                       Reflections on the Relation 
                 Between Religion and Modern Rationalism 

                        by Richard Thompson, Ph.D.

           Presented at the Parliament of the World's Religions
                               Chicago, 1993

     In Vivekananda Svami's famous lecture on Hinduism at the
Parliament of Religions in 1893, he began by outlining some of the
salient features of traditional Hinduism. He mentioned
reincarnation, karma, and the problem of evil in the material
world. He went on to explain that the solution to this problem
depends on seeking refuge in God. God is that one "by whose command
the wind blows, the fire burns, the clouds rain, and death stalks
upon the earth."{1} He is source of strength and the support of the
universe. He is everywhere, pure, almighty, and all-merciful. And
we are related to God as a child to a father or mother and as a
friend to a beloved friend. 

     Vivekananda said that we are to worship God through unselfish
love, and he pointed out that the way to achieving love of God was
"fully developed and taught by Krishna, whom the Hindus believe to
have been God incarnate on earth."{2} Through love we are to
perfect ourselves, reach God, see God, and enjoy bliss with God. On
this, he said, all Hindus are agreed.{3}

     But then he went on to say that in the final stage of
realization, God is seen to be impersonal Brahman and the
individual terminates its separate existence by realizing its
identity with Brahman. Making an analogy with physical science, he
said, "Physics would stop when it would be able to fulfill its
services in discovering one energy of which all the others are but
manifestations, and the science of religion [would] become perfect
when it would discover . . . One who is the only Soul of which all
souls are but delusive manifestations."{4}

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Pure Monism

     Vivekananda's strictly monistic concept of God has a long
history, and it has always been associated with the rational,
speculative approach to reality. For example, in the 5th century
B.C., the Greek philosopher Parmenides concluded by speculative
arguments that "only One Thing can possibly exist and that this One
Thing is uncreated, unchangeable, indestructible, and immovable.
Plurality, creation, change, destruction, and motion are mere
appearances."{5} 

     Parmenides argued that the One must have no parts distinct
from one another, for otherwise it would be not One but many. Thus
he concluded that the One must be a sphere of perfectly uniform
substance. But even a sphere has an inside and an outside, and so
it is characterized by duality, not oneness. The idea of absolute
oneness, or pure monism, may seem alluring, but it requires us to
give up all conceivable attributes and finally give up thought and
conceptualization itself.
     Vivekananda recognized this problem, and he argued that in
the Hindu religion, specific forms of gods and goddesses serve as
symbols to help us visualize the inconceivable. Thus he said, "The
Hindus have discovered that the absolute can only be realized, or
thought of, or stated, through the relative, and the images,
crosses, and crescents are simply so many symbols so many pegs to
hang the spiritual ideas on."{6}

     The idea of religious imagery as a symbol for the
inconceivable absolute turns out to have some useful applications
in the modern age. Vivekananda was born in Calcutta in 1863 as
Narendranath Datta, and he grew up during the high noon of British
dominance in India. During this period, European rationalism, based
on the famous French Enlightenment, made a strong impact on India.
Reformers like Rammohan Roy and Devendranath Tagore founded the
Brahma(o) Samaj in an effort to revise Hinduism and make it
compatible with modern Western thinking.{7} This effort required
the solving of two problems: (1) the problem of religious plurality
and (2) the problem of the incompatibility between modern science
and old religious beliefs.

     The old philosophy of pure monism, or advaita, is well suited
to solve these problems. First of all, if religious imagery has
only a symbolical meaning that refers to something inconceivable,
then many different systems of symbols should work equally well for
this purpose. In this way, all major religious systems can be
reconciled with one another. This was Vivekananda's idea, and he
greatly stressed the equality of all religions.

     Likewise, if religious imagery is simply symbolical, then
there is no question of a conflict between religion and science. A
religious story that seems to conflict with established scientific
facts can simply be interpreted as a symbolic representation of the
One lying beyond the grasp of the finite scientific mind. In
addition, Vivekananda pointed out that the stark simplicity of the
impersonal Brahman is compatible with the simplicity that
physicists seek in their hoped-for Grand Unified Theory of nature.

     But in pure monism, what becomes of love of God, or indeed,
love of anyone? If the ultimate reality is undifferentiated
oneness, and personal existence is illusory, then love is also
illusory. Love requires two, and not just two of anything. Two
persons are required for a relationship of love. If such
relationships actually do have spiritual reality, then there must
exist at least two eternally existing spiritual personalities. In
traditional Hindu thought, there are, in fact, two categories of
eternal persons: (1) the jiva souls that inhabit individual
material bodies and (2) the original Supreme Personality of Godhead
and His innumerable spiritual expansions. As Vivekananda pointed
out, Hindus believe that the Supreme Being incarnated on earth as
Krsna, Who expounded the principles of loving devotional
reciprocation between Himself and individual jiva souls.

