Question about criticism of "the Impersonalists"

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

When "interpretation" becomes confused with "interpolation" and "explanation" is misread as "insinuation," and the gist of the conversations becomes one of "I have great respect for scripture, just as long as I don't disagree with it," then I think that it is a sign that nothing productive will come of participating further in the discussion. Hence, I'll leave you to it on this one.

regards,

Philosoraptor

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Oh there is no confusion, unless off course there is no interpolation in the Puranas, and it wasn't based on interpretation either.A reasonable query as to why the author would not state the nature of The Purana he is narrating.

insinuation was based on a genuine query on the explanation given, why would one get uptight about it. the subject was different Darsans and the explanation given was based on divine and demonic nature.

And i have had thrown at me all the time, either the Puranas are not authentic that they are Tamsic or if it is from Amala purana it can not be accepted because it does not agree with sruti. yes we can have any colour as long as it is black.

By the way i don't remember stating anywhere that my respect for Shastra are depended on your accepting it, so feel free to do as you wish. wish you all the best, no hard feelings.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Shuddhasattva]

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.

Advaita itself is not, though neither is it 'fundamentalist' (as opposed to liberal, although I dislike both words). Smarta, and Shanmata (originated by Shankaracharya), are "liberal."

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.

The criticisms are different. ISKCON has a particular fixation on mayavada and its evils, inheriting much of this from Madhavacharya moreso than Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

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.

Nondual worship does not preclude devotion and service. Even eternal devotion and service.

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.

As for the world and actions being real or unreal, this is more a semantic conceit than a true philosophical difference. Various Shakta, Shaiva, and even Vaishnava (Sahijya) sects embraced both the concepts of advaita, in slightly modified form, and deity yoga.

Shankaracharya himself did as well, as you ought know having read his brahmasutra bhasya. (२.२.३३, amongst others). Beyond that particular bhashya, many of the works of Shankaracharya (although admittedly there is much debate concerning the authorship of some) also extol devotion to Saguna Brahman.

The point here is not that one cannot worship a Deity and call himself an Advaitin.

This seems to me entirely unsupported.

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.

The nature of advaita is the reconciliation of all apparent contradictions.

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.

I do not see a compelling argument here as to why judging scripture according to one's svadharma is a fallacy.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

The criticisms are different. ISKCON has a particular fixation on mayavada and its evils, inheriting much of this from Madhavacharya moreso than Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

I assume a lot of that has to do with the fact that during the 1960's-1970's, most of Hinduism in the West was one form or another of Advaita.

It could also have something to do with the hostility towards "Dvaita" that seems embedded in many Neo-Advaitin systems of thought. This includes blaming "dvaita" for all the wars in this world, equating "dvaita" with Christian/Muslim fundamentalism, or claiming that "dvaita" is for stupid people while more advanced people endorse Advaita. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding the animosity towards non-Advaitic points of view.

Nondual worship does not preclude devotion and service. Even eternal devotion and service.

I can see how that could be at the vyavaharika level prior to liberation. But after liberation, according to Advaita, how do you perform devotion and service when you realize that you are that Brahman and no distinction exists? Who is the devotee and who is being worshipped when absolute oneness is understood?

As for the world and actions being real or unreal, this is more a semantic conceit than a true philosophical difference. Various Shakta, Shaiva, and even Vaishnava (Sahijya) sects embraced both the concepts of advaita, in slightly modified form, and deity yoga.

There are statements about the illusory nature of the world in the Bhaagavatam, and yet the Bhaagavata ultimately holds that the world is real. We can accept that a real world can be described as illusory in order to emphasize its temporary and misleading character. The ultimate question is whether or not it is literally real or literally unreal. I have gotten different answers on this question from different, self-identified Advaitins. That the world is literally unreal seems to be the position of devotee. On the other hand, I met a follower of Dayananda Saraswati (the one who follows Chinmayananda) who claims that, according to Advaita, world is actually real but temporary. Perhaps Shankaraachaarya's position may be unclear on this. As even his ideological opponents have specifically mentioned this point in their rebuttals, I don't think it unreasonable for the rest of us to be unclear on his position.

Shankaracharya himself did as well, as you ought know having read his brahmasutra bhasya. (२.२.३३, amongst others). Beyond that particular bhashya, many of the works of Shankaracharya (although admittedly there is much debate concerning the authorship of some) also extol devotion to Saguna Brahman.

Could you please repost the reference? It came out as strange characters in my web viewer. I would definitely like to look it up in my copy at home.

The nature of advaita is the reconciliation of all apparent contradictions.

