3 main schools of Vedanta

[Guest guest]

Dear Maharaj,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP.

 

I think it is also that these schools more or less agreed upon the basic texts

for debates. They stuck to the Upanishads, Vedanta-sutras, and Gita, unlike

Gaudiyas for example, who tried to establish the supremacy of Bhagavata Purana

and did not leave a body upanishadic commentaries.

 

And, even a cursory reading of the respective commentaries seems to indicate

that the 3 schools used more critical thinking, unlike in our society, where any

kind of critical thinking is put down as mental speculation,and devotees are

constrained in exploring deeper truths.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

in your service,

 

Aravind.

 

Bhakti Vikasa Swami <Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami wrote:

That 3 schools are considered "main" is likely because historically they are

the ones who have engaged in elaborate debate, discussion, and attempted

refutation of others. By being out in the arena they have become prominent

and furthermore have necessarily had to define in great detail all aspects

of their positions, thus becoming honed and refined.

 

 

Achintya Homepage: achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their

authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval

by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors

only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of

the Gaudiiya school.

 

 

achintya/

 

achintya

 

 

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

 

> I think it is also that these schools more or less agreed upon the

basic texts for debates. They stuck to the Upanishads, Vedanta-

sutras, and Gita, unlike Gaudiyas for example, who tried to establish

the supremacy of Bhagavata Purana and did not leave a body

upanishadic commentaries.

>

 

>From the standpoint of pramaana, there is no basic difference between

the Giitaa and the Bhaagavatam. Neither are shruti, but both were

compiled by Shrii Vedavyaasa. I don't agree that emphasizing the

Bhaagavatam makes one any less a Vedaantist.

 

By the way, even the Vedaanta-suutra is a smriti, not shruti.

 

To me, being a "Vedaantist" implies respect and even acceptance for a

certain methodology of spiritual education. A Vedaantist must be

loyal to the commonly accepted pramaanas, and if someone suggest that

these pramaanas contradict him, he is interested in studying those

shaastras more closely to see if they can be interpreted in light of

his particular school's thinking. A Vedaantist also does not merely

talk philosophy - he lives it everyday.

 

This is in contrast to "cults" in which sentimental thinking is the

standard, or dry speculators who simply talk philosophy but do little

if any practice.

 

> And, even a cursory reading of the respective commentaries seems to

indicate that the 3 schools used more critical thinking, unlike in

our society, where any kind of critical thinking is put down as

mental speculation,and devotees are constrained in exploring deeper

truths.

>

 

I don't agree that Gaudiiya Vaishnavas have discouraged critical

thinking. On the contrary, the writings of the Gosvamis and other

aachaaryas like Baladeva and Vishvanaatha are very evidence-based and

have followed the Vedaantic methodology. I feel that Srila Prabhupada

is also in the same category, although fortunately for us, he did not

merely write for the sake of an elite, few Vedaantists but rather for

everyone. Naturally his presentation differs in emphasis but not in

spirit.

 

Of course, what lay practitioners do in each tradition is a different

story. But then again, Gaudiiya Vaishnavism does not hold the

monopoly on sentimentalists and fanatics. A couple of years back

there was some Maadhva fellow named Abhishek who tried to spam some

nonsense to this list. He could barely even write in complete

sentences and seemed to have no clue as to what Madhva's doctrine

was, and yet he knew enough to know that everything we said was

wrong, even before we said it. Just to give you an example of this

man's ignorance, he was criticizing us for believing that the Lord

resides as Paramaatmaa in the heart, even though this is said in many

places in shruti and smriti. Then there are plenty of the more

intellectual Tattvavadis, who hate us so much that they even

criticize their own aachaaryas for claiming that our paramparaa is

shared with theirs. And of course, there is no shortage of Advaitins

who preach some "all paths lead to the same goal" sentiment. Or

Advaitins who claim that everyone is a fanatic except for those who

believe as they do that all religions are the "same." Or how about

Tenkalai and Vadakali Sri Vaishnavas, who won't even intermarry

despite their belonging to the same tradition. Or Sri Vaishnavas who

let their children eat meat, etc.

 

Anyway, we can go on and on with this. My point is simply that we

must distinguish between the orthodox tradition as practiced by the

aachaaryas, and lay followers who may misuse or misrepresent it.

 

It is also worth pointing out that some of what has passed

for "critical thinking" on this list has in fact been nothing more

than conjecture or mental speculation. I don't feel that I have

departed from critical thinking by calling a spade a spade. Some

forms of nonsense simply need not be dignified with a response,

especially when the objections are backed up by shaastra while the

nonsense is not.