     Unfortunately, after making this point, Vivekananda rejected
both Krsna and the individual soul as illusion. According to his
monistic approach to religion, all conceivable features of the
Absolute are ruled out. Beingness, knowledge, and bliss are three,
and they must be discarded from the One as earthbound
misconceptions. The same is true of the might and mercy of the
Lord. Likewise, all relationships of personal reciprocation
admiration, friendship, parental love, or conjugal love must be
given up as delusions if the real truth is absolute oneness.

The Vaisnava Alternative Given by Bhaktivinod Thakur

     It is natural then to ask if some other solution is available
to the spiritual problems posed by modern rational thought and the
multiplicity of religious systems. To explore this possibility, I
now turn to the life of Bhaktivinod Thakur, a contemporary of
Svami Vivekananda.

     Bhaktivinod Thakur was born in 1838 as Kedaranath Datta in
the Nadia district of West Bengal. As a young man he acquired an
English education, and he used to exchange thoughts on literary and
spiritual topics with Devendranath Tagore, the Brahma(o) Samaj
leader and early teacher of Vivekananda. In due course, he studied
law, and for many years he supported his family as a magistrate in
the British court system.

     Bhaktivinod Thakur deeply studied the religious thought of
his day. He scrutinized the works of European philosophers, and he
was greatly impressed with the devotional teachings of Jesus
Christ. At first, his Western education inclined him to look down
on the Vaisnava literature describing devotional service to the
Supreme Lord, Krsna. Indeed, he wrote that the Bhagavat, one of
the main texts describing Krsna, "seemed like a repository of
ideas scarcely adopted to the nineteenth century."{8}

     However, at a certain point he ran across a work about the
great Vaisnava reformer Lord Caitanya, and he was able to obtain
Lord Caitanya's commentary on the Bhagavat given to the advaita
Vedantists of Benares. This created in him a great love for the
devotional teachings of Krsna as presented by Caitanya.{9} In
due course of time he achieved a very exalted state of spiritual
realization by following Lord Caitanya's teachings, and he wrote
many books presenting these teachings to various classes of people,
both in India and abroad.

A Historical Interlude

     Before discussing Bhaktivinod Thakur's spiritual teachings
it will be useful to give an explicit idea of the intellectual
climate in which he was operating in late nineteenth-century
Bengal. To do this, I will quote a passage from the writings of Sir
William Jones, a jurist who worked for the British East India
company and was the first president of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal. In an article on Hindu chronology written in 1788, Jones
gave the following account of the close of Dvapara-yuga, the third
age in the chronology of the Puranas and the Mahabharata:

"I cannot leave the third Indian age in which the virtues and vices
of mankind are said to have been equal, without observing, that
even the close of it is manifestly fabulous and poetical, with
hardly more appearance of historical truth, than the tale of Troy,
or of the Argonauts; for Yudhishthir, it seems, was the son of
Dherma, the Genius of Justice; Bhima of Pavan, or the God of Wind;
Arjun of Indra, or the Firmament; Nacul and Sahadeva of the Cumars,
the Castor and Pollux of India; and Bhishma, their reputed great
uncle, was the child of Ganga, or the Ganges, by Santanu, whose
brother Devapi is supposed to be still alive in the city of Calapa;
all which fictions may be charming embellishments of an heroick
poem, but are just as absurd in civil History, as the descent of
two royal families from the Sun and the Moon."{10}

     What Jones is referring to here is the story in the
Mahabharata of the events occurring in India at the time of
Krsna's advent. According to Hindu tradition, these events took
place about 5,000 years ago, at the time when the Dvapara-yuga
gave way to the present epoch, called the Kali-yuga. Yudhisthira,
Arjuna, Bhima, Nakula, and Sahadeva are the five Pandava
brothers who figured in many of Krsna's pastimes.

     We can see from Jones's comments that he does not regard the
story of the Pandavas as true history. Why not? For many of us,
the problem is that the story contains elements that are simply not
credible to a person trained up in the modern rational viewpoint.
We know that people don't descend from demigods. All documents
containing such nonsense are rejected by responsible historians,
and consequently, objective historical accounts do not contain such
absurdities. Such things never happened, and our history books
abundantly confirm this.

     Sir William Jones was clearly thinking along these lines, but
he was not exactly a modern rationalist. Jones was a Christian who
believed fully in the Mosaic chronology based on the Bible. Table
1 shows how Jones attempted to reconstruct Hindu chronology so as
to bring it in line with Christian chronology. It appears that
Jones was able to scorn Hindu mythology as palpably absurd, while
at the same time accepting as true the supernatural events recorded
in the Bible.