I don't see how Advaita can reconcile with any of the philosphical systems whose commentators took great pains to distinguish them from Advaita. I find this position as illogical as the position that achintya bedha abedha reconciles Dvaita and Advaita, an utterance I have occasionally heard amongst ISKCON followers.

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.

I do not see a compelling argument here as to why judging scripture according to one's svadharma is a fallacy.

The issue is one of understanding what the sages expressed as opposed to passing one's own views off as being the message of the sages. I would assume that the significance would be self-evident to any thoughtful person. Assume that instead of scripture, we are talking about a work of literature for a university class in which your grade counts on correct understanding of the author's message. I would assume you wouldn't be as liberal in your final paper as you would with scripture. Or am I mistaken?

regards,

philosoraptor

[ShivaFan]

I am not an "impersonalist" since I practice Bhakti Yoga. I see aspects of the Lord as very real Personalities which indeed exist and have wonderful powers beyond our simple sense perceptions. In my understanding for example, LOVE is an aspect, but love cannot exist without TWO. So we have Krsna and Radha, or we have Muruga and Valli. This is what I have been taught as bhakti. But we all have levels of our experience and path, even among Bhaktis. For example, you can be a devotee bhakti, or perhaps a more "advanced" premie bhakti or lover of God. This love has nothing to do with mundane love.

There are many Devas, and there is a reason. When I am lost, soon I can be found thanks to a Deva. There is nothing wrong with having a Master, for example Lord Ram is the "Perfect Man" so He is an example of a Perfect Master. Often the first we may meet when lost on a path is the Servant of the Master. This is my Hanuman, who is Shiva. He speak directly, but the presence of the Lord is a personality that consists of many, many things.

For example, as a Bhakti, I also understand that aspects of God are multi-facet, and during a Bhajan or during a moment of meditation can be revealed in many ways, some of which is "impersonal".

For example, a beautiful Red Rose is a very real living thing. There is a Rose itself, it is on the Rose Tree. The Tree is a personality - it has feelings. The Rose is an aspect of the Tree. But I see the Rose as it's own - "oh how beautiful is this Rose!" I will say.

But the Rose has a scent. When I walk down the path, suddently I can smell the Rose. This scent is "impersonal" --- but I know and consider it the same Rose. It is also the Rose.

So you see? You exist also. Because of that, you can Love the Deva who Loves you. There is nothing wrong in it, it is "natural". You may sense the one you Love when you are walking down that Path. You may not see the Lord. But you will smell the Rose. This is the impersonal - but you know it is the Lord.

Today I think of Mother Saraswati. She is a Mother who teaches. I wish She will teach me how to sing Bhajans. She is the Queen of Music. She is a Personality. She is also the very Music she Plays. When I hear Her play the Music, I know that is Her. She is both impersonal and personal.

OM NAMAH SHIVAYA

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

I assume a lot of that has to do with the fact that during the 1960's-1970's, most of Hinduism in the West was one form or another of Advaita.

It could also have something to do with the hostility towards "Dvaita" that seems embedded in many Neo-Advaitin systems of thought. This includes blaming "dvaita" for all the wars in this world, equating "dvaita" with Christian/Muslim fundamentalism, or claiming that "dvaita" is for stupid people while more advanced people endorse Advaita. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding the animosity towards non-Advaitic points of view.

There's a lot of animosity both ways. Madhavacharya and his followers in particular wrote a lot of negative things about advaita and advaitins, even styling Shankaracharya as a demon incarnate on earth (a much more severe statement than 'Lord Vishnu sent Lord Shiva to incarnate in the kali yuga in order to lead astray the atheists and defeat buddhism'.) Also, at various times, advaitins were themselves characterized as demons, and accused of all manner of crimes.

I can see how that could be at the vyavaharika level prior to liberation. But after liberation, according to Advaita, how do you perform devotion and service when you realize that you are that Brahman and no distinction exists? Who is the devotee and who is being worshipped when absolute oneness is understood?

I agree with you. Truly one is worshiping, and serving, oneself - one Self. Sri Anandamayi Ma said, for example:

As you love your own body, so regard everyone as equal to your own body. When the Supreme Experience supervenes, everyone's service is revealed as one's own service. Call it a bird, an insect, an animal or a man, call it by any name you please, one serves one's own Self in every one of them.

[Courtesy Wikipedia]

Her practice is also particularly noteworthy because she initiated herself, acting as both guru and shishya. I'm sure the relevance of this is not missed by you.

