article. But their agenda is to make even a good question appear stupid and thus humiliate the individual from pursuing any further line of inquiry. I have observed this on several occasions. Here are some examples of how some will deflect questions they prefer not to answer:

“This person is obviously very much on the mental platform”
” I am sensing a lot of dark energy coming from this individual”
“What repressed desires are you trying to hide from this audience?”
” That’s a clever question that will only entangle me more into the illusion.”

Written forums such as Google or the local newspaper levels the playing field where these types of evasive manipulations will not work. Of course, if the internet forum is highly controlled by a moderator, they can simply clip out unwelcomed comments and lock out participants who have alternative opinions.

Communication via the written language is not only self-documenting but writing things down forces people to think more carefully about what they write then when they just blurt things out. The internet also gives access to a hidden community of silently observes that are still forming opinions about whatever is being discussed. But what really makes written exchange more effective then verbal dialogue is that it eliminates the Gish Gallop7 or the Spreading8 that verbal bullies rely on to stomp back opposition.

I find it quite interesting how people who are extremely intelligent in the classical sense of the word, can be so evasive when they are faced with simple questions especially when it challenges the inner dialogue they have with themselves. Over the years I have repeatedly asked a wide array of individuals how they can be so sure of their own deductive opinions in light of the fact that we are all flawed by: 1) Propensity to Cheat 2) Imperfect Senses 3) Likeliness to make mistakes and 4) Deception due to Illusions. In the exchange provided below I introduce this point in my third entry and it was completely ignored.

Ignoring questions you cannot defeat is rationalized by the Neo-Advaita-non-dualist by dismissing it as just another insignificant blip in the illusion we call life. This illustrates the impenetrable nature of the Neo-Advaita shuffle. It is virtually impossible to communicate with someone who is thoroughly convinced that everything you say is an illusion, you are just a bewildered actor in that illusion, and all the concepts they have, even of themselves, is also just another aspect of that illusion!

I should mention here that he person who initiated the fourth part of this study, Chuck Hillig, is a personal friend of mine who has attended many of the Krishna Consciousness gatherings I have hosted at my home in Ojai. He is a highly intelligent and accomplished individual in the material sense of the word. We share a unique friendship that includes a mutual academic respect. He knows I am well studied in the bhakti path and I know he is an advocate for the Advaita trend. He has published several muses on that topic and is one of the most tolerant and well-behaved non-dualists I know. (I have met many who are the embodiment of some aspect of lust, anger or greed and at least one who was the personification of all three!) Chuck enjoys posting his clever maxims to a network of associates who then reinforce each-others wonderfulness. This is an excellent example of what occurs when one gets stuck in the trap of only “Preaching to the Choir” mentioned in my prior article.

Chuck’s opening assertion was that religion serves an illusionary purpose because there are no problems for it to address. My 4th comment was an attempt to see if those who claim to follow the Neo-Non-Dual tradition are really aloof/disconcerted/transcendental to/in denial of natural disasters, prejudicial discrimination, poverty, dishonesty war, and the Covid 19. Regardless of what term they prefer, the response that came back was another example of the Advaita Shuffle. At the end of the day, there is NOTHING to be concerned about because life is just a meaningless dream and if you take the dream seriously you will just make yourself unnecessarily miserable. So the implied conclusion is don’t take anything seriously and life becomes the fools playground!

I did not post my 5th and last comment on Chucks Facebook page. I decided to bring this dialogue back to the home court and only posted it here where other Vaishnavas can read for themselves how hopeless it is to lend a hand to a Non-Dualist in the bottom of a well, They will just deny the reality of his condition, misinterpret your kind gesture as a part of the illusionary problem, and continue to spew clever platitudes intended to reinforce their own myopic arrogance.

This is why the Non-Dual Advaita path is the most insidious alternative to Lord Caitanyas acintya-bhedabheda-tattva9 foundational understanding for the Hare Krishna movement. The exchange that follows demonstrates how otherwise materialistically intelligent individuals can become so bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust, anger, and envy etc. (Bg. 16.18) It is because of those unchecked forces they fell head first into the dark well of the Non-dual bungle. Although there is a place for detachment from heat and cold, honor and dishonor etc., this awareness does not culminate in the sophistry of Neo-Advaita. It may have the initial patina of respectability but when everything is dismissed as an illusion, is it is impossible to have a serious philosophical investigation into how we can reliably decern truth from illusion despite our inherent flaws.

 

---

4 Srila Prabhupada LiIlamrita Chapter 30: London: A Dream Fulfilled
5 Prabhupada Remembrances Chapter 25: c/o Vrindavaneshvari
6 Prabhupada Remembrances Chapter 53: c/o Kamalini

7 Technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
8 The act of speaking extremely fast during a competitive debating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread-ing_(debate)

 

By Mayesvara Dasa

Can be Contacted at mdjagdasa@gmail.com