               Table 1. Reconstruction of Hindu Chronology 
                        by Sir William Jones {11}

=================================================================
     Occidental     Hindu                  years from   date
     history        history                  1788 A.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     Adam           Menu I, Age I                 5794  4006 B.C.
     Noah           Menu II                       4737  2949 
     Deluge                                       4138  2350
     Nimrod         Hiranyacasipu, Age II         4006  2218
     Bel            Bali                          3892  2104
                    Rama, Age II                  3817  2029
     Noah's death                                 3787  1999
                    Pradyota                      2817  1029
                    Buddha, Age IV                2815  1027 
                    Nanda                         2487   699
                    Balin                         1937   149
                    Vicramaditya                  1844    56
                    Devapala                      1811    23 B.C.
     Christ                                       1787     1 A.D.
                    Narayanpala                   1721    67 
                    Saca                          1709    79
     Walid                                        1080   708
     Mahmud                                        786  1002 
     Chengez                                       548  1250
     Taimur                                        391  1397
     Babur                                         276  1512 
     Nadirshah                                      49  1739 A.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ages I, II, III, and IV are the Satya-, Treta-, Dvapara-, and
Kali-yugas. Menu I is Svayambhuva Manu. Menu II is Vaivasvata
Manu.

     It is perhaps poetic justice that the same scornful treatment
that Jones applied to the Mahabharata was soon applied to the
Bible. During Jones's lifetime, the "higher" scientific criticism 
of the Bible was being developed in Germany, and it was unleashed
in England in the mid-nineteenth century. In 1860, the Anglican
theologians Benjamin Jowett and Baden Powell stole attention from
Darwin's newly published book, On the Origin of Species,  by a
controversial essay that rejected miracles on scientific
grounds.{12} The Darwinists and the higher Biblical critics quickly
joined forces, and Darwin's supporter Thomas Huxley began quoting
German Biblical scholars in his essays on the interpretation of
Genesis.{13} As the nineteenth century drew to a close, rational,
scientific skepticism became the only acceptable path for a scholar
or intellectual in any respectable field of study.

The Bhagavat

     Bhaktivinod Thakur was confronted with this hostile
intellectual climate in his efforts to present spiritual knowledge
to the young Bengali intellectuals of his day. After imbibing the
ideas of William Jones and other Western orientalists from their
British teachers, these young people were not at all inclined to
give credence to old mythology. How then could the teachings of
Krsna on love of God be presented? Bhaktivinod Thakur
judiciously chose to give a partial presentation of the truth which
would introduce important spiritual ideas without invoking
rejection due to deep-seated prejudices.

     In a lecture delivered in Dinajpur, West Bengal, in 1869, he
strongly stressed the Bhagavat, or Bhagavata Purana, as the
preeminent text describing the nature of the Supreme and the means
of realizing our relation with the Supreme. Rejecting pure monism
as a useless idea, he pointed out that God is an eternal person.
Thus he said, "The Bhagavat has . . . a Transcendental, Personal,
All-intelligent, Active, absolutely Free, Holy, Good, All-powerful,
Omnipresent, Just and Merciful and supremely Spiritual Deity
without a second, creating, preserving all that is in the
universe."{14} He then went on to point out that the highest object
of the soul is to "serve that Infinite Being for ever spiritually
in the activity of Absolute Love."{15}

     Bhaktivinod described the material world as the product of
Maya. Here Maya means not illusion but the eternal energy of
the Supreme which He uses to bewilder those souls who do not desire
to live in harmony with Him. The creation of the material world
through Maya is actually an aspect of the Lord's mercy, since He
thereby allows independent-minded souls to carry out their
activities in a world from which God is apparently absent.

     All these ideas are taken from the Bhagavat without
modification. However, in describing what the Bhagavat says about
the details of the material universe, Bhaktivinod Thakur adopted
an indirect approach. Thus he said,

"In the common-place books of the Hindu religion in which the Raja
and Tama Gunas have been described as the ways of religion, we find
description of a local heaven and a local hell; the heaven is as
beautiful as anything on earth and the Hell as ghastly as any
picture of evil. . . . The religion of the Bhagavat is free from
such a poetic imagination. Indeed, in some of the chapters we meet
with descriptions of these hells and heavens, and accounts of
curious tales, but we have been warned in some place in the book,
not to accept them as real facts, but to treat them as inventions
to overawe the wicked and to improve the simple and the
ignorant."{16}

     In fact, the Bhagavat does ascribe reality to hells and
heavens and their inhabitants. It describes in great detail the
higher planetary systems and the various demigods who live there,
including Brahma, Siva, and Indra. Not only does the Bhagavat
say that these beings are real, but it gives them an important role
in the creation and maintenance of the universe. It also gives them
a role in many of Krsna's manifest pastimes (lila) within the
material world. For example, in the story of the lifting of
Govardhana Hill, it is Indra who creates a devastating storm when
Krsna insults him by interfering with a sacrifice in his honor.

