Question about criticism of "the Impersonalists"

[Believer]

Namaste,

Under the umbrella of Hinduism, exist many diverse philosophies. Each one of them could quote some verses from one of the scriptures to stake its claim at being the best representative of Hinduism. Does it really matter? I am still waiting to meet somebody who is destined for a 'higher planet' at the end of his/her current life. The end game for all philosophies is to make me a better person, an ethical person at peace with myself and my surroundings, and to arouse my quest for a spiritual life. This drum beating of 'I am the best' is an exercise in futility and serves only to draw us away from our real purpose in life - to increase our spiritual quotient. If one sampradaye serves the spiritual needs of a person, that is good and he should follow that. But to try to impress upon everyone to conform to the same set of principles via mental gymnastics and circular logic is sheer waste of time.

So if Lord Chaitanya who is Krishna Himself ............

That basic premise itself is not accepted by a large majority of the Indian Hindu population.

Pranam.

[Sahasranama]

ISCKON is not the only sect that has criticized the mayavada of Shankara. In fact most schools of Hinduism, including other schools of advaita, are opposed to this doctrine of mayavada. The original position of the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutra was never that of extreme monism or dualism, but a more balanced form of Bhedabheda. Philosophically that might have been a weak position and theoretically strong positions have been brought forward by acharyas like Shankara in response to Buddhism. Such theories however are not necessarily the true purport of the scriptures. It was Shankara's adherence to sampradaya that prevented him from looking objectively at Vedanta. The philosophy of Gaudapada acharya was already heavily influenced by Buddhism. Buddhist influence on Vedanta can also be seen in the Yogavasishta. The biggest flaw of sampradayas are that the message becomes distorted like in a telephone game. Shankara's adherence to his predecessors let him to look for a compromise between their Buddhist influenced doctrines and Vedanta.

We should always look back at the Itihasa and Puranas to find the true purport of the Vedas. The Mahabhrata says that the Vedas are afraid that their message will be distorted by those who have learned very little from the Vedas, or alpashrutas, and that therefore the Itihasas and Puranas should complement this gap. Shankaracharya was also an alpashruta, since he based his doctrine only on a handful of Upanishads and ultimately only on a few Mahavakyas, while ignoring large portions of the Vedic corpus. He himself admitted that he was unaware of the spiritual import of the mantra portion of the Vedas. Gaudiya Vaishnavism does a good job of basing their Vedanta on the Srimad Bhagavatam, as does the school of Sri Vallabhacharya. Of course, I do not agree with these Vaishnava schools, since they have added much nonsense to their commentaries to glorify their founding Acharyas and to support other doctrines that are not found in the scriptures they comment on. Shankaracharya himself also had a tremendous respect towards the Itihasa and Puranas and considered them to be pramanas, but ultimately he chose to base his Siddhanta only on ten Upanishads. This is because of the limitations of philosophy and if Shankara had taken too much of the Shastras in account, he could not have build a very stable doctrine that could stand the onslaught of the emerging schools of Buddhism.

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste,

I suggest looking into the original Gaudiya vaishnavism, as well as devotional sects with monistic views, such as the paradvaita of the trika.

One may observe for oneself the mentality reflected in condemnations of advaita for what it is.

Let this not draw you away from the essence of Gaudiya vaishnavism which is precious to the world.


Namaste

[Sahasranama]

Let this not draw you away from the essence of Gaudiya vaishnavism which is precious to the world.

I am not an adherent of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am looking at this objectively as a non sectarian Hindu, all these philosophical schools have their flaws and strong points.

[Shuddhasattva]

I am not an adherent of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am looking at this objectively as a non sectarian Hindu, all these philosophical schools have their flaws and strong points.

Then forgive me, but in your post on Shankaracharya, I am unable to find one statement I regard as valid.

