9. Why Shankara Preached Impersonalism
Thu, 04/10/2008 - 19:39 — admin
MICHAEL: Why is Shankaracharya not to blame if his teachings are at the root of today’s widespread impersonalism?
TEACHER: Sri Krishna Chaitanya says that Shankara is not at fault because in presenting an atheistic commentary on Vedanta-sutra he was simply carrying out the instructions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.1 It is not an easy thing to understand why the Supreme Personality of Godhead would desire Shankaracharya to put forward a philosophy which obscured His eternal nature and identity unless one has a wide scope of vision and knowledge about certain historical events which are relevant to the issue.
Atheism in Disguise
MICHAEL: Before you go any further with your explanation, TEACHER, could you please take one doubt away from my mind? You mentioned that Sri Krishna Chaitanya considered Shankara’s commentary to be atheistic. I don’t understand this. How can it be atheistic if it has to do with God?
TEACHER: Impersonalism is atheism in disguise. Impersonalism equates the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. An impersonalist, therefore, does not accept the existence of a Supreme Being Who is greater than himself; in other words, he does not accept the existence of God. God means the Supreme Being above all other beings. Impersonalism denies that such a being exists, therefore it is simply covered atheism. Just as there is no meaning to the word “master” without the existence of servants, similarly, there is no meaning to the words “Supreme Lord” or “Supreme Being” if there are not beings who are not supreme. Therefore, Sri Krishna Chaitanya considers Shankaracharya’s commentary to be atheistic. Can you understand this point?
MICHAEL: I hadn’t considered it in that way, but yes, I see your point.
In his book Small Is Beautiful, noted British economist E. F. Schumacher wrote:9. Why Shankara Preached Impersonalism
Insights of wisdom … enable us to see the hollowness and fundamental unsatisfactoriness of a life devoted primarily to the pursuit of material ends, to the neglect of the spiritual. Such a life necessarily sets man against man and nation against nation, because man’s needs are infinite and infinitude can be achieved only in the spiritual realm, never in the material.*
It is a fact that no matter how much sense gratification a person gets, he will never be satisfied. Material food, material things, material sense gratification cannot satisfy the atma (spirit soul). Just as the body needs material food, so the spirit soul needs spiritual food. To try to satisfy one’s spiritual craving with material things leads to endless consumption, greed, envy, violence, and war. Western people have as much sense gratification as one could ever want, yet they are not satisfied. Why? Because they are spiritually empty.
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
* E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 38.
MICHAEL: Why is Shankaracharya not to blame if his teachings are at the root of today’s widespread impersonalism?
TEACHER: Sri Krishna Chaitanya says that Shankara is not at fault because in presenting an atheistic commentary on Vedanta-sutra he was simply carrying out the instructions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.1 It is not an easy thing to understand why the Supreme Personality of Godhead would desire Shankaracharya to put forward a philosophy which obscured His eternal nature and identity unless one has a wide scope of vision and knowledge about certain historical events which are relevant to the issue.
Atheism in Disguise
MICHAEL: Before you go any further with your explanation, TEACHER, could you please take one doubt away from my mind? You mentioned that Sri Krishna Chaitanya considered Shankara’s commentary to be atheistic. I don’t understand this. How can it be atheistic if it has to do with God?
TEACHER: Impersonalism is atheism in disguise. Impersonalism equates the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. An impersonalist, therefore, does not accept the existence of a Supreme Being Who is greater than himself; in other words, he does not accept the existence of God. God means the Supreme Being above all other beings. Impersonalism denies that such a being exists, therefore it is simply covered atheism. Just as there is no meaning to the word “master” without the existence of servants, similarly, there is no meaning to the words “Supreme Lord” or “Supreme Being” if there are not beings who are not supreme. Therefore, Sri Krishna Chaitanya considers Shankaracharya’s commentary to be atheistic. Can you understand this point?
MICHAEL: I hadn’t considered it in that way, but yes, I see your point.