     Nonetheless, Bhaktivinod Thakur chose to sidestep these
"mythological" aspects of the Bhagavat in an effort to reach an
audience of intellectuals whose mundane education ruled out such
mythology as absurd fantasy. Indeed, he went even further than
this. In 1880 he published a treatise entitled Sri Krsna
Samhita in which he elaborately explained the philosophy of
Krsna consciousness.{17} In this book he also presented a
reconstruction of Indian history similar to the one introduced by
Sir William Jones to bring Hindu chronology into line with the
Mosaic timetable of the Bible (see Table 1). This involved
converting demigods and Manus into human kings and reducing their
total span of history to a few thousand earthly years. 
     I should point out clearly that Bhaktivinod Thakur did not
personally accept the modified version of the Bhagavat that he
presented to the Bengali intellectuals. He actually accepted the
so-called mythology of the Bhagavat as true, and he presented it
as such in many of his writings. For example, Bhaktivinod Thakur
stated the following in his book, Jaiva Dharma:

"I have said that the Vaishnava religion came into being as soon as
the creatures came into existence. Brahma was the first Vaishnava.
Sriman Mahadeva is also a Vaishnava. The ancient Prajapaties are
all Vaishnavas. Sri Narada Goswami who is the fancy-born child of
Brahma, is a Vaishnava. . . . You have seen the Vaishnava religion
of the beginning of the creation. Then again when Gods, men,
demons, etc., have been separately described, we get Prahlada and
Dhruva from the very start. . . . Manu's sons and Prahlada are all
grandsons of Prajapati, Kashyapa. . . . There is no doubt about it
. . . that the pure Vaishnava religion began with the beginning of
history. Then the kings of the solar and lunar dynasties and all
great and famous sages and hermits became devotees of Vishnu."{18}

This passage was written in response to challengers who argue that
Vaisnava dharma is a recent development. The passage takes it for
granted that beings such as Brahma, Mahadeva, Narada, and
Prahlada literally exist as described in the sastras. Many
similar examples of this can be found in Bhaktivinod Thakur's
writings.

     Now, if Bhaktivinod Thakur accepted the literal truth of the
sastras, how could he justify making presentations in which he
denied it? His granddisciple Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada has pointed out that there is a precedent for making
such indirect presentations of sastra. An interpretation of a
text which adheres directly to the dictionary definitions of its
words is called mukhya-vrtti, and an imaginary or indirect
interpretation is called laksana-vrtti or gauna-vrtti. Srila
Prabhupada pointed out, "Sometimes . . . as a matter of necessity,
Vedic literature is described in terms of the laksana-vrtti or
gauna-vrtti, but one should not accept such explanations as
permanent truths."{19} In general, one should understand sastra
in terms of mukhya-vrtti.

The Theology of Visions

     One might grant that Bhaktivinod Thakur was justified in
modifying the sastras in an effort to reach intellectuals trained
to scorn old mythology. But serious questions can still be raised:
What is the scope for making such a presentation of religion today,
and to what extent can such a presentation be regarded as true?
Could it be that the mythological material in the Hindu sastras
is unimportant, so that one might present it as true to people who
believe in it and as false to people who disbelieve in it? Or
should we accept on the basis of modern knowledge that Hindu
mythology really is false and try to formulate a philosophy that
preserves the essential idea of love of God while dispensing with
superannuated ideas?

     To answer these questions, let us see how we would have
reformulate Vaisnava philosophy so as to make it readily
acceptable to intellectuals today in late twentieth-century
America. To do this we must deviate to some extent from the
prevailing materialistic framework of modern science. Physical
scientists tell us that the mind, with all its conscious
experiences, is simply a product of the brain. If we accept this,
then all religious experience, whether it be the bliss of Brahman
or prema bhakti, is simply hallucination. If this is true, we can
forget about religion unless, of course, we like hallucinations.

     To obtain an alternate viewpoint, I will turn to the
psychologist William James. Although James was a man of the
nineteenth century, he was a Western scientist who applied the
methods of empirical scientific research to the phenomena of
religion. Thus his observations are still of relevance today.

