A Copernican Revolution of Theism

It’s the old unanswerable question: The Beatles or The Stones, Jesus or Jehovah, Allah or Yahweh, Vishnu or Shiva?

There is a plurality of theistic conceptions orbiting the central truth vying for supremacy. Christians believe salvation can only be achieved through Jesus Christ, Muslims through Mohammed, Hindus through the grace of Sri Guru. Each offers a different conception of divinity on the basis of the realization of their saints and scriptural authority. Srila Sridhar Maharaja observes: “According to one’s inner necessity and hankering for truth, one comes in connection with a certain level of theistic conception and association.”

God in the most general sense is perceived as embodying all-encompassing, infinite magnitude. A more refined vision reveals the underlying, all-pervasive presence of divinity. These are respectively the extremes of the Infinite. But a deep leap inward—up close and personal—reveals the all-attractive personality of Godhead. Not merely insurmountable or inescapable, but irresistible. The Krishna conception of divinity indicates being irresistibly drawn through love and attraction toward the very center of the Infinite—Reality the Beautiful.

At one stage it is admirable to recognize theistic plurality, but the next stage in progressive realization is to perceive gradation—to weigh and measure. Maverick Theologian John Hick writes in a letter to the Vatican: “…pluralist theocentrism, claims to be a way of going beyond Christocentrism, a paradigm shift, a Copernican revolution in which, instead of Christ being seen as the centre of the universe of faiths, all the religions, including Christianity, are seen as revolving around God, the ultimate transcendent divine reality.”

All planets revolve around the sun, but not in the same orbit, and those that are nearest possess qualities and atmosphere most similar to the sun. All religions revolve the Absolute but by what standard should their respective depth of conception be judged?

We recognize a plurality of currencies in the world of money: Dollars, Pounds, Rubles, etc. All are money. All are valuable. But all are not equal. Their relative value is established on the basis of an absolute standard. One may say, “The ‘Almighty Dollar’ is Supreme.” Someone else, “Her Royal Majesty’s Pound Sterling is Supreme.” And yet another, “The Ruble of Mother Russia is Supreme—no other currency is recognized or acceptable here.” But actual value will be measured against an absolute standard irrespective of local sentiment, prejudice, or utility.

What then shall be the standard of measurement in the world of theism? Gaudiya Vaishnavas will assert that rasa is the currency of spiritual capital. Rasa, or intimacy, is the standard against which we measure the relative value of any spiritual conception.

To the average citizen the president is a larger than life figure, generally thought to be unapproachable. Apropos to the distance in relationship one feels awe and reverence. But this should not be misconstrued as the only possible expression of earnest sentiment. The president also has an entourage whom, on account of nearness, has a glimpse into his personality beyond his presidential identity. Their awe and reverence is enhanced with affection. They are also privy to observe his jocular interaction with friends and close associates. Intimate friendship even allows for “irreverence,” while offensive in a lower stage, in a higher stage is charming and endearing. And there is increased intimacy with motherly affection and conjugal love. What is inappropriate for one is indispensable necessity for another.

As one evolves spiritually, transcending the presidential identity of divinity, the natural, spontaneous flow of heart is released. This is known as bhakti rasa. The conception of rasa was minted by Srila Rupa Goswami in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu where he presents this science of spiritual evolution.

Hinduism in general, and Gaudiya Vaishnavism in particular, necessarily accommodate variegated religious belief, and are thereby best suited to survive the inexorable proliferation of pluralistic democracy. But we must remember, one man’s salvation is another man’s hell. If “salvation,” or “heaven” is devoid of serving potential, a relationship of intimacy with the Personality of Godhead, Vaishnavas consider it undesirable.