One performs devotional service out of compassion for those not yet liberated (this, for example, is particularly emphasized in the monistic theology of the Kubjika cult, regarded as the terminus of the Kaula tradition). When one serves the suffering jivas, one is serving the feet of the Lord and the Lady.

There are statements about the illusory nature of the world in the Bhaagavatam, and yet the Bhaagavata ultimately holds that the world is real. We can accept that a real world can be described as illusory in order to emphasize its temporary and misleading character. The ultimate question is whether or not it is literally real or literally unreal. I have gotten different answers on this question from different, self-identified Advaitins. That the world is literally unreal seems to be the position of devotee. On the other hand, I met a follower of Dayananda Saraswati (the one who follows Chinmayananda) who claims that, according to Advaita, world is actually real but temporary. Perhaps Shankaraachaarya's position may be unclear on this. As even his ideological opponents have specifically mentioned this point in their rebuttals, I don't think it unreasonable for the rest of us to be unclear on his position.

I personally don't think the statement that the universe is an illusion, or that it is real, is very meaningful in the final analysis. We can go into this more if you like, but otherwise I don't feel much needs to be said. As you have mentioned vyavaharika, you surely have some familiarity with the ambiguity of 'realness' or 'illusoriness' and its nuances in advaita.

Could you please repost the reference? It came out as strange characters in my web viewer. I would definitely like to look it up in my copy at home.

2.2.33

Says that it is not disputed that Narayana is the Supreme Lord, nor is his devotional worship disputed.

I don't see how Advaita can reconcile with any of the philosphical systems whose commentators took great pains to distinguish them from Advaita. I find this position as illogical as the position that achintya bedha abedha reconciles Dvaita and Advaita, an utterance I have occasionally heard amongst ISKCON followers.

Advaita has to reconcile everything into monism. No differences can remain. Should we assume that abstract systems of thought are somehow an exception when thought itself is subsumed?

This is not to say that the philosophies can be tortured until they are made to agree. It is that monism obliterates even the idea that god is conceivable, and all conceptions born from the root of this error - this is more or less stated in the very first line of Shankaracharya's bhasya on the brahma sutras.

The issue is one of understanding what the sages expressed as opposed to passing one's own views off as being the message of the sages. I would assume that the significance would be self-evident to any thoughtful person. Assume that instead of scripture, we are talking about a work of literature for a university class in which your grade counts on correct understanding of the author's message. I would assume you wouldn't be as liberal in your final paper as you would with scripture. Or am I mistaken?

The comparison is an invalid one per my view: at a university, one is at the mercy of the professor's judgment. One may even cater to his biases out of intellectual dishonesty to get a better grade. Given that literary studies are home to some of the most ridiculous posturing imaginable, where this or that professor belonging to this or that school or anti-school of literary theory, concoct their own interpretations, creating 'towering riddles of symbolism'. Pass that class, advance a few more years in post-graduate studies, and soon one will have the luxury to say whatever one likes, no matter how obtuse.

As far as philosophy, given that I am the agent of my own spiritual practice, it is my understanding of god, and my practice thereby informed, that is important. I am quite happy to acknowledge my own authority in this domain insofar as it pertains to myself. If I accept things merely on the authority of those long dust whose words contradict eachother endlessly, who and what then am I to believe? Here we really come to "the self-realized acharya fallacy."


Namaste

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

A lot of interesting commentary, even debate, and very advanced terminology here.

I have lots of respect for the impersonalists, though as I said I am a Bhakti practitioner - or rather I am simply what I have discovered gives me life itself and which was given to me. I do not know anything. But just to add a thought to what I have experienced, more than a few of those who are self described "impersonalists" whom I love and have met, they were typically not at all what is often thought of as yogi "impersonalists" sitting and meditating naked on a mountain proclaiming if there is even anyone around to ask "God is One, and is No One".

Instead they live in a world of terms, words, a stairway of terminology to heaven, the discussion is vast like an ocean, they speak and share very complex "recipies".

It is sort of like the master cook, who has the advanced recipies for cooking samosas. A pitch of the salt from the shores of Surat called smana, mix two dumbas of Taj Haldhi and then add ...

And then there is the samosa itself.

There are some who love and live in the world of recipies. But maybe they do not eat the samosa.

Bhaktis like to eat the samosa.

