“Although the King had already decided to fast until
death on the bank of the Ganges, he humbly expressed his decision to elicit the
opinions of the great authorities present there. Any decision, however important,
should be confirmed by some authority. That makes the matter perfect.” Srimad
Bhagavatam, 1.19.12, purport
“It is only in our decisions that we are important.”
Jean-Paul Sartre
“Every time there’s a choice between starving and
raiding, humans raid.”
Thinking the Unthinkable, 2002 Pentagon Report
A
devout Christian theist of the Nineteenth Century, Soren
Kierkegaard nonetheless, and quite ironically, planted the seed of modern existentialism. Despite being an advanced thinker for that
time and culture, his philosophical kernel would later sprout, flower, and
fruit into atheistic Twentieth Century existentialism. This demonstrates an
important principle: From an otherwise elevated conception, even the slightest
deviation from true spiritual teaching and process can and will produce a
resultant and system opposite the intention of its original creator.
Kierkegaard’s
chief flaw was his overemphasis on the act of deciding, rendering the
decision itself not as important, i.e., he did not give necessary emphasis to
the basis of any decision. We must go further
than the mere determined choice; we must know the proper decision. A Vaishnava observes a standard by which to
make the right decision in any and all circumstances. Kierkegaard’s standard was “choose yourself,”
but, without genuinely knowing about yourself by receiving knowledge from
someone who does know—and that would be the self-realized or God-realized
spiritual master—the value of that choice will often turn out to be against
your real self interest.
Kierkegaard’s
idea emphasized the act of deciding: To attain self-realization, we must
confront choices—what he called the “either/or” proposition. This was said to
be the ethical stage, wherein the progressive man takes an active part in dealing
with the phenomenon of existence rather than aimlessly seeking pleasure.
His
Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada was not impressed with this part of the
presentation, although he was favorable to Kierkegaard’s oft-expressed
devotional tendencies. Prabhupada
pointed out that it was not clear in Kierkegaard’s system how a right decision
could be made in terms of ethics based upon imperfect knowledge. Decisions must
be rooted in the Absolute Truth; what was the value of some kind of “inner
passion”? No matter how well intentioned, ultimately Kierkegaard’s proposal
could degrade into whimsical notions of what constituted a right choice at any
given moment—leading to the making of any decision at any time--while the
person making it still thinks that he is engaged in a progressive process of
self-realization.
In
due course of time, that’s just how it went down.
Our purpose here is not to
make a wholesale exposition of existentialism for its own sake but rather to
apply relevant facts about existential thought and process to the current
devolutionary trends in what superficially appears to be the Krishna consciousness movement. We call
today’s institutional manifestation by the name “ISKCON,” as differentiated from
the original ISKCON or Hare Krishna movement.
The theoretical supposition here is that the leading echelons of this
institutional delusion—born, bred, and raised in an existential environment
before coming to His Divine Grace—having carried its energy over (subconsciously
and/or consciously) into the Hare Krishna movement, converting his movement
into something inimical to Krishna consciousness. To even consider the evidence
for this theory, a reader must have some general knowledge of existentialism.
Legends of the Fall
As aforementioned,
Kierkegaard planted the seed of existentialism, however unintentionally, and it
was later further developed by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Although usually categorized as an
evolutionary naturalist, a significant portion of his philosophy touches upon existential
themes. In that context, he also coined the
well-known phrase: “God is dead.” By
this, he meant that the Judeo-Christian conception,
and its system as well, no longer had inherent in it anything of value that
could help a person realize who he really is.
However, in due course, this
figurative intention and application of the phrase was lost. As a result, many
consider Nietzsche an atheist. He was influenced
by Schopenhauer more than by Kierkegaard.
However, just before he went insane, Nietzsche was planning a
Kierkegaard intensive with a close friend.
As such, considering the themes that Nietzsche expressed, this
prodigious writer (he wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra
using archaic technology in eighteen days) certainly was aware of Kierkegaard’s
theory and process. In the development of
what came to be known as existentialism, Kierkegaard planted the seed and
Nietzsche represented the sprout.