[GauraHari]

Hare Krishna Believer,

Namaste,

Under the umbrella of Hinduism, exist many diverse philosophies. Each one of them could quote some verses from one of the scriptures to stake its claim at being the best representative of Hinduism. Does it really matter? I am still waiting to meet somebody who is destined for a 'higher planet' at the end of his/her current life. The end game for all philosophies is to make me a better person, an ethical person at peace with myself and my surroundings, and to arouse my quest for a spiritual life. This drum beating of 'I am the best' is an exercise in futility and serves only to draw us away from our real purpose in life - to increase our spiritual quotient. If one sampradaye serves the spiritual needs of a person, that is good and he should follow that. But to try to impress upon everyone to conform to the same set of principles via mental gymnastics and circular logic is sheer waste of time.

That basic premise itself is not accepted by a large majority of the Indian Hindu population.

Pranam.

My question now to you is have you read all sastras? If not then you can not declare:"Each one of them could quote some verses from one of the scriptures". I have already given examples and scriptural proof of how Advaita misinterprets Vedas, even Lord Shiva said it in the Padma Purana. And the path to Absolute Truth is one. For example, if you buy a ticket for Kolkata you will reach Kolkata not Delhi. So the path to Absolute Truth can only be reached with ticket just like the Kolkata example. So if path to Absolute Truth is one, why is the question of "best path" and "worst path" coming? Even Lord Krishna says:

Bhagavad Gita 12.20 — Those who follow this imperishable path of devotional service and who completely engage themselves with faith, making Me the supreme goal, are very, very dear to Me.
Bhagavad Gita 18.55 — One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

So devotional service is that ticket to Absolute Truth and Vaisnavas are the only ones following this because they engage in loving service to the Lord. I am not forcing you here, if you like Advaita very much then good luck on your attempt to become God :P All I am saying is that devotional service to Lord is the greatest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a limited Human perception capacity. A human has these 4 main defects:
1. they are illusioned

2. propensity to cheat

3. imperfected senses

4. commiting mistakes.

So it is not what we people think. Thinking may be right or wrong. But a self-realized acarya has none of these defects. He knows what is what. And acaryas have who have personally seen Chaitanya Mahaprabhu have confirmed that He is Krishna Himself in the mood of Srimati Radharani. Plus even if you don't accept these acaryas, you can also accept these scriptural proof of how Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself:

krishna-varnam tvishakrishnam
sangopangastra-parshadam
yajnaih sankirtana-prayair
yajanti hi sumedhasah
Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.5.32“In the age of Kali, intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the name of Krishna. Although His complexion is not blackish, He is Krishna Himself. He is accompanied by His associates, servants, weapons, and confidential companions.”

Srimad-Bhagavatam 7:9:38:"Because the Supreme Lord is also called Tri-Yuga, or one who appears in only three yugas (satya, dvapara, treta), He is sometimes said to appear in a concealed form, in the age of Kali."

Lord Krsna said, "Sometimes I personally appear on the surface of the world in the garb of a devotee. Specifically, I appear in the Kali Yuga to start the sankirtan movement." (brahma yamala)

Lord Krsna said, "In Kali Yuga, when the sankirtan movement is inaugurated, I shall descend as the son of Saci Devi. By the Ganges shore in Navadvip in a brahmana’s house, I shall appear as the best of the brahmanas." (vayu purana)

The Atharva Veda, one of the four original books of the Vedic literature. These texts reveal that in the present age Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the incarnation of God:

Text 6
eko devah sarva-rupi mahatma
gauro rakta-shyamala-shveta- rupah
Chaitanyatma sa vai Chaitanya-shaktir
bhaktakaro bhakti-do bhakti- vedyah
The one Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the master of all transcendental potencies, and who may be known only by devotional service, appears in innumerable transcendental forms. He has appeared with red, black, and white complexions, and He shall also appear in the golden form of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. He shall assume the role of the perfect devotee, and He shall teach the conditioned souls the path of pure devotional service.

