Why is impersonalism so prevalent in holy places?
Holy places are very powerful places, and they can amplify whatever tendencies we carry inside. Unfortunately, they can often amplify something else apart from pure devotion: impersonalism.
Subscribe to receive new articles by e-mail. It’s free, but if you like, you can pledge a donation:
Previously, I spoke about the disadvantages of living in holy places. Holy places are very powerful places, and they can amplify whatever tendencies we carry inside. Unfortunately, they can often amplify something else apart from pure devotion: impersonalism.
We may usually think about impersonalism in the context of Māyāvādis, but it is actually more widespread than that.
Holy places are full of impersonalists, because the whole world is full of them. In fact, impersonalism is the default modus operandi for every conditioned soul. Material life means rejecting our eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa, and when we do that, we inevitably fall into some form of impersonalism, taking Kṛṣṇa out of the picture so we can do our own thing. This happens everywhere, even amongst devotees. It is just that due to the amplifying nature of the holy places, people’s impersonalism becomes more pronounced there.
Until we attain a platform of pure devotion, impersonalism will continue to manifest in us to a certain degree, and if we are not careful, this can be amplified by the holy places. Holy places don’t remove free will, and they often accelerate whatever direction we choose. That’s why our ācāryas recommend that we approach such powerful places with caution.
It’s not very common to see devotees believing God has no form. Kṛṣṇa is worshiped everywhere in Vṛndāvana and Mayapur. However, we can easily drift into a concept of quasi-impersonalism, in which we accept philosophically that Kṛṣṇa has a form, but deep inside we see the deity as just a statue. If we can’t see Kṛṣṇa as personally present in the deity, we will gradually slip into seeing God as a vague concept, instead of someone who is personally present in our lives. The very definition of impersonalism is to see God as just an idea or energy, and not as a person.
Another way in which this tendency may manifest is in the idea of the holy place saving us automatically, which puts the place over the person. The whole idea of living in a holy place is coming closer to Kṛṣṇa and His devotees, and thus getting more opportunities to serve Him. However, we often fall into the mistake of seeing the dhāma (as a concept, or as an impersonal entity) as the savior, instead of Kṛṣṇa. It may sound close, but it is not. If we see the dhāma as a concept, space, or impersonal entity, and we believe it has the power to save us by itself, Kṛṣṇa then comes out of the picture. The priority then becomes to just stay in this particular space, instead of loving Kṛṣṇa.
This is a delicate point, but it has many ramifications. It can also be applied to a spiritual institution, in the sense that we see the institution as the deliverer instead of Kṛṣṇa. In this case, the priority becomes my relationship with the institution, instead of my relationship with Kṛṣṇa. In a healthy situation, the institution is supposed to foment and facilitate my relationship with Kṛṣṇa. I stay in the institution because that’s the place where I can find the right association and offer service. If, however, the institution itself (again, as a space or impersonal entity) replaces Kṛṣṇa as the deliverer and object of affection, we fall into impersonalism.
This same concept can even be applied to the guru. This is a very subtle trap, but it is perhaps the most dangerous, because it can lead us to become full-blown Māyāvādis. How does it work? Just as in the case of the institution, a healthy relationship with the guru implies seeing the guru as the intimate servant of Kṛṣṇa, who can help us to reconnect with Him. By observing the guru and being engaged in service under his guidance, we can gradually learn to love Kṛṣṇa. However, if the guru himself becomes the deliverer, and the goal becomes to simply stay close to the guru, then again, Kṛṣṇa is taken out of the picture, and the guru becomes an all-powerful, independent deity in our minds. From this, we can come to the conclusion that the guru is god himself, and from that, reason that if the guru could somehow become god, it means I can also become god. From this, I can come to the idea that by worshiping the guru (whom I see as God) now, I can become myself a guru (God) in the future. The guru then becomes a ladder that I use to ultimately become God, which brings me to the same mentality as the Māyāvādis. It may sound incredible, but this factually happened in our movement at some point.