Another reputed German philosopher
and lecturer, Martin Heidegger, expanded Nietzsche’s ideas, processes, and
themes. Heidegger said that first there
is existence, and then, if you followed a right path, you eventually realized your
essence. The term “existentialism”
entered into the vulgar lexicon near the end of the Second World War, and
Heidegger was actively expounding it in lectures at that time.
Not to be confused with the
authentic existential stage, upon realizing essence you attain what he referred
to as authenticity. Heidegger called this “being there,” dasein. He propounded that, when attained, a man
becomes free from guilt and anxiety, and he becomes resolute in purpose.
Heidegger described this essence
as reality. He said an ordinary man, during the existential stage, leads either
an authentic existence or an inauthentic existence. The man leading an
authentic existence is working toward self-realization in essence; he is
normal. The lesser man (in inauthentic existence) is busy in temporary things,
always preoccupied by them, and lost to himself. Inauthentic existence is fallen, creating an ordinary
or psychopathic life full of mundane or everyday absorption.
Heidegger called it “publicness,” and anyone in it was said to lack individuality.
Because such a person always identified with some group self, his decisions were
neither personal, nor ethical, nor individual.
However, Prabhupada said that authentic existence is experienced when the
devotee lives free from the influence of death.
Still, it is obvious that Heidegger was on to something, and thus his
presentation became prominent even during his own time. Kierkegaard planted the seed, Nietzsche represented
the sprout, and Heidegger’s teachings symbolized the flowering of
existentialism; its fruits turned out to be a bit different, however.
Essentially an Existential Creation
Nasav rsir yasya matam
na bhinnam: “It is said that every speculator has a different
angle of vision, and unless one differs from others, he cannot be
called a muni or thinker in the strict sense of the
term.” Mahabharata, Vana-parva 313.117
All
atheistic thinkers of the Twentieth Century were certainly mental speculators,
and their presentations, which differed from one another in various ways, were
thoroughly anti-Vedic and anti-Vaishnava.
The existentialists in particular focused on subjective human
experience, considering it a concrete humanism, as opposed to idealistic forms
of rationality and similar imposed structures upon the world. They claimed that man should define his own
existence: According to existential theory, genuine individuals invent their
own values and create actions by which to become exceptional.
Another
core tenet of existentialism is that existence precedes essence,
which means that the actual life of an individual constitutes what can be
developed into essence, i.e., there is no predetermined essence to be realized
through the human experience. In modern
existentialism, the human being--through his individual consciousness--creates
his own values and determines
meaning via that creation. Sartre took this even further when he said that
“existence precedes and rules essence.”
There is a strong element of pessimism in such speculation. These ideas were promulgated in various ways
throughout the previous century; the Gurdjieff-Ouspensky
system waxed eloquently about the difference between state of being and essence. Ouspensky wrote
that a man had to create his own soul, i.e., it does not exist before he
creates it.
Nietzsche discussed both
existentialism (although he did not call it that) and nihilism; his discussion
of the absurdity and apparent meaningless of the world provided fodder for
nihilistic philosophies and lifestyles in later decades. The term “Kafkaesque” came into vogue shortly
after this, signaling a general acceptance of absurdity throughout human
society mired in misguided, pathological life. Although existentialists say
that an individual must create value and meaning—and nihilists deny this—there
is still a strong tendency for existentialism to degrade into nihilism. What existentialism certainly engenders very
quickly is error and hatred; these often lead, in due course, to nihilistic reactions
based on negation, and this was seen in the hippie religion.
Sartre and Camus
“I do not believe in God; His existence has been
disproved by science. But in the
concentration camp, I learned to believe in men.” Sartre
“We turn toward God only to
obtain the impossible.” Camus
Existentialists were contemptuous
of rationality; they considered it a delusion, an attempt to impose structure
on the phenomena of the world. They
believed that such phenomenon, which they generally called “the other,” was
both random and irrational. Rationality
was considered a primary form of what came to be known in existential circles
as bad faith, and it completely obstructed the attempt to find real meaning through
the freedom that existentialism was said to provide.