Text 7
namo vedanta-vedyaya
krishnaya paramatmane
sarva-Chaitanya-rupaya
Chaitanyaya namo namah
I offer my respectful obeisances unto Lord Sri Krishna, the all-pervading Personality of Godhead, who is understood by the study of Vedanta philosophy. He is the master of all transcendental potencies, and He appears as Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Text 8
vedanta-vedyam purusham puranam
Chaitanyatmanam vishva-yonim mahantam
tam eva viditvati-mrityum eti
nanyah pantha vidyate ’yanaya
One who understands that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is known by the study of Vedanta philosophy, who is the original cause of the universe, and who is the oldest, the original person, crosses beyond this world of birth and death. This is the proper understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and aside from this there is no other way for one to achieve liberation.

Text 15
Chaitanya eva sankarshano vasudevah parameshthi rudrah shakro brihaspatih sarve devah sarvani bhutani sthavarani carani ca yat kincit sad-asat-karanam sarvam. tad atra shlokah.
Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead who appears as Lord Sankarshana and Lord Vasudeva. He is the original father of Brahma, Siva, Indra, Brihaspati, all the demigods, and all moving and nonmoving living entities. He is the original cause of all that is temporary and all that is eternal. Nothing exists separately from Him, and therefore He is everything. He is described in the following verses.

Text 19
ya enam rasayati bhajati dhyayati sa papmanam tarati sa puto bhavati, sa tattvam janati, sa tarati shokam, gatis tasyate nanyasyeti.
One who worships the Supreme Lord, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, with devotion and always remembers Him becomes free from all sins and completely pure. Easily understanding the truth about the Personality of Godhead and becoming free from all material lamentation, such a devotee attains the supreme goal of life, which is unattainable by those averse to the Supreme Lord, Sri Chaitanya.

[GauraHari]

Hare Krishna,

I am not an adherent of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am looking at this objectively as a non sectarian Hindu, all these philosophical schools have their flaws and strong points.

Sorry Sahasranama but I have an objection with your statement. In Bhagavad Gita 18.66 — Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. You will see most Vaishnavas and ISKCON devotees that they are surrendered souls. They do everything for Lord's pleasure. So how can that be sectarian? It may be for you, but Krishna doesn't support it. You have got to accept knowldge from a disciplic succession(guru parampara). You can't simply say I am non-sectarian so I won't do this. Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 4.2 — This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.
So we have to follow acaryas coming from one of the 4 disciplic successions and not simply say "I am non-sectarian".
Hari Bol!

[Sahasranama]

Then forgive me, but in your post on Shankaracharya, I am unable to find one statement I regard as valid.

I don't think a lot of people will agree with me here, since I am looking at this objectively from a viewpoint of a non sectarian Hindu and most people who talk about these things are married to their sampradaya.

[GauraHari]

ISCKON is not the only sect that has criticized the mayavada of Shankara. In fact most schools of Hinduism, including other schools of advaita, are opposed to this doctrine of mayavada. The original position of the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutra was never that of extreme monism or dualism, but a more balanced form of Bhedabheda. Philosophically that might have been a weak position and theoretically strong positions have been brought forward by acharyas like Shankara in response to Buddhism. Such theories however are not necessarily the true purport of the scriptures. It was Shankara's adherence to sampradaya that prevented him from looking objectively at Vedanta. The philosophy of Gaudapada acharya was already heavily influence by Buddhism. Buddhist influence on Vedanta can also be seen in the Yogavasishta. The biggest flaw of sampradayas are that the message becomes distorted like in a telephone game. Shankara's adherence to his predecessors let him to look for a compromise between their Buddhist influenced doctrines and Vedanta.

