There is an ancient saying: "you told me once, I believed you. You told me twice, I started to doubt you. You told me many times, I disbelieved you". That was exactly my experience with the Bhativedanta purports: you can meet this claim that they are right and the "mayavadis" are wrong almost on every page. Even this fact alone raises suspicions. Any newcomer to Iskcon will learn among the very first things how smart are the dualist commentaries of their guru and how stupid the "mayavadis" are. I mean, if they are so right, why reiterate it on almost every page and in every lecture? My inevitable conclusion after hearing it drummed into my head almost daily for many years was that probably they are NOT so absolutely right after all, and they push their dualist philosophy so uncompromisimgly and aggressively while bashing the Advaitins ("mayavadis") so intensely out of their own deep insecurity and doubt. After all, the Vedic striptures are quire ambiguous on this issue: you can find a lot of quotations to support the dualistic as well as monistic philosophy. Therefore, it seems to be no wonder for me, that hare krishnas never actually allow their followers to study the actual 4 Vedas or 108 Upanishads (even though they do not forget to mention on every occasion that they propagate the most pure, original and untainted "Vedic" teachings) However, in practice only 3 Vedic scriptures with heavily biased commentaries of their guru are actually studied (Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata Purana and Sri Isopanisada - out of hundreds!!! - and out of them obly one - Isha upanishada - a tiny book - is a real "scripture" from the category of Sruti). Strange kind of "Vedic philosophy" without ever having studied the Vedas themselves
That is probably because they are afraid that any unbiased and unbrainwashed learner will find for himself what the original scriptures actually say on the ultimate unity or duality between God and man. Therefore they need the heavily biased commentaries on the very few scriptures that they actually allow their followers to read.
In contrast, my impression was that many Advaitins feel much more relaxed and confident and do not feel the urge to repeat in every publication of theirs that only their interpretations are right and the Hare Krishnas are wrong or unintelligent. At least I have never seen such claims in their books. On the contrary, I have seen that many Advaitins acknowledge that the Truth can be multifaceted and go by many names: therefore one can approach it as a dualist, pluralist, qualified monist or as an Advaitin and that all paths ultimately lead to the same goal, since all is ultimately One. After realizing this, how is it possible to feel insecure and threatened by rivalling sect's teachings? Meanwhile, petty and nitpicking narrow-minded doctrinaires are full of deep inner doubt and insecurity and therefore feel the strong need to concoct all kinds of "proofs" in order to make themselves and others believe that they are right and Advaitins are wrong. However, even the Gaudiyas' founder Chaitanya Mahapraabhu propounded the doctrine of "achintya bhedabheda" (inconceavable oneness and difference between the soul and God) which has a potential to reconcile both Advaitins (monists) and Dvaitins (dualists) without the need to fight or elevate one side of the debate at the cost of the other, since God is unlimited and beyond our hairsplitting, He can be both one and separate. Unfortunately, while paying lip service to this beautiful and all-inclusive philosophical principle, many narrow-minded sectarians propound the Hindu version of Jehovah's Witnessism
I do not know, maybe I am being too judgmental towards Iskcon, but that was my experience from spending many years under the influence of their doctrines...
Bookmarks