Jean-Paul Sartre originated
this conception of bad faith, and he, along with the absurdist Albert Camus, were the prime proponents of existentialism in the
early Fifties. Camus
was a playwright and an influential author as well; even in many American high
schools during the Sixties, his main novel was required reading. Camus propounded
that religion, particularly the “Christian” religion of the West, pushes a wrong
idea of a God and a false structure. Under this bad influence, unenlightened men
(not on the genuine path of existentialism), longing for real order and higher
consciousness, become duped by following the Judeo-Christian epistemological
paradigm. As such, these men are forced
to experience the absurdity of life.
Let us remember that,
during this time-frame, Judeo-Christian nations had just finished two world
wars, and in both of them, Christian nations were engaged in enmity, killing
each other’s citizens and warriors. As
such, both Sartre and Camus, following in the
footsteps of Nietzsche, insisted that the God of Christianity was dead.
They took it a step farther,
however: They said that God Himself as a real being must be completely rejected. Man had to define himself after coming to
grip with his existence in the random world, encounter himself, and then surge
to overcome the other, i.e., both Sartre and Camus
were existential humanists. Indeed, one
of Sartre’s main works goes by the title Existentialism is a Humanism.
And the Beat
Went On
“If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is
that
I no longer have anything to fear.” Sartre
“You will never live if you are looking for the
meaning of life.” Camus
Existentialists said that
one had to reject any self-image corresponding to a social norm, such as a role
in the workforce. Although an
existentialist could still act in accordance with social, political, and
economic customs, he was obliged to remember that essentially he is something
different from that image. Internally, the
existential attitude was supposed to be one of complete freedom from the other,
and its practitioner was obligated not to pretend his choices were either
random or meaningless. The
existentialists also completely rejected any notion of karma or
pre-determination; they were utterly anti-Vedic in this connection.
The beat generation (the
beatniks) latched on to existential philosophy, and it more or less defined them. Buddhism also began to seep into American
culture during that time (in the mid to late Fifties), and it was considered
(in many ways, rightly so) to be compatible with existentialism. Stretching the rubber band in both their writings
and lifestyles, Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, J.D. Salinger, and,
somewhat later, Allen Ginsburg were all engaged in spreading the beat generation’s
particular Americanized variation of non-theistic existentialism.
Existential freedom also
meant that the values a person creates were not set in stone; he
could change them at will. He
was enjoined not to look for the meaning of life, and this was said to be a key
to the authentic path of fearlessness. When an internal “realization” dictated
a reconsideration of his basis for decisions, the existentialist then became
responsible for new values (which might be opposed to previous ones), as well
as for his actions in accordance with these new values.
This relativity pervaded
the beat generation: Essence was to be
attained by focusing upon concrete human existence, not considering the meaning
of life by some kind of idealism or faith.
Essence was not realized by hypothesis; instead, it could be had only by
making authentic choices, according to the values you had “realized” at the
given time. The beatniks personified
this relative process and theory.
A Quick
Descent Into Morbidity
asatyam apratistham te
jagad ahur anisvaram
aparaspara-sambhutam
kim anyat kama-haitukam
“They say that this world is unreal: There is no
foundation, and no God in control. It is produced of sex desire and has no
cause other than lust.” Bhagavad-gita, 16.8
“Let me take you down, cuz
I’m going to Strawberry Fields. Nothing
is real, and nothing to get hung up about. Strawberry Fields forever.”
The Beatles in Magical Mystery Tour
“If I became a philosopher, if I have so keenly sought
this fame for which I’m still waiting, it’s all been to seduce women,
basically.” Sartre
“Knowledge has stretched
itself to the point where neither the world nor our intelligence can find any
foot-hold. It is a fact that we are suffering from nihilism.” Camus
The
value system of modern existentialism did not eschew unrestricted sense
gratification. As such, although it may
not have been their purpose, existentialism in the Sixties eventually led its adherents
toward nihilistic lifestyles and philosophies. The philosophical doctrine of
nihilism requires a negation of meaningful aspects of ordinary life, and
existential nihilism was a prominent branch of it. This wing opined that there is no objective
meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value to human life. Existentialism often led to existential
nihilism, which worked its way into the lyrics of many popular rock-n-roll
songs during the Sixties and Seventies.
Moral
nihilists (or ethical nihilists) were usually first schooled in existentialism. They propounded a dangerous theory that absolute
morality does not inherently exist, that all established ethical values in any
society are merely contrivances. These
“morals” were all said to be rooted in the abstract, because there is no
specific action (or decision) automatically, or even necessarily, preferable to
any other.