[Guest guest]

hare krishna

 

i don't think it'd be entirely correct to say that the

Gaudiya Vaishnava line does not have upanishadic

commentaries. baladeva vidyabhushana has given

commentaries on the 10 major upanishads. however,

except the one on the isha upanishad, the rest have

become lost. also, there have been commentaries on the

gopala tapani upanishad by our acharyas. gaudiya

vaishnava commentaries also exist for the gita which

is a part of the prasthana traya. brahma sutra

commentary is there in the form of Govinda Bhasya.

whether this bhasya was merely a reaction or otherwise

is a non-issue. the fact is that it exists. nevermind

how it came about. the sri vaishnavas did not have a

commentary for the brahma sutra up until

ramanujacharya wrote it. shall we then say that it was

merely a reaction to the shariraka bhasya of shankara

? or for that matter, in the madhva line, there was

none till madhvacharya wrote one. so that can also be

taken as a reaction to shankara's commentary and what

madhvacharya saw as fallacies in the sri bhasya. so

this idea of reaction, etc, are untenable. the fact is

that a commentary exists. if the ramanandis of galta

accepted it back then when the debate occurred,

certainly there must be enough depth and convincing in

baladeva vidyabhushana and our acharyas to prove our

sampradaya siddhanta with shastra pramana. it is only

a matter of research that we now go and dig deep and

find these things.

 

we must also note that ramanujacharya did not comment

specifically on any upanishads although he cited

references from them in his sri bhasya.

 

as for our line not being in the arena of the 3-way

polemical debate history, well basically what are we

to do about it ? had someone challenged in the gaudiya

territorial zone, it would have also emerged. but

there was no such philosophical war there. history is

still evolving. now there is this debate. and

eventually someone in our line by the Lord's blessings

would respond amicably. this is what we can pray for.

in all lines, it was only after many generations of

prayer and development of auxiliary knowledge that

these issues were sorted out. there would have been a

time when even the ramanuja and madhva lines may have

been ridiculed by the shankarites as upstarts for a

lack of credibility as vedanta darshanas. eventually

that was quelled and later on, sampradayas such as

ours get the same accusation. so there are those who

won't give others the time that they themselves had to

buy to develop their school.

 

furthermore, the other lines have yet to give any

thorough denial of jiva goswami's sandarbhas although

he has credibly quoted from both shruti and smrti to

posit his points.

 

so basically, we should not be much disturbed by the

allegations of scholars from the 3 'main' schools. if

we dig deep into their histories, we'd also find many

such anomalies. it is just that with the passing of

time, they have started from somewhere and have

developed to this extent but they are not prepared to

give a later school the same room or consideration.

also, there will be those in all sampradayas who'd

quell any intellectualism. it is not something

exclusive only to our line.

 

if at all we have to learn and develop, it should be

first of all for our own nourishment and only

secondarily as a response to others' allegations.

 

 

 

ys

r. jai simman

jakarta

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

"Jai Simman R. Rangasamy" <rjsimman wrote:

 

hare krishna

 

i don't think it'd be entirely correct to say that the

Gaudiya Vaishnava line does not have upanishadic

commentaries. baladeva vidyabhushana has given

commentaries on the 10 major upanishads. however,

except the one on the isha upanishad, the rest have

become lost.

 

>>>If something of this importance gets *lost* I think it does speak about the

attitude of GVs towards them. I'm speculating that this is because of their

greater emphasis on Gita and SB, which I can understand because these two are

primary texts about Krishna.

 

brahma sutracommentary is there in the form of Govinda Bhasya.whether this

bhasya was merely a reaction or otherwise

is a non-issue. the fact is that it exists. nevermind

how it came about. the sri vaishnavas did not have a

commentary for the brahma sutra up until

ramanujacharya wrote it. shall we then say that it was

merely a reaction to the shariraka bhasya of shankara

? or for that matter, in the madhva line, there was

none till madhvacharya wrote one.

 

>>>I think this comparison is not fair. A text written in reaction to the

philosophy of a purvacharya cannot be equated to something that was written as a

reaction to pressure from an opposing sect!

 

as for our line not being in the arena of the 3-way

polemical debate history, well basically what are we

to do about it ? had someone challenged in the gaudiya

territorial zone, it would have also emerged. but

there was no such philosophical war there. history is

still evolving. now there is this debate. and

eventually someone in our line by the Lord's blessings

would respond amicably. this is what we can pray for.

in all lines, it was only after many generations of

prayer and development of auxiliary knowledge that

these issues were sorted out. there would have been a

time when even the ramanuja and madhva lines may have

been ridiculed by the shankarites as upstarts for a

lack of credibility as vedanta darshanas. eventually

that was quelled and later on, sampradayas such as

ours get the same accusation. so there are those who

won't give others the time that they themselves had to

buy to develop their school.

 

>>>Excellent point!

 

furthermore, the other lines have yet to give any

thorough denial of jiva goswami's sandarbhas although

he has credibly quoted from both shruti and smrti to

posit his points.

>>>so, it seems to me that our task is to bring this knowledge to the forefront.

