Question about criticism of "the Impersonalists"

[GauraHari]

Dear Sahasranama and Ganeshprasad,
Parts of the Padma Purana have been changed as time passed by. But the parts I showed were accepted by self-realized acaryas. Now if you think yourself to be all in all and make up your own rules and laws then go ahead I won't force you. @Ganeshprasad
Guru Parampara means the lineage the siksha comes down from guru to student and that linage is given a name such a Brahma Samprayada, Kumara Sampradaya etc. So the Sampradaya is actually the name of the linage.

I will not participate in this discuusion any more as useless arguments only affect my devotional service to Govinda. I think it is best to stop this discussion because it will simply create wars.
Best to just go and eat some nice prasadam and chant holy name of Krishna
Hari Bol!

[Maya3]

AnrBjotk,
Norsk, vad trevligt, själv är jag Svensk!

I think this discussion kind of speaks for itself.

At my Ashram we study both the Gita and Upanishads among others, our teachers are are fluent in Sanskrit and we chant the text, translate it, interpret it and discuss it. It's never interpreted in such a way that devotions to Krishna is the only way

Maya

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

Historically, the vast majority of Vedanta schools are non-Advaitin schools, and most if not all of the currently existing Vedaanta schools have disagreed with Advaita as evidenced by their respective commentaries. This has to be because, if they did not disagree with Advaita, then they would merely follow Shankaracharya's commentary. No one creates a new Vedantic school without distinguishing his commentary from those of previous commentators.

There is a misconception going around in modern Hindu circles to the effect that Advaita is somehow a more "liberal" philosophy and that it allows people to believe or worship as they choose. I would like to say that this is mostly false. The philosophy of Advaita was also built on refuting other schools of Vedaanta and non-Vedaantic schools like Buddhism. This is evident when one reads Shankaraachaarya's Brahma-suutra commentary. We would all be better served if we insisted on a standard of factual correctness instead of political correctness. :-)

ISKCON is an organization based on a relatively newer, post-vedantic tradition and as such it has inherited the same philosphical disagreement with Advaita that its predecessors had. It's important to understand that the vast majority of Vedaantic and post-Vedaantic schools do disagree with Advaita. This is by no means something peculiar to ISKCON's tradition.

I am very skeptical of the claim that people can believe in Advaita and yet believe in a bhakti-based school of thinking. I submit that many individuals who make this claim probably do not understand Advaita. Remember that, in Advaita, it is only Brahman that exists. There is no eternal distinction between the devotee and the Deity. The world around us is illusion, and any perceived distinctions are merely illusory and temporary. In contrast, all of the bhakti-based Vedanta schools from what I have seen accept some measure of eternal distinction between Paramatma/ParaBrahman and the Jivatman, and for them, world is real and our actions are real. This makes for a pretty significant difference of opinion, and to sweep these differences under the rug does not do justice to either point of view. The bhakta doesn't want to become one with his Lord - he wants to serve his Lord eternally. He cannot bear to do anything that does not involve such service.

The point here is not that one cannot worship a Deity and call himself an Advaitin. Clearly, many people do that. The point is, one cannot call himself a believer in both Advaita and a non-Advaitin school of Vedaanta, because they contradict each other on fundamental points.

On another note, some individuals have offered logic like "this scripture is authentic, because it is approved by self-realized acharyas." I submit that this is unacceptable logic. I have never seen in any Vedantic writings, bhakti-based or otherwise, in which the authority of a given scripture is argued based on the spiritual superiority of the person doing the approving. To accept that logic, one has to then accept the spiritual credibility of the approving person, which is itself an assumption that one cannot verify empirically. In Vedantic tradition, scripture has independent authority if it is apaurusheya. This means the shruti - Vedas, Brahamanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads. Authored works like Puranas have authority only to the extent that they do not disagree with apaurusheya shaastras. Bhagavad-Gita expresses conclusions that are fully in line with those of the Upanishads and so many Vedaanta schools accept it as part of their prasthaana-trayi. Saattvik puraanas generally express conclusions consistent with shruti and so are usually cited as supporting authorities. Again, this is subject to the caveat that they do not express conclusions which are contradicted by shruti.

It's always best to read a given scripture with the idea of understanding what message it is trying to teach, rather than trying to read our own ideas into it. If the reader arbitrarily decides which part of the scripture is valid and which is to be discarded, then he is in effect subjecting the authority of the scripture to his own authority. In such a situation, there is no point in quoting from the scripture - just make up your own ideas, right? This is another variation of the "self-realized acharya" fallacy, and should be discarded by thoughtful Hindus of all philosophical persuasions.

regards,

Philosoraptor

[Believer]

Namaste,

Post #11

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.