Camus appears to bemoan the prevalent nihilism of his
time. However, this is the man who wrote
The Stranger. That book begins
with a rogue walking at the ocean’s edge and randomly selecting someone there
on the beach, killing the person for no reason whatsoever. How could any reader of Camus
accept his alleged rejection of nihilism?
Both he and Sartre produced works that were all about humans who viewed
meaning and morality from a relative perspective. If meaning and morality were
not ultimately absolute but only an artificial social construct, how could they
not degrade into nihilism? Despite so
many conflicting decisions and outcomes, for the existentialist meaning was
realized via self-created values.
Atheistic
Twentieth Century existentialists laid the foundation for today’s nihilists. Nihilism
is the predominant mindset of our postmodern era, and it represents a complete
rejection of theism, of course. The Vaishnava
is a spiritual authority who asserts that theism rejected entails degradation
into nihilism in due course.
Nihilism
is in the mode of ignorance. Existentialists supposedly were not nihilists, but
engagement in whimsical sense gratification invariably devolves there. The pleasure of all ungodly sense gratification
is rooted in it; something must be annihilated in the process of a human
being’s experiencing the fleeting enjoyment of temporary senses. Although sense gratification is an abstraction
from the ultimate perspective—and existentialists are supposed to be rooted in
the concrete human experience that overcomes the abstract—existential
philosophy does not provide a rationalized canon or structure linked to the
Absolute Truth. Without this, the
conditioned soul will not be able to escape the degradation of unrestricted
sense gratification, a path to perdition.
Malice
in Blunder
Land
“If God doesn’t exist,
everything would be possible. That is
the very starting point of existentialism.
Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist. . . To be man
means to reach toward being God. Or, if
you prefer, man fundamentally is the desire to be God.” Sartre
“I am no longer sure of
anything. If I satiate my desires, I
sin.
But I deliver myself from
them.” Sartre
“The absurd is the essential
concept and the first truth. . . To be famous, in fact,
one has only to kill one’s
landlady.” Camus
“Like a dog without a bone,
an actor all alone, riders on the storm.”
Jim Morrison of the Doors
It
is the sorry state of this age, in particular in the Western culture and its quasi
or pseudo-spiritual countercultures, that even when the Absolute Truth of
Krishna consciousness is delivered to authentic disciples, everywhere the
followers make the whole thing bungled. Our
eyes have seen the malice inherent in existentialism; its pernicious effects
have touched all of us--facilitated by the superstructure of a movement that
was supposed to deliver us from it. This
is the great gift given to the devotees by “ISKCON,” mostly through the agency
of its (somewhat) behind-the-scenes controlling force, the vitiated G.B.C.:
“The
GBC does not look after spiritual life. That is a defect. All of our students
will have to become guru, but they are not qualified. This is the difficulty.” Letter
to Alanath from Bombay on Nov. 10, 1975
This
and the subsequent quotation were sent to disciples a mere two years before Prabhupada
departed physical manifestation. Even
while he was still with us, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedant
Swami Srila Prabhupada, who could be as omniscient as Lord Krishna wished him
to be, saw it coming. Free will was regularly
being misused--and power abused--by his leading secretaries. He wanted them to
repent their evil tendencies and the inevitable blunders that followed in train,
to rectify where they were taking both themselves and his movement. He gave warnings:
“But,
if you disturb me, then my mind will be disturbed. I want that what I have
established may go on nicely, but I see that some of the devotees are reviving
their old ‘good’ qualities. That is the difficulty. If the old habits come
back, then everything is finished.” Letter to Hridayananda Swami from Bombay on
Nov. 13, 1975
The
warnings were not heeded. On the
contrary, a sclerotic backlash against the authority of Srila Prabhupada has
continued unabated for the last thirty-three years, and its deleterious effects
have been practically overwhelming. The
whole thing is rooted in existentialism within the hearts of its perpetrators. Most of them have come from the hippie
generation, but existentialism’s influence was not limited to that sector. For example, it was very strong in the
Sixties and Seventies (and almost certainly still is) in university circles
amongst the intelligentsia and professors; indeed, many hippies picked it up
from this source.