Today I think of Mother Saraswati. She is a Mother who teaches. I wish She will teach me how to sing Bhajans. She is the Queen of Music. She is a Personality. She is also the very Music she Plays. When I hear Her play the Music, I know that is Her. She is both impersonal and personal.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

There's a lot of animosity both ways. Madhavacharya and his followers in particular wrote a lot of negative things about advaita and advaitins, even styling Shankaracharya as a demon incarnate on earth (a much more severe statement than 'Lord Vishnu sent Lord Shiva to incarnate in the kali yuga in order to lead astray the atheists and defeat buddhism'.) Also, at various times, advaitins were themselves characterized as demons, and accused of all manner of crimes.

I only know about their claim that Shankaracharya was the demon Maniman incarnate, allegedly sent by Lord Shiva to mislead people. Supposedly this is based on something contained in the Garuda Purana. In any case, I didn't look it up because I don't take the demon thing too seriously. I prefer to evaluate a philosophical system on its own merits, by which I mean how well it fits the statements of shaastra.

I do know, however, of many particular negative claims coming out of the Neo-Hindu community against non-Advaitins. This includes a claim by Swami Vivekananda in his Complete Works to the effect that all wars and conflicts are the fault of Dvaita, a claim by Swami Chinmayananda in his book _Self-Unfoldment_ to the effect that bhakti is for people whose hearts are more developed than their brains, and many, many claims by lay followers to the effect that devotion to a personal deity is something akin to Christianity or Islam. Just to be fair, the Neos do say that all religions and religious interpretations are correct - just as long as you are a good little Hindu and don't dare to disagree with them.

I agree with you. Truly one is worshiping, and serving, oneself - one Self. Sri Anandamayi Ma said, for example:

As you love your own body, so regard everyone as equal to your own body. When the Supreme Experience supervenes, everyone's service is revealed as one's own service. Call it a bird, an insect, an animal or a man, call it by any name you please, one serves one's own Self in every one of them.

Let's be honest with ourselves. Is that really a very straightforward explanation for a statement like "On attaining Brahman, one attains My supreme devotion?" (Gita 18th chapter) Let us bear in mind that texts like the Gita are supposed to clarify the subject matter for us. The more we have to redefine words like "bhakti" or "surrender" in order to make them fit into a particular mold, the less likely that this was the intended meaning to begin with. Your specific claim was that, "Nondual worship does not preclude devotion and service. Even eternal devotion and service." Obviously, you can only cling to that claim if you redefine what "devotion" and "service" are. No one intuitively thinks of "devotion" or "service" as implying sameness of the two parties involved.

Her practice is also particularly noteworthy because she initiated herself, acting as both guru and shishya. I'm sure the relevance of this is not missed by you.

I really don't know what to say to that. I can't imagine ever following someone who felt they were enlightened enough to forego the traditional formalities of accepting a guru. But, to each his own, I guess.

One performs devotional service out of compassion for those not yet liberated (this, for example, is particularly emphasized in the monistic theology of the Kubjika cult, regarded as the terminus of the Kaula tradition). When one serves the suffering jivas, one is serving the feet of the Lord and the Lady.

Actually, that is a misconception of bhakti propagated by non-bhakti cults. The devotees perform devotional service because they find it very joyful and pleasing to perform. Sri Krishna says this in the Gita 10.9 that His devotees derive great joy in speaking about Him: machchittA madgataprAnA bodhayantaH parasparam / kathayantash cha mAM nityaM tuShyanti cha ramanti cha //. The same point about bhakti's joyful character is also mentioned in the bhAgavata purANa 3.25.34. Therein, it is also stated that the devotee does NOT desire oneness, but instead desires the opportunity to do service: naikAtmatAm me spRhayanti kechin matpAdasevAbhiratA madIhAH / ye 'nyonyato bhAgavatAH prasajya sabhAjayante mama pauruShANi //. Note that this effectively negates the revisionist attempts to interpret bhakti as being somehow compatible with oneness. The varAha purANa 115.3 also explains that Sri Vishnu is more pleased with bhakti than He is with yagna, charity, etc.

So you see, there are plenty of reasons why people perform devotional service that go beyond merely serving other jIvas.

I personally don't think the statement that the universe is an illusion, or that it is real, is very meaningful in the final analysis. We can go into this more if you like, but otherwise I don't feel much needs to be said. As you have mentioned vyavaharika, you surely have some familiarity with the ambiguity of 'realness' or 'illusoriness' and its nuances in advaita.

There are many statements in the scripture about the reality and/or illusory character of the world. Evidently the sages thought it was important to mention.

Advaita has to reconcile everything into monism. No differences can remain. Should we assume that abstract systems of thought are somehow an exception when thought itself is subsumed?

