Question about criticism of "the Impersonalists"

[devotee]

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.

There is no support either from history or from scriptures for any assertion made here against Shankara or Advaita VedAnta. In all such posts, at least, it is expected that the poster would use "In my opinion" which has not been used above. There also a lack of understanding between differences between Buddhism and VedAnta. Moreover, except MahAyAn Buddhism, nothing comes close to VedAntic teachings. It must be noted here that scriptures of MahAyAn Buddhism were revealed much after the death of Buddha.

The post appears as if it is the fact based some strong basis whereas it is not. This post shows lack of good knowledge of VedAnta's vast scriptures. I advise that people should read VedAnta without getting biased by any of Shamkara's explanations and decide themselves what the VedAnta says.

OM

[Sahasranama]

If you are going to request me not to respond to your posts, you may want to give me the same courtesy by not responding to mine.

[devotee]

I have no intention to ever responding to your posts. However, in this post, you have written things as if those were historical facts which presents the wrong picture. If you write, 'In my opinion", or give evidences, I have no issues.

Anyway, if that is unacceptable to you, I quit this thread here. You may post whatever you like.

OM

[Sahasranama]

I have no objection to anyone responding to my posts on a public forum, I just find it curious that you request me not to respond to your posts, while you have no problem responding to mine.

[Sahasranama]

Hare Krishna,


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!

These verses about the four vaishnava sampradayas have been inserted later into the padma purana. If you read the puranas carefully, you can see that philosophically they are non sectarian texts and these interpolations do not fit in there contextually. There are also verses in the kurma purana that say that Madhvacharya was a demon. Obviously such sectarian polemic verses have been added later into the puranas. I am born in a Hindu family in the Shandilya gotra which goes back to Kashyapa rishi and my upanayana has been done by my grandfather. That is my sampradaya. I do not need some followers of a medieval sect telling me that I have to accept one of their pet gurus in order to practice Hinduism.

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste.

As far as I can tell, many puranas are intensely sectarian by nature. I am not saying they should be avoided on basis, it's just that they are. I know. I've read them. They're very useful nonetheless. However, saying that puranas are not sectarian...? That seems almost as baseless to me as the comments made about Shankaracharya and Advaita.

[Sahasranama]

Namaste.

As far as I can tell, many puranas are intensely sectarian by nature. I am not saying they should be avoided on basis, it's just that they are. I know. I've read them. They're very useful nonetheless. However, saying that puranas are not sectarian...? That seems almost as baseless to me as the comments made about Shankaracharya and Advaita.

This is a common misconception about the Puranas that they are sectarian, but apart from a few later interpolations that disparage various sects, a careful reading of the Puranas shows that they are the opposite of sectarian and actually bring the together the worship of various Gods. Some might consider the Srimad Bhagavatam to be a sectarian Vaishnava text, but this shows that they have not read it carefully, since Shiva is praised with the words:

०८०७०२२० श्रीप्रजापतय ऊचुः
०८०७०२२१ देवदेव महादेव भूतात्मन्भूतभावन
०८०७०२२३ त्राहि नः शरणापन्नांस्त्रैलोक्यदहनाद्विषात
०८०७०२३१ त्वमेकः सर्वजगत ईश्वरो बन्धमोक्षयोः
०८०७०२३३ तं त्वामर्चन्ति कुशलाः प्रपन्नार्तिहरं गुरुम
०८०७०२४१ गुणमय्या स्वशक्त्यास्य सर्गस्थित्यप्ययान्विभो
०८०७०२४३ धत्से यदा स्वदृग्भूमन्ब्रह्मविष्णुशिवाभिधाम
०८०७०२५१ त्वं ब्रह्म परमं गुह्यं सदसद्भावभावनम
०८०७०२५३ नानाशक्तिभिराभातस्त्वमात्मा जगदीश्वरः
०८०७०२६१ त्वं शब्दयोनिर्जगदादिरात्मा प्राणेन्द्रियद्रव्यगुणः स्वभावः
०८०७०२६३ कालः क्रतुः सत्यमृतं च धर्मस्त्वय्यक्षरं यत्त्रिवृदामनन्ति
०८०७०२७१ अग्निर्मुखं तेऽखिलदेवतात्मा क्षितिं विदुर्लोकभवाङ्घ्रिपङ्कजम
०८०७०२७३ कालं गतिं तेऽखिलदेवतात्मनो दिशश्च कर्णौ रसनं जलेशम
०८०७०२८१ नाभिर्नभस्ते श्वसनं नभस्वान्सूर्यश्च चक्षूंषि जलं स्म रेतः
०८०७०२८३ परावरात्माश्रयणं तवात्मा सोमो मनो द्यौर्भगवन्शिरस्ते
०८०७०२९१ कुक्षिः समुद्रा गिरयोऽस्थिसङ्घा रोमाणि सर्वौषधिवीरुधस्ते
०८०७०२९३ छन्दांसि साक्षात्तव सप्त धातवस्त्रयीमयात्मन्हृदयं सर्वधर्मः
०८०७०३०१ मुखानि पञ्चोपनिषदस्तवेश यैस्त्रिंशदष्टोत्तरमन्त्रवर्गः
०८०७०३०३ यत्तच्छिवाख्यं परमात्मतत्त्वं देव स्वयंज्योतिरवस्थितिस्ते
०८०७०३११ छाया त्वधर्मोर्मिषु यैर्विसर्गो नेत्रत्रयं सत्त्वरजस्तमांसि
०८०७०३१३ साङ्ख्यात्मनः शास्त्रकृतस्तवेक्षा छन्दोमयो देव ऋषिः पुराणः
०८०७०३२१ न ते गिरित्राखिललोकपाल विरिञ्चवैकुण्ठसुरेन्द्रगम्यम
०८०७०३२३ ज्योतिः परं यत्र रजस्तमश्च सत्त्वं न यद्ब्रह्म निरस्तभेदम
०८०७०३३१ कामाध्वरत्रिपुरकालगराद्यनेक
०८०७०३३२ भूतद्रुहः क्षपयतः स्तुतये न तत्ते
०८०७०३३३ यस्त्वन्तकाल इदमात्मकृतं स्वनेत्र
०८०७०३३४ वह्निस्फुलिङ्गशिखया भसितं न वेद
०८०७०३४१ ये त्वात्मरामगुरुभिर्हृदि चिन्तिताङ्घ्रि
०८०७०३४२ द्वन्द्वं चरन्तमुमया तपसाभितप्तम
०८०७०३४३ कत्थन्त उग्रपरुषं निरतं श्मशाने
०८०७०३४४ ते नूनमूतिमविदंस्तव हातलज्जाः
०८०७०३५१ तत्तस्य ते सदसतोः परतः परस्य
०८०७०३५२ नाञ्जः स्वरूपगमने प्रभवन्ति भूम्नः
०८०७०३५३ ब्रह्मादयः किमुत संस्तवने वयं तु
०८०७०३५४ तत्सर्गसर्गविषया अपि शक्तिमात्रम
०८०७०३६१ एतत्परं प्रपश्यामो न परं ते महेश्वर
०८०७०३६३ मृडनाय हि लोकस्य व्यक्तिस्तेऽव्यक्तकर्मणः