Where
is the repentance, the institutional sense of performing penance for all of the
uncountable wrongs enacted during the past three decades? It is missing. Is it that they cannot see the horror of what
they have done? Perhaps they are
relishing that horror. Things have gone
terribly wrong, but resignations are few and far between.
The
G.B.C., if it had even an ounce of credibility and integrity, would suspend its
operation—at a minimum. It does not even
entertain this possibility. Instead, it
continues to spin off various splinter groups such as Neo-Mutt and rittvik and
smorgasbord, and these act as force multipliers for the nescience being
injected into so many unsuspecting chelas.
If
anyone strongly confronts the G.B.C. and demands that they face up to what they
have done, the commission only doubles down.
These are all symptoms of the existential mentality, and there is a
natural cronyism present amongst these fellows, i.e., they know instantly how
to recognize their own ilk and protect one another from exposure of their moral
turpitude. They are all engaged in
unauthorized changes injected into what only superficially appears to be the
Hare Krishna movement of Krishna consciousness. Of the essential values given
to us by His Divine Grace, there will be no reassertion there. These men control the properties. They decide who serves the Deities. They create the values to be extolled and the
flags to be waived. If they want to be gurus
in their own way then, by God, they are going to be just that.
If
you say that the problem is not the system, we can agree with you—as long as
you are referring to the original system given to us by Srila Prabhupada. The problem is that another philosophy,
existentialism, has resurrected its ugly head.
It has triumphed, imposing its warped system upon the real movement of Krishna consciousness. It is rooted in blunder: One mistake is covered by two others; those
are covered by four more, ad nauseum. It is also
rooted in hatred of God and guru. The
best way to hate God is to say that you love Him and you are as good as Him (sakshad-dhari).
The
beat generation morphed into the hippie generation. The hippie generation morphed into the Me
Generation. Existentialism was present throughout
all of it. The current first and second
echelon leaders of the fabricated, so-called “ISKCON” wanted much more free
expression than Prabhupada was prepared to allow them. They had cast off conformity during their previous
existential meanderings (before coming into contact with His Divine Grace), and
they believed that, after serving him and moving up the corporate ladder, they
were now entitled. However, Prabhupada
did not capitulate to their demands, because of their ineligibility.
First
deserve, then desire. They did not accept
this. Once he was out of the way, they
had the power to take over his movement and mold it in any manner that they deemed
fit, to shape it according to the values which they created, which they
allegedly believed had real merit. The
proof is in the pudding: They never bought into the stricture that an
intermediary is needed. They learned how
to play the game. They were clean and “pukka” on the outside; nasty and dirty within. If they
wanted to be acharya and overlord then, by God, that’s
just what they were going to be.
It
is hard-wired into the American makeup that everyone can understand scripture
in any way he pleases, that access to revealed truth is readily and easily
available. They must have attained
realization, because why has God given them control of the temples and the
Deities? Why does God not smash their
fire sacrifices? If every blade of grass
is under His complete control, then He must be pleased in what they are doing—because
nobody has been able to stop them. The
government, with all of its mundane power, has not been able to curtail them. Prabhupada spoke about this:
“.
. . to mislead the people in general, they themselves become so-called acharyas, but they do not even follow the principles of the
acharyas. These rogues are the most dangerous
elements in human society. Because there is no religious government, they
escape punishment by the law of the state.”
Sri Isopanisad, Mantra Twelve, purport.
The
philosophy, system, and practice of existentialism constitute a great
error. Those who fall victim to it and
apply it in their lives—in either material or pseudo-spiritual circles—are
unable to take advantage of the rare human opportunity. Depending upon the degree of personal power such
persons attain in the course of their wayward trek, they cause only damage and
destruction; they annihilate things. The
nihilism inherent in existentialism takes time to manifest, but we are seeing such
deconstructions within the circles of the various deviations—all spawned by the
puffed-up attitudes of the “ISKCON” leaders in conjunction with the great
sinister movement—and we have not yet reached the nadir of this.
Nihilism:
The books have been whimsically changed, and their authority has been
annihilated in the process. Nihilism:
Over ninety-five percent of the disciples genuinely initiated by Prabhupada
have left the movement (the one they were meant to push on in its pure form),
and their sadhana has been annihilated.