     As a result of his studies, James reached the following
conclusions:

"The further limits of our being plunge, it seems to me, into an
altogether other dimension of existence from the sensible and
merely `understandable' world. Name it the mystical region, or the
supernatural region, whichever you choose. . . . Yet the unseen
region in question is not merely ideal, for it produces effects in
this world. When we commune with it, work is actually done upon our
finite personality, for we are turned into new men, and
consequences in the way of conduct follow in the natural world upon
our regenerative change. But that which produces effects within
another reality must be termed a reality itself, so I feel as if we
had no philosophic excuse for calling the unseen or mystical world
unreal."{20}

     One could take this idea of a mystical or transcendental
dimension and arrive at the following version of Vaisnava
philosophy: Such a transcendental region does exist, and it is the
eternal abode of Krsna. Advanced souls can perceive this realm
in meditation by the grace of Krsna, and so they are able to
enter into Krsna's eternal loving pastimes. However, all
Puranic descriptions of events within the material world have to
be understood rationally on the basis of modern scientific
knowledge. On the whole, the mythological stories in the Puranas
are not literally true. But the stories pertaining to Krsna's
pastimes are not simply fantasy. Rather they are spiritual
transmissions into the meditative minds of great souls, and they
refer not to this world, but to the purely transcendental domain.

     This is a philosophy that might appeal to many persons, and I
will refer to it as the theology of visions. It allows one to
retain the idea of love of God, while at the same time avoiding
disturbing conflicts between mythological tales and modern
knowledge. It also appears implicitly in the work of some modern
scholars of religion who study the bhakti tradition.
     To illustrate this, I will briefly consider an article,
"Shrines of the Mind," by David Haberman, who is Assistant
Professor of Religion at Williams College.{21} In this article,
Haberman argues that Vraja, the traditional place of Krsna's
manifest lilas, is first and foremost a mental shrine a realm
that can be entered and experienced in meditation. 

     He argues that the physical Vraja, a tract of land in the
vicinity of the North Indian city of Mathura, has only been a
major center for the worship of Krsna since the 16th century,
when the followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and other Vaisnavas
"rediscovered" the lost sites of Krsna's pastimes. In fact,
according to Haberman, these sites never really existed before the
16th century, and so they weren't rediscovered. Rather, they were
projected onto the physical landscape of Vraja from the
transcendental landscape perceived in meditation. 

     Haberman gives a number of interpretations of what happens
when a person meditates on a mental shrine. These range from the
contemplation of imaginary scenes in the ordinary sense to entry
into "an eternal transcendent world which is perceptible only to
the mind's eye and is reached through meditative technique."{22}
Since Haberman seems to lean somewhat towards the latter, it could
be said that he is hinting at a version of the theology of visions:
One can enter into Krsna's transcendental world by meditation,
but Krsna never had any actual pastimes in the physical world.
Physical, worldly history followed the lines revealed by modern
scholarship. This means that many centuries ago in Vraja there may
have been various primitive tribes following animistic cults, but
there was no Krsna literally lifting Govardhana Hill.

     Although this religious theory allows one to avoid certain
conflicts with modern scholarship, it does have a number of
drawbacks. A few of these are the following:

1. This theory is contrary to Vaisnava tradition, and thus it
calls into question the thinking of the many great souls who have
fully supported the tradition. Since these great souls are the very
meditators who have seen transcendental visions of Krsna, the
reality of such visions is called into question. In other words,
why should persons who see the Absolute realm believe in the truth
of myths which even worldly scholars see to be false? 

2. This theory doesn't explain why the worship of Krsna should
be a recent affair, as scholars claim. If there is an eternal realm
of Krsna that can be accessed by meditation, why did people
begin to access it only recently? 

3. What does this theory say about the multiplicity of religions?
Are the visions reported in other religious traditions real? If
not, then why is it that Vaisnava visions alone are real? If so,
then are there many transcendental realms, one for each religion?
Or is it that people see in one transcendental realm whatever they
are looking for?

4. This theory greatly limits the power of God. If God only appears
in visions, what becomes of His role as the creator and controller
of the universe? That role is whittled down to practically nothing
if we let modern science explain the material world.

5. The theology of visions can easily be transformed into a purely
psychological theory of religious experience. After all, this is
the view that will be overwhelmingly favored by psychologists,
neuroscientists, and physical scientists of all varieties.

     In view of objections (1) through (4), objection (5) is almost
unavoidable. We are left with a totally mundane theory that
explains away religion. In the case of Krsna's lilas, this
line of thinking leads us to particularly unpleasant conclusions.
Thus Haberman characterizes meditation on Krsna lila as
follows: "The desired end is a religious voyeurism and vicarious
enjoyment said to produce infinite bliss."{23} Such sad conclusions
are avoided in the more balanced approach taken by traditional
Vaisnavas, who stress Krsna's roles as the supreme Creator and
the performer of humanly impossible pastimes on earth.