[Shuddhasattva]

This is a common misconception about the Puranas that they are sectarian, but apart from a few later interpolations that disparage various sects, a careful reading of the Puranas shows that they are the opposite of sectarian and actually bring the together the worship of various Gods. Some might consider the Srimad Bhagavatam to be a sectarian Vaishnava text, but this shows that they have not read it carefully, since Shiva is praised with the words:

Your logic is as elusive, or illusive, to me as that found in the other posts.

[Sahasranama]

You cannot assign any sect to the puranas. The Bhagavata for example is widely used in all Hindu circles and even has commentaries written by advaita vedantins, the most famous being Sridhara who was respected even by Chaitanya. You cannot say the Bhagavatam is a Gaudiya Vaishnava text or only a vaishnava text. You can't do this either with any other mahapurana. The Skandapurana is not a pashupata- or shaiva siddhanta text. The Vishnu purana is not a pancaratra- or a vaikhanasa text, the narada purana is not a vishistadvaita- or a tattvavadi text. Since you cannot assign sects to the puranas, by definition they are not sectarian. More importantly, the puranas give equal respect to Shiva and Vishnu, apart from later polemical interpolations. Even in the Vishnu Purana the verse occurs, Shivasya Hridaye Vishnu, Vishnave Hridaye Shiva. I have already given the example above of the Shiva Stuti from the Srimad Bhagavatam which has been posted above for your reading. In fact, only sectarian Vaishnavas will say that one must not read this passage literally. The puranas have been appropriated by various sects for their own purposes, but that doesn't make them sectarian. Many scriptures have been appropriated like this, the Gita has become a cornerstone of the Vedanta schools and the Vedas the basis of the Arya Samaj. This does not mean that the Vedas and the Gita have become sectarian.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Originally Posted by GauraHari
Hare Krishna,


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!

These verses about the four vaishnava sampradayas have been inserted later into the padma purana. If you read the puranas carefully, you can see that philosophically they are non sectarian texts and these interpolations do not fit in there contextually. There are also verses in the kurma purana that say that Madhvacharya was a demon. Obviously such sectarian polemic verses have been added later into the puranas. I am born in a Hindu family in the Shandilya gotra which goes back to Kashyapa rishi and my upanayana has been done by my grandfather. That is my sampradaya. I do not need some followers of a medieval sect telling me that I have to accept one of their pet gurus in order to practice Hinduism.

[/quote]

Couldn't agree with you more, interpolation in the Puranas are a blot in our medieval history, later corrupted by more demonic forces. That said we can still get inspiration from them, they were certainly not sectarian in nature.

Commenting on Gourahari BG 4.2 and 18.66, I like to point out that Lord Krishna say evam Parampara, he does not say evam sampradaya disciplic succession, I hope you can see the difference.

Also simply acknowledging Gita verses does not make us surrendered souls, you can’t really say Vaishnava and Iskcon devotee are therefore surrendered souls and not sectarian. What is more grandeur of delusion that permeates the a lot of sampradaya is this use of the word Bonifide Guru, you find from one alleged bonafide many more sub sect springs up simply because one does not agree with another so who is bonifide becomes very subjective.

The real parampara is what handed down from genration to genration from kula and gotra this is what Krishna says in Gita, notice he says surya to manu to Isvaku, Surya Vance and again 4.15 kuru karmaiva tasmat tvam purvaih purvataram krtam do your duty as that your ancestor did. Parampara does not mean Sampradaya.