Nihilism: The lives of hundreds of innocent children have been spoiled as
a result of being bung-holed by perverts, given that opportunity by the gurus
and temple Presidents of “ISKCON”—and these kids no longer believe that Truth
can be found in anything connected with Krishna. Nihilism: The temples have been turned into a
conglomerated diaspora for the Western Hindoo; the previous facility to
advance in spiritual knowledge, spiritual strength, and spiritual action has
been effectively destroyed by this compromise.
If
you lament all of this, why do you remain an apologist for these men? You
cannot promulgate the false theory that these deviations are all just
temporary, that the leaders are good men and well-intentioned, and that everything
will very soon work out for the best. If
you are thinking like this, then, according to your subtle material desires,
you are fully fixated in the larva of stupefaction supplied by the Universal Regulatrix. Why
didn’t you take action when you had the chance?
The
situation is not going to change for the better automatically. In this particular descending octave (with a
thin veneer of Eastern trappings), the only thing that is automatically going
to happen is that it will get worse, more bizarre and absurd. It will also devolve into something more
dangerous. If you honestly are
introspective, you must know deep within that you had an opportunity early on
to show resistance, to save yourself first, to speak out and expose the
thing—but you came up with numerous excuses and rationalizations not to do that. As such, by not taking action, you allowed
the corruption to enter within your astral body.
In
Judgment at Nuremberg, Spencer Tracy plays Chief Prosecutor Robert H.
Jackson at the military tribunal of twenty-two Nazi defendants in Bavaria. They were all tried as war criminals; many of
them were found guilty and executed by hanging.
One of the prominent members of Nazi Germany was Hans Frank (played by
Burt Lancaster), who presided over the sentencing of dissidents. He was the Law Leader of the Reich and
Governor General in Poland before and during the
war. Although repentant, he received
death. After the trial concluded, Judge
Jackson, feeling some sympathy and perhaps empathy for Governor Frank, went to
his prison cell just before his scheduled execution. At the end of the visit, they had this
exchange:
Hans
Frank: “You must believe me. I never
thought it would come to this.”
Judge
Jackson: “No, Herr Frank, I do not believe you.
You knew it would come to this from the very first time you sentenced an
innocent man.”
The Mayavadis believe that
when they attain complete knowledge, they become God. No real Vaishnava will ever accept this. No pretender Vaishnava will say it, of
course, but he may believe that he can make it so. By chanting the Name and conducting various
liturgical ceremonies, they think that they can burn off the karmic boomerang
of the uncountable offenses generated against the devotees of the Lord who chose
not betray His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada.
It appears to be working
out that way, but appearances can be deceiving.
The leading echelons of “ISKCON” and the wildcards of Neo-Mutt seem to
be pulling it off; their guru rackets seem indefatigable and incomprehensibly destined
for success. You must see them and their
movements for whom and what they really are.
You must not follow these white rabbits down into their holes, because
those vortices form an intricate labyrinth that is almost impossible to
escape.
It is a blunder to believe
that these men are advanced devotees of the Lord. It is a blunder to follow them. If you start to have doubts about their
validity (after having entered into Blunder Land), then you will be conducted into side trips, such as
rittvik and smorgasbord. You will
quickly become infected with the malice that is intrinsic to any and all of
these movements, as that hatred will be transferred to you from the hearts of each
faction’s leaders--so-called gurus and governors and mahants--and
you will, practically without being aware of it, become a shining bright lie,
an existentialist of the highest order.
You will see these men as gods, you will follow them, you will admire
them, and eventually you will try to be like them.
You will follow the process
they have concocted and injected into a movement of their own making in order
to reach lofty heights. You will inure
yourself to the absurdity of the whole situation; you will be rendered unable
to see reality once any of these powerful broken arrows traduces you according
to his specific jvara of choice. However, if you one day decide to unmask the
thing and uncover the tracks that led you into the abyss, you will find it a
long, hard slog—almost impossible. You
will then have to admit to yourself that you knew all along that it would come
to this.
“Religions get lost, as people do.” Franz Kafka
OM TAT SAT
Quotes from the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada are copyright by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
|