Shifting the Boundary Between Myth and Science

Yet if we start from the theology of visions and proceed in the
inductive manner of scholars, we can see how it could serve as a
stepping stone for the development of a more satisfactory theory.
The starting point for this development is a story that Haberman
related about the Vaisnava saint Narottama dasa Thakura.{24}

     It seems that Narottama was once meditating on boiling milk
for Radha and Krsna. When the milk boiled over in his
meditation, he took the vessel off the fire with his bare hands and
got burnt in the process. When Narottama awoke from his meditation,
he discovered that his hands were actually burnt.

     There are many stories like this, and I will briefly mention
two more. In the second story, Srinivasa Acarya, a contemporary
of Narottama dasa Thakura, was meditating on fanning Lord
Caitanya. In his meditation, Lord Caitanya placed His garland
around Srinivasa's neck. When he awoke from meditation, the
unusually fragrant garland was actually there, around his neck.{25}

     In the third story a Vaisnava saint named Duhkhi Krsna
dasa was sweeping the site of Krsna's rasa dance in Vraja. He
found a remarkable golden anklet and hid it, since he thought that
it was very important. Later, an old lady came to him and asked for
the anklet. It turned out that the old lady was really Lalita, one
of the transcendental maidservants of Radha and Krsna. The
lady finally revealed that the anklet belonged to Radha Herself,
and then she manifested her true form as Lalita.{26}

     What are we to make of such stories? The story of the burnt
hands might be accepted by many scholars. After all, it is well
known that Catholics meditating on the crucifixion of Christ
sometimes develop stigmata, in which the wounds of Christ appear on
their hands and feet. If meditation can somehow cause bleeding
wounds, then maybe it can also cause burns.

     The story of the miraculous garland goes one step further.
Here a tangible object is said to materialize. This may seem
fantastic, but it turns out that there is an extensive literature
on materialization. For example, Stephen Braude, a Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Maryland, has argued that many
cases of alleged materializations produced by spirit mediums are
backed up by solid empirical evidence which deserves serious
study.{27} If materializations by spiritualists might be factual,
why not materializations of beautiful garlands by saintly persons?

     This brings us to the third story. Although this story seems
"far out," there are many similar stories in which a transcendental
personality seems to step into our material continuum, perform some
action, and then disappear. Another example would be the story from
Caitanya-caritamrta in which Krsna, as a small boy, approached
the saint Madhavendra Puri, gave him a pot of milk, and then
mysteriously disappeared. Madhavendra Puri drank the milk, thus
showing that it was tangible. Later that night he had a dream in
which Krsna revealed the location of the Gopala Deity, which
had been originally installed by Krsna's (great)grandson Vajra
and had been hidden during a Mohammedan attack.{28}

     The stories of the burnt hand, the miraculous garland, and the
transcendental visits are progressively harder and harder to accept
from a conventional scientific standpoint. But it is hard to see
how to draw a line between stories of this kind that might possibly
be true and ones that definitely cannot. In addition, all of the
stories seem to hint at energetic exchanges between spiritual and
material energy that might add an important new chapter to our
scientific knowledge, if only they could be properly studied. 

     When we study a body of empirical evidence, we always evaluate
that evidence on the basis of our limiting assumptions. In the end,
the conclusions we derive from the evidence may reflect our
limiting assumptions as much as they reflect the evidence itself.
If the limiting assumptions change, then the conclusions will also
change, even though the body of evidence remains the same.

     Consider what might happen if all the available evidence
regarding the history of human experience were to be studied not on
the basis of nineteenth-century rationalism, but on the basis of a
new science in which spiritual transformations of matter were
considered to be a real possibility. The result might be a
completely different picture of the past than the one now accepted
by scholars.

     For one thing, the objections that William Jones expressed
about the story of the Pandava brothers might not seem so weighty
as they do from a conventional scholarly viewpoint. If higher
beings can step into our continuum from another realm, then humans
might well be descended from such beings. The new picture of the
past might prove to be much more compatible with traditional
spiritual teachings than the one that now prevails.

     In the late twentieth century there are some indications that
a broader approach to science may be developing. In the days of
Vivekananda and Bhaktivinod Thakur, it appeared that
mechanistic, reductionistic science was marching unimpeded from
triumph to triumph, and many people believed that it would soon
find explanations for everything. But in the late twentieth century
this triumphant march has been checked on many different fronts by
apparently insuperable obstacles.