This event is described in chapter 31 of the Prabhupada Lilamrta, “A Threat Against ISKCON”, in the passage that begins with the description of the 1970 Janmāṣṭamī–Vyāsa-pūjā festival in New Vṛndāvana. On this occasion, a group of sannyasis started telling devotees that Prabhupāda was actually Kṛṣṇa Himself and the devotees had failed to recognize him.
This passage from the book summarizes the whole discussion:
“Soon after their arrival in Japan, Prabhupāda’s secretary received a disturbing call from a devotee attending the society-wide Janmāṣṭamī celebration at New Vrindaban. Four of the newly initiated sannyāsīs had arrived, the devotee said, and were teaching a strange philosophy. Devotees were confused. Prabhupāda had left America, the sannyāsīs were saying, because he had rejected his disciples. The sannyāsīs were blaming themselves and other disciples for not realizing that Prabhupāda was actually Kṛṣṇa!
When Prabhupāda heard this, he said, “That is why I did not go. I knew this would happen. This is impersonalism.” He defined the Māyāvāda (impersonal) misconception of the guru and Kṛṣṇa. If one says that the guru is God, or if the guru himself says that he is God, that is Māyāvāda philosophy.
For the Māyāvādīs, spiritual realization is realization of one’s identity with Brahman, the all-pervading spirit. Despite their austerities and their detachment from materialistic society, and despite their study of Vedānta-sūtra and the commentaries of Śaṅkara, they mistakenly think that Kṛṣṇa’s body, name, pastimes, service, and devotees are all facets of māyā, or illusion; therefore they are called Māyāvādīs. A Māyāvāda spiritual master does not reveal to his disciple the holy name of Kṛṣṇa, the holy pastimes of Kṛṣṇa, or the transcendental form of Kṛṣṇa, since the Māyāvādī considers all these māyā. Instead, the guru explains the oneness of all things, teaching the disciple that the concept of separate existence and ego is illusion. The Māyāvādīs sometimes compare the guru to a ladder. One uses the ladder to reach a higher position, but if the ladder is no longer needed one kicks it away.
Coughing intermittently and speaking with physical discomfort, Prabhupāda explained the Māyāvādīs’ dangerous misconceptions. The impersonalists held a cheap, mundane view of the guru, the guru’s worship, and the guru’s instructions. If one says that the guru is God and God is not a person, then it follows logically that the guru has no eternal personal relationship with his disciples. Ultimately the disciple will become equal to the guru, or in other words he will realize that he, too, is God.”
This is a very delicate point, but we can see that Prabhupāda took it with ultimate seriousness, realizing it could undermine his whole movement. If we can properly understand it, we can avoid many traps in our way.
What else should we be careful with?
Another form of impersonalism is when we develop is to become mechanical, drifting from personal service to the Lord (as a person with desires, feelings, relationships, etc.) into another form of quasi-impersonalism, where our spiritual practice is reduced to a series of abstract rituals. We then wake up early in the morning because we believe this will save us, recite some mantra mechanically, believing it will save us, then perform some mechanical worship or other activity, believing it will save us, and even hear or sing mechanically, believing it will save us. We can thus see how we can spend the whole day engaged in rituals, without ever remembering Kṛṣṇa, believing the ritual will save us. This is similar to the idea that merely living in the whole place will save us.
Prabhupāda emphasizes the verse yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke (one who goes to a holy place to just take a bath, is not more intelligent than an animal). If I live in a holy place without properly associating with the pure devotees residing there, believing that merely living in this particular geographical space will save me, I’m not more intelligent than an ass or other animal living there.
Another trap is to live in the dhāma as a consumer, seeing the dhāma as some kind of spiritual product, something I get satisfaction from, and not as a place I’m meant to serve.
In this case, I go to live in the dhāma hoping it will bring me peace, healing, mystical experiences, spiritual vibes, or some other form of personal satisfaction. I then become a consumer, which nourishes my ego and individualism, instead of dissolving it. I then become stuck in the physical dimension of the dhāma, locked out of the spiritual dimension (that is accessed through selfless service). As a result, instead of the comfort, satisfaction, and the mystical experiences I was looking for, I find crowds, politics, noise, etc. (which are all components of the material dimension). At this point, I may either leave, or become disappointed or cynical. In other words, cynicism and fault-finding flatten the dhāma into ordinary matter, making us see just dirt and disturbance.