We should always look back at the Itihasa and Puranas to find the true purport of the Vedas. The Mahabhrata says that the Vedas are afraid that their message will be distorted by those who have learned very little from the Vedas, or alpashrutas, and that therefore the Itihasas and Puranas should complement this gap. Shankaracharya was also an alpashruta, since he based his doctrine only on a handful of Upanishads and ultimately only on a few Mahavakyas, while ignoring large portions of the Vedic corpus. He himself admitted that he was unaware of the spiritual import of the mantra portion of the Vedas. Gaudiya Vaishnavism does a good job of basing their Vedanta on the Srimad Bhagavatam, as does the school of Sri Vallabhacharya. Of course, I do not agree with these Vaishnava schools, since they have added much nonsense to their commentaries to glorify their founding Acharyas and to support other doctrines that are not found in the scriptures they comment on. Shankaracharya himself also had a tremendous respect towards the Itihasa and Puranas and considered them to be pramanas, but ultimately he chose to base his Siddhanta only on ten Upanishads and four arbitrairy Mahavakyas. This is because of the limitations of philosophy and if Shankara had taken too much of the Shastras in account, he could not have build a very stable doctrine that could stand the onslaught of the emerging schools of Buddhism.

Hare Krishna,
Padma Purana describes 4 Sampradayas as bona fide and their philosophy as bona fide. These are the 4 bona fide discplic successions from where knowledge comes down from guru to student. And I don't know why you say such stataemtns like:"I do not agree with these Vaishnava schools, since they have added much nonsense to their commentaries to glorify their founding Acharyas and to support other doctrines that are not found in the scriptures they comment on."

Garga samhita 10.61.23-26 states:

vamanas vidhi sesah sanako visnu vakyatah
dharmartha hetave caite bhavisyanti dvijah kalau
visnusvami vamanamsas tatha madhvastu brahmanah
ramanujas tu sesamsa nimbaditya sanakasya ca
ete kalau yuge bhavyah sampradaya pravartakah
samvatsare vikrama catvarah ksiti pavanah
sampradaya vihina ye mantraste nisphalah smritah
tasmac ca gamanam hy asti sampradaya narair api
"Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesa, Sanaka Kumara will appear as brahmanas by the order of Visnu for the preservation of eternal righteousness in Kali yuga. Visnusvami, Madhvacarya, Ramanuja and Nimbaditya will appear respectively as a portion of Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesa and Sanaka Kumara. These four saviors will be the establishers of the four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession in the period calcuated from the reign of King Vikrama [in 54 BC] subsequently through the 432 000 year cycle of Kali yuga. These four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession are to be fully accepted by all beings; as any word, combination of words pr formulation of sound frequencies, invoked or addressed, audible or inaudible, secret of revealed, ancient or contemporary outside their auspices prove to have absolutely no efficacy."

Padma Purana says:

sampradāyavihīnā ye mantrāste niṣphalā matāḥ
ataḥ kalau bhaviśyanti catvāraḥ sampradāyinaḥ
Śrī-brahmā-rudra-sanakā vaiṣṇavā kṣitipāvanāḥ
catvāraste kalau bhāvya hyutkale puruṣottamāt
rāmānujaṃ śrī svicakre madhvācaryaṃ caturmukhaḥ
śrīviṣṇusvāminaṃ rudro nimbādityaṃ catuḥsanāḥ

All mantras which have been given (to disciples) not in an authorised Sampradāya are fruitless. Therefore, in Kali Yuga, there will be four bona-fide Sampradāyas. Each of them were ignaugurated by Śrī Devī and known as the Śrī Sampradāya, Lord Brahmā and known as the Brahmā Sampradāya,Lord Rudra and known as the Rudra Sampradāya; and the Four Kumāras and known as Sanakādi Sampradāya. Śrī Devī made Rāmānujācārya the head of that lineage. So too Lord Brahmā appointed Madhvācārya, Lord Rudra appointed Viṣṇusvāmī and the four Kumaras chose Nimbāditya (an epithet for Śrī Nimbārkācārya).

[Shuddhasattva]

I don't think a lot of people will agree with me here, since I am looking at this objectively from a viewpoint of a non sectarian Hindu and most people who talk about these things are married to their sampradaya.

I would like to consider myself also a non-sectarian Hindu, because I impartially imbibe wisdom and reconcile the paths with the various parts of myself that walk hither and tither in the scheme of the self.

Non-sectarians may do well to be cautious, lest non-sectarianism take the appearance of a sect, in which sectarian-like views are held about this or that sampradaya, raising one and lowering another by endless, fruitless comparisons.