No, we will keep arguing and fight it out to the end.
Post #31

I will not participate in this discuusion any more as useless arguments only affect my devotional service to Govinda.

Oh, I see the light.
But everyone's arguments are useless and mine are legit.
Another young man becomes enlightened!

Thus ends another open ended, circular debate about who is the best and who is the biggest!

Pranam.

[GauraHari]

Namaste,


Oh, I see the light.
But everyone's arguments are useless and mine are legit.
Another young man becomes enlightened!

Thus ends another open ended, circular debate about who is the best and who is the biggest!

Pranam.

You simply misunderstood me. I said the argument we are having between each other is completely useless. I never said"everyone's arguments are useless and mine are legit".
I have no intention to argue here. The first 2 posts I made in this discussion was to help AnrBjotk understand why ISKCON bashes Mayavadi philosophy, but you made a wrong meaning out of them. You seem to have a lot of energy but don't know where to use it. Well, heres an advice: Chant the Maha Mantra. Energy is very precocious so don't waste it in a argument rather do some loving service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead

Hare Krishna.

[R Gitananda]

namaste GauraHari

I believe ISKCON teaches that the Buddha was an incarnation of Sri Vishnu
and Sri Adi Shankara was an incarnation of Sri Shiva. If that is accepted
then surely both of them were self-realized acaryas who were not
"illusioned" or had a "propensity to cheat" others.

Also, don't we observe mistakes in the works of all embodied beings?
Doesn't the Gita say that every work is covered by some fault as
fire is obscured by smoke? Thank you for your time.

Hari Aum

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.

[Believer]

Namaste,

I have already given examples and scriptural proof of how Advaita misinterprets Vedas,.......:

As much as I would like to agree with you, Advatism is alive and well and part of every day life in Bharat. Just being disrespectful to them and using colorful adjectives for their Acharyas is not a way to befriend the Advaita followers in an attempt to 'make them see the light', or make them go away.

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

Forget about me. Why not 'wish them good luck' and let them live their lives the way they want to, instead of heaping insults on their Acharyas? That is, what is unbecoming of Gaudiya Vaishanava Acharyas and followers of that sampradaye.

Pranam.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam All

Philosoraptor, you have presented a strong assessment in your observation about the various groups but I like to think majority of Hindus are oblivious of various concepts, I doubt very much a lot of them know difference between advaita dwaita etc. you have acknowledged that as much.

I do not think Hindus are under illusion or misconception, simply because no one cares, as a Hindu, respect for others beliefs are paramount, live and let live. This attitude does not stem without scripture support, as Bhagvat Gita does support such a view.
Sampradaya in my opinion are relatively new. Bhakti as an organisation force, correct me if I am wrong has not been around for long. So what was the main binding force that the Hindus stood and practiced? It’s always been Dharma, four avastha, 4 ashrams and four varnas. The social fabrics of whole hindu society was and still, based on those principles. No where in the Gita or for that matter Vedas speak of any sampradaya, well at least not to my knowledge. Taking Gita as a guide no wonder Hindus do not get perturbed by various contradictions that appears on the surface, why? Is it a contradiction when Lord Krishna himself says thus;
jnana-yajnena capy anye
yajanto mam upasate
ekatvena prthaktvena
bahudha visvato-mukham

Others, who are engaged in the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, diverse in many, and in the universal form.

Unfortunately we all fall in to this delusion that we are right and others do not understand at all. We start from a base and read the part of scriptures that support it and discard the rest or interpret the text so that it fall in line with what we believe. Some stoop so low as to falsify the scriptures and say such things as Sankracharya was ordered to speak false doctrine or that Madhvacharya was a demon, or certain Purans are Satvik or Tamsik.

Following a given sect is a good discipline but I am afraid it does restrict an adherent to think for himself. And to shut anyone else is to say how can you question a self realised Acharya? How subjective can one get?

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Pranam All
Philosoraptor, you have presented a strong assessment in your observation about the various groups but I like to think majority of Hindus are oblivious of various concepts, I doubt very much a lot of them know difference between advaita dwaita etc. you have acknowledged that as much.

We were all like that at one time. We have to read and learn, and not assume that we know something when in fact we do not. There is no substitute for knowledge to alleviate ignorance, is it not?

I do not think Hindus are under illusion or misconception, simply because no one cares, as a Hindu, respect for others beliefs are paramount, live and let live. This attitude does not stem without scripture support, as Bhagvat Gita does support such a view.