Another form of impersonalism found in holy places is the sahajiyā mentality of seeing ourselves as already in the līlā, artificially imagining ourselves as intimate associates while in reality being still in the level of sense gratification. If I see myself as already perfect, there is no need to restrict my senses; I can do whatever I want. From this, I gradually slide into a form of self-indulgence, or even self-worship, that is dangerously close to the process of self-worship adopted by Māyāvādis (ahaṅgrahopāsanā). We should practice living in the holy place by hearing and serving, without pretending to be a gopī or siddha prematurely.
Yet another form of impersonalism is impersonalism in relationships, where, instead of seeing other devotees as individual souls meant for loving reciprocation and service, we start seeing them as functions, roles, or problems to deal with. This attitude flattens the whole sphere of relationships (something essential to our spiritual progress) into an ordinary, material set of transactions. Other devotees around us become thus tools to achieve things (free labor, means of validation, objects of convenience, sources of money, emotional dumping grounds, etc.), instead of personal souls, dear to Kṛṣṇa. In this case, Kṛṣṇa goes again out of the picture, replaced with myself, as the center, the object of service and control of all people I have around me, which I use as a means to achieve personal satisfaction. When we go on this path, things can become very lonely, very quickly.
There are many other ways impersonalism can manifest. I’m coming to the conclusion of this article with the idea that I barely scratched the surface.
A few more aspects, just to mention:
a) Impersonalism can manifest in the form of dry renunciation, in which we reject emotions as being Māyā, repressing them and becoming cold and distant, thinking we are above everything, which again blocks our personal relationship with Kṛṣṇa, and end bringing us to the idea that we are the center. This is another feature of the Māyāvādis we can easily fall into.
b) Similarly, impersonalism can appear in the form of avoiding people and responsibilities, thinking I don’t need any of this, I can just chant, etc. Surely, pure devotees can sometimes act in this way, but that’s because they factually have a relationship with Kṛṣṇa and can disconnect from the physical reality and simply stay with Him. As long as we are on the material level, this attitude brings us to impersonalism, where we have neither a relationship with the world nor with Kṛṣṇa, just like a soul in the impersonal Brahmajyoti.
When we fall into any of these traps, we will have less taste for hearing, singing, and serving, and will be more attracted to solitary quietness, fault-finding, arguments with others, etc. We may start seeing other devotees as mere disturbances, instead of objects of service, and start seeing liberation or peace as the ultimate goal, instead of loving service. In this context, service may be seen as just a tool to achieve this means, or rather as just another disturbance to be avoided.
Impersonalism also manifests in the “I don’t care” mentality, where we just become self-centered and stop caring about others or what is happening around us. Personalism means relationship, and relationship means I care about the person. When I stop caring, means there is no relationship, which means, again, impersonalism.
Ultimately, we may even lose the attraction to chanting and other aspects of the process and completely stop. Caitanya Mahāprabhu explains that Māyāvādīs are offenders to the Lord, and therefore the holy names don’t manifest in their mouths. If we go on this path, this may happen to us. In this case, the holy place may not interfere with our free will.
The real holy place can be appreciated only by a pure devotee (premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena). The goal thus should be to go there to practice devotional service and gradually become purified. If we can maintain this humble mood long enough, we can eventually see Vṛndāvana or Māyāpur. If, however, we fall into the trap of impersonalism, our path will surely be more troubled. In general, good association is the make-or-break factor everywhere, but especially in holy places. As long as we stay around good association, we are more or less safe, but as soon as we get into the wrong group, things become complicated and can derail, fast.
You can also donate using Buy Me a Coffee, PayPal, Wise, Revolut, or bank transfers. There is a separate page with all the links. This helps me enormously to have time to write instead of doing other things to make a living. Thanks!