How does Advaita reconcile with the Tattvavaada view that differences between jIvas, difference between Ishvara and jIvas, difference between Ishvara and prakriti, etc are all real and eternal? The answer is, it can't. Because these views of the Tattvavaadis were elaborated after the philosophy of Advaita was developed, and in clear opposition to Advaita. Hence, I will stick to my previously stated view 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. "

The comparison is an invalid one per my view: at a university, one is at the mercy of the professor's judgment. One may even cater to his biases out of intellectual dishonesty to get a better grade. Given that literary studies are home to some of the most ridiculous posturing imaginable, where this or that professor belonging to this or that school or anti-school of literary theory, concoct their own interpretations, creating 'towering riddles of symbolism'. Pass that class, advance a few more years in post-graduate studies, and soon one will have the luxury to say whatever one likes, no matter how obtuse.

This is why I specifically said, "your grade counts on correct understanding of the author's message" and not "your grade counts on regurgitating what the professor thinks is the correct understanding of the author's message." What you are neglecting to acknowledge is that the author of a work of literature often has a specific message in mind when he writes it. This is obvious. Language evolved to communicate ideas, and orderly arrangement of language (such as in books or poetry) is done to communicate specific messages. If we start off assuming that words and sentences mean only what we want them to mean, instead of what their author meant when he wrote them, then we are ignoring the fundamental reason for language's existence.

To put it another way, Vedaanta can be thought of as a spiritual science. It details the nature of the jIva, paramAtma, prakRiti, samsAra, and the means of attaining moksha. None of us are born knowing these things. We have to learn them from a source of authoritative knowledge. That learning process has to be serious also. We cannot take perfectly straightforward statements from a sage's darshana, superimpose our desired meanings on top of them, and still claim that we are understanding the sage as he had intended us to when he spoke the words. No one on these boards would study physics or chemistry (which are lesser sciences dealing only with the principles of matter) with the sort of wishy-washy attitude that some suggest we should employ when understanding the Vedas. Just imagine - "Force is proportional to the product of mass and its acceleration. My interpretation is not that this is literally true, but rather that Force really means an object's commercial value." Do you think I could get a passing grade in physics with that attitude?

As far as philosophy, given that I am the agent of my own spiritual practice, it is my understanding of god, and my practice thereby informed, that is important. I am quite happy to acknowledge my own authority in this domain insofar as it pertains to myself.

Well, let's think about that. This is like saying that because you are the agent of your own health, it's your understanding of how to treat your medical problems that is important. No doctor or formal medical training needed. No teaching based on empirically correct medical principles needed. If a doctor tells you that you can't cure your cancer with vitamin C, and that you should instead start a chemotherapy regimen which has a proven track record of effectivness, you would reply with.... what? That this is merely his opinion?

If I accept things merely on the authority of those long dust whose words contradict eachother endlessly, who and what then am I to believe? Here we really come to "the self-realized acharya fallacy."

Acceptance of the apaurusheya status of the Vedas is the axiom upon which all Vedaanta has been based for centuries, regardless of all other philosophical differences.

I have observed in the past that those who desire to start new Hindu groups in spite of disagreeing with Vedantic thought get around the problem by employing a two-fold strategy. First, they praise scriptures like Vedas, Upanishads, Gita, etc in public, thus ensuring that people see them as a representative of the tradition. Then, in less public forums, they decry those same scriptures as "endlessly contradictory" and "dusty tomes" and so on, thus rationalizing their own philosophical embellishments.

Thus, you have the strange situation in which Hindus rationalize disagreement with the Upanishads (because they were alleged to have been authored by people from long ago), and instead they follow the teachings of a self-initiated guru/prophet/cult leader of today. Acceptance of apaurusheyatva is seen as a difficult position to endorse. But acceptance of one's self-realized status, not so much.

regards,

philosoraptor

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

I find your latest post to be forced rhetoric, and so I will not be engaging further. Thank you for the discussion.


Namaste

[philosoraptor]

Namaste

I find your latest post to be forced rhetoric, and so I will not be engaging further. Thank you for the discussion.


Namaste

Pranams,

I'm not exactly sure what "forced rhetoric" means, but I'm sorry that you feel that way. Nevertheless, I'd stick to the principle that accepting the authority of the shruti means really accepting the authority of the shruti. It doesn't make sense for one to revere them in public and then casually dismiss them privately when they don't say what one wants them to say.

These are the scriptures whose study has been the basis of Vedaantic scholarship for centuries. Nevertheless, I didn't get offended when you referred to them as "long dust whose words contradict eachother endlessly." (sic) You are entitled to your views, but I won't change mine simply because they don't match yours.

regards,