Well, not to split hairs over it, but I can think of at least one view Sri Krishna had little regard for, and that was Arjuna's view that he should withdraw from the battle in order to avoid killing family members. In fact, I can think of another view He also had little regard for:

asatyam apratiṣṭhaḿ te jagad āhur anīśvaram
aparaspara-sambhūtaḿ kim anyat kāma-haitukam (gItA 16.8)

Clearly, respecting people is important, but that should not preclude coming to definite conclusions about what is right and what is wrong.

Sampradaya in my opinion are relatively new.

This is like saying that "sects" are relatively new. Which would in turn imply that Hinduism was more homogenous in its belief system, practices, etc. That would seem very unlikely. Even early Vedaanta commentators like Raamaanuja, Madhva, and Shankara reference a large variety of earlier commentators whose writings are no longer extant.

Even if you look at, say, the Upanishads, it is evident that the sages see that Absolute Truth from different angles, sometimes emphasizing His transcendence while at other times emphasizing His all-pervasiveness. Even in the Puraanas we see evidence of sects devoted to various deities.

Bhakti as an organisation force, correct me if I am wrong has not been around for long.

I would simply have to disagree with you on that one. Any elaboration of a supreme Deity would seem to imply bhakti as a means of knowing Him. Numerous mantras in the Upanishads have a very reverential feel (see for example, Isopanishad 15) , and reverence for a supreme Deity by a non-supreme individual could not be described as anything other than bhakti.

So what was the main binding force that the Hindus stood and practiced? It’s always been Dharma, four avastha, 4 ashrams and four varnas. The social fabrics of whole hindu society was and still, based on those principles.

Yes, but this is nothing more than moral codes. Moral codes have to have a reason to exist - it is not that Hindus merely act moral for its own sake. The gItA 16.23-24 take the position that such moral codes are a means to achieving a supreme goal, which is elsewhere described as achievement of the state of Brahman, the abode of Brahman, etc. It is not likely that we had moral codes prior to having an understand of the supreme goal for which those moral codes were a means.

No where in the Gita or for that matter Vedas speak of any sampradaya, well at least not to my knowledge.

Neither do the Vedas speak of how to make ghee, how to tie a dhoti or sari, or how to apply turmeric to a new article of clothing. Many of these traditions are just passed down from generation to generation, and that does not necessarily make them invalid or irrelevant to sanAtana-dharma.

Taking Gita as a guide no wonder Hindus do not get perturbed by various contradictions that appears on the surface, why? Is it a contradiction when Lord Krishna himself says thus;
jnana-yajnena capy anye
yajanto mam upasate
ekatvena prthaktvena
bahudha visvato-mukham

Others, who are engaged in the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, diverse in many, and in the universal form.

Well, see, there you go - a perfect example of how different people can approach the Supreme Brahman through slightly different paths. In other words, this is one possible explanation for a certain degree of spiritual variety. Which is not to say that anything different is valid and part of that variety. What this verse and others like it show is that there are multiple angles or moods or methods by which one can worship.

Unfortunately we all fall in to this delusion that we are right and others do not understand at all. We start from a base and read the part of scriptures that support it and discard the rest or interpret the text so that it fall in line with what we believe.

I'm not sure I understand this statement or how it fits in with the rest of what you said. A scripture should be interpreted consistently - it makes no sense to accept that part B of a text is endorsing views that contradict part A, for example. Nor does it make sense to accept that, say, the gItA is distilled wisdom from the Upanishads, and then turn around and interpret either the Upanishads or the gItA in ways which leave them contradicting each other. The whole point of reading these books is to understand what the speaker was trying to say. To that end, we shouldn't "interpret" something that does not require interpretation. An interpretation is only for providing a plausible explanation for a verse whose apparent meaning is not otherwise plausible. Case in point - the statement "the house on the river" is, literally understood, not plausible. We can understand that it may mean instead "the house on the riverbank." It doesn't make sense to suggest that both interpretations are acceptable, now does it?

Some stoop so low as to falsify the scriptures and say such things as Sankracharya was ordered to speak false doctrine or that Madhvacharya was a demon, or certain Purans are Satvik or Tamsik.

Or that some shrutis are "mahA-vAkyas" and have greater authority while others are "alpa-vAkyas" and have less authority....

But regarding your views on the purANas, I just wanted to point out that the threefold classification as sAttvik/rAjAsic/tAmAsic is actually found in the Puraanas themselves - I have seen references in the Matysa Puraana and in the Padma Puraana, to name just a few.

Following a given sect is a good discipline but I am afraid it does restrict an adherent to think for himself. And to shut anyone else is to say how can you question a self realised Acharya? How subjective can one get?

Jai Shree Krishna

Well, maybe you are following the wrong sects. :-)
But I think you're basic problem is not with sects, but with sectarianism - namely, the noisy and boorish attempts to promote one's own sect with subjective assertions and not cool facts. To decry sects because of sectarianism would be like decrying religion because of religious fundamentalism.