     For example, physics looked like a closed subject in the
1890s, but in the early decades of the twentieth century it entered
a phase of paradox and mystery with the development of relativity
theory and quantum mechanics. The mysteries of quantum mechanics
continue to inspire scientists to contemplate ideas that would have
seemed outrageously mystical at the turn of the century.{29,30,31} 

     But now physics has encountered an even more serious obstacle.
The bold architects of universal physical theories are now
realizing that these theories can never be adequately tested by
experiment.{32} Thus the Harvard physicist Howard Georgi
characterized modern theoretical physics as "recreational
mathematical theology."{33} 

     In the mid-twentieth century, computer scientists believed
they were on the verge of proving that thought is mechanical,
thereby fulfilling La Mettrie's eighteenth-century dream of man as
a machine. But in more recent years, even though computers have
become more and more powerful, the dream of simulating human
intelligence has seemed to recede further and further into the
future. 

     With the discovery of the DNA spiral helix by Watson and Crick
in 1953, many scientists thought that the ultimate secret of life
had been revealed. Since then, molecular biologists have had
tremendous success in elucidating the molecular mechanisms of
living cells. But as molecular biology has unveiled the incredible
complexity of these high-precision mechanisms, the goal of
explaining the origin of life seems progressively more difficult to
attain.{34}

     These are just a few of the many areas in which the program of
mechanistic reductionism seems to be reaching ultimate limits as
the twentieth century draws to a close. Perhaps as a result of
these developments, many professional scientists are now showing a
willingness to consider theoretical ideas and areas of research
that have been traditionally taboo in the scientific community. 

     For example, we now find organizations of professional
scientists that openly study phenomena lying on the interface
between physical science and the realms of mysticism and the
paranormal. Examples are the International Association for New
Science (IANS), the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE), the
Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), and the International Society
for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine (ISSSEEM).
These organizations all sponsor regular scientific conferences.

     Some of the phenomena studied by these groups seem very
similar to "mythical" phenomena so often reported in old religious
texts and in recent accounts of religious experiences. A
synergistic interaction between scholars of religion and these new
scientific organizations might prove to be a valuable source of new
insights for both groups of researchers.

The Direct Presentation of Vaisnava Teachings

     We have discussed how Bhaktivinod Thakur found it necessary
to present a modified version of the Vaisnava teachings to young
Bengali intellectuals at the high noon of British political and
ideological imperialism.  However, as the sun began to set on the
British empire, his son and successor Srila Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati began a vigorous program of directly presenting the
Vaisnava conclusions throughout India. This program was taken
abroad by his disciple, Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada, who boldly celebrated the ancient Ratha-yatra
festival of Jagannath Puri in London's Trafalgar Square.

     In the changing climate of scientific opinion in the late
twentieth century, the time may have come to openly introduce the
traditional teachings of bhakti to the world's intellectual
communities. The once jarring conflicts between rationalism and
traditional religion may be progressively reduced as science
matures and becomes open to the study of mystical phenomena. This
opens up the possibility of establishing an approach to religion
that is intellectually acceptable and at the same time satisfies
the soul's inner desire for love in a transcendental relationship.

     This leaves us with one possible objection. Could it be that
the Vaisnava teachings, with their specific emphasis on Krsna
as the Supreme, are guilty of sectarian disregard for other
religious traditions? The answer is that, of course, any doctrine
can be presented in a narrow, sectarian way. However, as
Bhaktivinod Thakur pointed out in his essay on the Bhagavat, the
Vaisnava teachings are inherently broad-minded and acknowledge
the value of all religious systems. 

     The following prayer indicates the approach to other religions
taken in the Bhagavat:

     "O my Lord, Your devotees can see You through the ears by the
process of bona fide hearing, and thus their hearts become
cleansed, and You take Your seat there. You are so merciful to Your
devotees that You manifest Yourself in the particular eternal form
of transcendence in which they always think of You."{35}

     This verse states that God appears to His devoted worshipers
in many different forms, depending on their particular desires.
These forms include the different avataras of Krsna described
in traditional Vaisnava texts, but they are not limited to these
forms. Indeed, it is said that the different expansions of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead are uncountable, and they cannot be
fully described in the finite scriptures of any one religious
community.

     The following verse gives some idea of the different religious
communities in the universe, as described by the Bhagavat:

"From the forefathers headed by Bhrgu Muni and other sons of
Brahma appeared many children and descendants, who assumed
different forms as demigods, demons, human beings, Guhyakas,
Siddhas, Gandharvas, Vidyadharas, Caranas, Kindevas, Kinnaras,
Nagas, Kimpurusas, and so on. All of the many universal species,
along with their respective leaders, appeared with different
natures and desires generated from the three modes of material
nature. Therefore, because of the different characteristics of the
living entities within the universe, there are a great many Vedic
rituals, mantras, and rewards."{36}

     This statement is explicitly "mythological," and one can well
imagine how Sir William Jones might have reacted to it. However, it
presents a grand picture of innumerable races and societies within
the universe, all of whom are given different religious
dispensations suitable for their particular situations and natures.
Here the word "Vedic" cannot be limited to particular Sanskrit
texts that may be existing in India at the present time. Rather, it
refers to the sum total of religious systems revealed by the
infinite Supreme God for the sake of elevating innumerable
societies of divinely created beings. 