You can have one without the other.

regards,

Philosoraptor

[GauraHari]

namaste GauraHari

I believe ISKCON teaches that the Buddha was an incarnation of Sri Vishnu
and Sri Adi Shankara was an incarnation of Sri Shiva. If that is accepted
then surely both of them were self-realized acaryas who were not
"illusioned" or had a "propensity to cheat" others.

Also, don't we observe mistakes in the works of all embodied beings?
Doesn't the Gita say that every work is covered by some fault as
fire is obscured by smoke? Thank you for your time.

Hari Aum

Dear R Gitananda,

Shankara was a pure devotee of Krishna but internally. He didn't show it externally. This can proven by how right before he left this world he sang the Bhaja Govindam(you can find it at this link http://www.stephen-knapp.com/bhaja_govindam.htm )

And Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita:
Chapter 8, Verse 5.
"And whoever, at the time of death, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt."
Chapter 8, Verse 6.
"Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, that state he will attain without fail."

But Shankara preached something different externally. These verse( I already posted them but I think you didn't see them) from Padma Purana say:

Padma Purana 6.236.7
mayavadam asac chastram pracchannam bauddham uchyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana rupina
Mayavada or Advaita philosophy is an impious, wicked belief and against all the conclusions of the Vedas. It is only covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in Kali-Yuga I assume the form of a brahmana (Adi Shankara) and teach this imagined philosophy.

Padma Purana 6.236.8-9
apartham sruti-vakyanam darsayan loka-garhitam
sva-karma-rupam tyajya tvam atraiva pratipadyate
sarva-karma paribhrastair vaidharma tvam tad ucyate
paresa-jiva-paraikyam maya tu pratipadyate
"This mayavada advaita philosophy preached by me (in form of Adi Shankara) deprives the words of the holy texts of their actual meaning and thus it is condemned in the world. It recommends the renunciation of one's own duties, since those who have fallen from their duties say that the giving up of duties is religiosity. In this way, I have also falsely propounded the identity of the Supreme Lord and the individual soul."

Padma Purana 6.236.10
brahmanas caparam rupam nirgunam vaksyate maya
sarva-svam jagato py asya mohanartham kalu yuge
"In order to bewilder the atheists, in Kali-yuga, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Gauranga Krishna to be without any form and without qualities."

Padma Purana 6.236.11
vedante tu maha-sastrera mayavadam avaidikam
mayaiva vaksyate devi jagatam nasha-karanat
"Similarly, in explaning Vedanta mahashastra, I described the same non-scriptural and inauspicious mayavada philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of my beloved Lord."

And now regarding Lord Buddha, He was the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Vishnu. But He did something unusual that incarnations of Lord Vishnu don't do. He preached atheism in the form of Buddhism. Srimad Bhagavatam says:

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.24:
tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte
sammohāya sura-dviṣām
buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ
kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati
Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.
Srimad Bhagavatam 10.40.22:
namo buddhāya śuddhāya
daitya-dānava-mohine
mleccha-prāya-kṣatra-hantre
namas te kalki-rūpiṇe
Obeisances to Your form as the faultless Lord Buddha, who will bewilder the Daityas and Dānavas, and to Lord Kalki, the annihilator of the meat-eaters posing as kings.

The appearance and activities of Lord Buddha, Shakaracarya, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya is like a puzzle.

Before the coming of Lord Buddha every one was misusing Vedic literature and using it for the purpose of doing animal sacrifices. If someone smokes 10 cigarettes a day ,and i tell you to leave everything
will you leave? no. So first i would have to explain him in nice language that smoking is not good ,then he will agree to me , then you will take 9 cigarettes per day ,then 8 cigates per day ,then 7 then come to zero slowly and slowly. So Lord Buddha wanted to bring the people to people smoking 10 cigarettes to 9(just as example). He told them to reject Vedas, said Vedas are not true. And said soul and God does not exist. Then Lord Vishnu sent Sankaracrya to bring the people from 9 to 5 level. Shankaracharya reestablished the authority of the Vedas but in an indirect way(as I gave the verses from Padma Purana) and also to drive away Buddhism from India. At last Lord Ananta came as Ramanuja acharya and also came Madhvaacharya in order to reestablish the personalism and devotional service to Krishna. This is why Ramanuja acharya and Madhvaacharya bashed Sankara's philosophy constantly. They wanted to bring the 5 cigarette smokers to 0. So this how the Lord and acaryas acted according to time, place and circumstance. Intelligent people will understand the whole meaning and get the true bhakti from it as like swan chooses milk even if it is mixed with water.

Hari Bol!