     As always, the distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava
teachings is that God is a real person, and His variegated creation
is also real. Thus the Vaisnava approach to religious liberality
is to regard all genuine religions as real divine revelations.
Likewise, the Vaisnava teachings of love of God aim to establish
a relationship of loving service between the real individual soul
and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the performer of real
transcendental pastimes.


                                   Notes

1.  Vivekananda, 1963, pp. 10-11.

2.  Vivekananda, 1963, p. 11.

3.  Vivekananda, 1963, p. 13.

4.  Vivekananda, 1963, p. 14.

5.  Jordan, 1987, p. 27.

6.  Vivekananda, 1963, p. 17.

7.  Majumdar, 1965.

8.  Thakur Bhaktivinod, 1986, p. 5.

9.  Thakur Bhaktivinod, 1986, p. 6.

10. Jones, 1799, p. 302.

11. Jones, 1799, p. 313.

12. Moore, 1986, p. 334.

13. Moore, 1986, p. 344.

14. Thakur Bhaktivinod, 1986, p. 30.

15. Thakur Bhaktivinod, 1986, p. 30.

16. Thakur Bhaktivinod, 1986, pp. 24-25.

17. Rupa-vilasa dasa, 1989, pp. 138-39.

18. Thakur Bhakti Vinod, 1975, pp. 155-56.

19. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, 1975, Adi-lila, Vol. 2,
    p. 95.

20. James, 1982, pp. 515-16.

21. Haberman, 1993.

22. Haberman, 1993, p. 31.

23. Haberman, 1993, p. 26.

24. Haberman, 1993, p. 33.

25. Rosen, 1991, pp. 63-64.

26. Rosen, 1991, pp. 119-39.

27. Braude, 1986.

28. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, 1975, Madhya-lila, Vol. 2,
    pp. 12-19.

29. Bohm, 1980. 

30. Penrose, 1989. 

31. Jahn and Dunne, 1987.

32. Weinberg, 1992.

33. Crease and Mann, 1986, p. 414.

34. Horgan, 1991.

35. Srimad Bhagavatam, 3.9.11.

36. Srimad Bhagavatam, 11.14.5-7.


                               Bibliography

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, A. C.,
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-Lila, Vol. 2,
Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1975.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, A. C.,
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, Vol. 2,
Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1975.

Bohm, David, Wholeness and the Implicate Order,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.

Braude, Stephen, The Limits of Influence,
New York: Routledge, 1986.

Crease, Robert and Mann, Charles, The Second Creation,
New York: Macmillian, 1986.

Haberman, David, Shrines of the Mind,
Journal of Vaisnava Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1993.

Horgan, John, In the Beginning . . . ,
Scientific American, Feb. 1991.

Jahn, Robert and Dunne, Brenda, Margins of Reality,
San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987.

James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience,
New York: Penguin Books, 1982.

Jones, William, The Works of Sir William Jones, Vol. I, London:
Printed for G. G. and J. Robinson, Pater-Noster-Row and R. H.
Evans, No. 26, Pall-Mall, 1799.

Jordan, James N., Western Philosophy: From Antiquity to the
Middle Ages, New York: Macmillan, 1987.

Majumdar, R. C., Svami Vivekananda: A Historical Review,
Calcutta: General Printers and Publishers, Ltd., 1965.

Moore, James R., "Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the
Nineteenth Century," God and Nature, eds. David Lindberg and
Ronald Numbers, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.

Penrose, Roger, The Emperor's New Mind,
Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989.

Rosen, Steven, The Lives of the Vaishnava Saints:
Shrinivas Acharya, Narottam Das Thakur, Shyamananda Pandit,
Brooklyn, New York: Folk Books, 1991.

Rupa-vilasa dasa, The Seventh Goswami, New Jaipur Press, 1989.

Thakur, Sri Srila Bhakti Vinode, Jaiva Dharma,
Madras: Sree Gaudiya Math, 1975.

Thakur, Shrila Bhaktivinod, The Bhagavat: Its Philosophy, Its
Ethics & Its Theology, Nabadwip: Shri Goudiya Samiti, 1986.

Vivekananda, Swami, Selections from Svami Vivekananda,
Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1963.

Weinberg, Steven, Dreams of a Final Theory,
New York: Pantheon Books, 1992.