I think Radhika Ramana pr.'s Ph.D from Oxford University on the sandarbhas is a

step in the right direction. More scholarly devotees should take up this task

without waste of any more time.

also, there will be those in all sampradayas who'd

quell any intellectualism. it is not something

exclusive only to our line.

 

>>>I think it is greater to an extent in ours compared to others. This is a

matter of common knowledge. And, an experience shared by some friends who have

studied under different schools. By "our society" I meant iskcon - I cannot

speak for other GVs as, and they may be different, as you claim.

 

in your service,

 

Aravind.

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote:

 

>From the standpoint of pramaana, there is no basic difference between the Giitaa

and the Bhaagavatam. Neither are shruti, but both were compiled by Shrii

Vedavyaasa. I don't agree that emphasizing the Bhaagavatam makes one any less a

Vedaantist.

 

>>>Oh, I didn't say that. What I said was that the other schools consider

Upanishads/VS the topmost texts, while we say Bhagavata Purana even surpasses

them. And,I don't think they are comfortable with that.

 

By the way, even the Vedaanta-suutra is a smriti, not shruti.

 

>>>Don't think I said it was a shruti.

 

To me, being a "Vedaantist" implies respect and even acceptance for a certain

methodology of spiritual education. A Vedaantist must be loyal to the commonly

accepted pramaanas, and if someone suggest that these pramaanas contradict him,

he is interested in studying those

shaastras more closely to see if they can be interpreted in light of his

particular school's thinking. A Vedaantist also does not merely talk philosophy

- he lives it everyday.

 

>>>True.

 

I don't agree that Gaudiiya Vaishnavas have discouraged critical thinking. On

the contrary, the writings of the Gosvamis and other aachaaryas like Baladeva

and Vishvanaatha are very evidence-based and have followed the Vedaantic

methodology. I feel that Srila Prabhupada is also in the same category, although

fortunately for us, he did not

merely write for the sake of an elite, few Vedaantists but rather for everyone.

Naturally his presentation differs in emphasis but not in spirit.

 

>>>Hmmm. Agreed. But, Srila Prabhupada's followers have discouraged critical

thinking to the extent that devotees now repose blind faith in him, which he

always discouraged.

 

Of course, what lay practitioners do in each tradition is a different story. But

then again, Gaudiiya Vaishnavism does not hold the monopoly on sentimentalists

and fanatics.

 

>>>True. But lay practitioners follow what their leaders advise - and I think

there needs to be more open-mindedness at the top, which encourages devotees to

develop critical thinking and protect the philosophy. I don't see a clear vision

or a blueprint - if it is there, it's not obvious.

 

Anyway, we can go on and on with this. My point is simply that we must

distinguish between the orthodox tradition as practiced by the aachaaryas, and

lay followers who may misuse or misrepresent it.

 

>>>If a minority misuses that's acceptable, but I think the problem here is that

the majority in our society have given up critical thinking even though they are

capacble of it.

 

It is also worth pointing out that some of what has passed

for "critical thinking" on this list has in fact been nothing more than

conjecture or mental speculation. I don't feel that I have departed from

critical thinking by calling a spade a spade. Some forms of nonsense simply need

not be dignified with a response, especially when the objections are backed up

by shaastra while the nonsense is not.

 

>>>I agree. I know you are writing this to justify your backing out of previous

discussion on "demons don't see Lord's form", even while not giving clear

answers. But,I have taken it in the right spirit.

 

btw, can nonsense be ever backed by sastra?

 

in your service,

 

Aravind.

 

 

 

Achintya Homepage: achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their

authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval

by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors

only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of

the Gaudiiya school.

 

 

 

achintya/

 

achintya

 

 

 

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

rjsimman

>if at all we have to learn and develop, it should be

first of all for our own nourishment and only

secondarily as a response to others' allegations.

 

 

I completely agree with this. The first of two phases that this effort

could proceed in would be a critique of Advaita's and its modern

Neo-Vedanta variants' intepretations of the Gita and Vedanta sutra.

Even though almost none of this information would be new, it would

still be important more for the sake of presentation and establishing

the Gaudiyas in a modern context. The next phase would be to show the

superiority of the Gaudiya interpretations over the other Vaishnava

schools. In general, I think it would be easy to show superiority of

the the Gaudiya perspective over the Ramanuja views. However, I think

it would take some effort in regards to the Maadhva interpretations.

 

Two of their works are BNK Sharma's famous Brahmasutra and Its

Principal Commentaries and Bhavani Rao's The Bhagavad-gita and Its

Classical Commentaries (1995). These books explain their viewpoints

very well over those of the other two schools principally by the use of

two tools: the other schools' interpretations of similar verses in a

work are criticized for being repetitious. The Maadhvas would insist

that the second time a superficially similar point is made there is

another teaching that is being overlooked. They also insist on

following Upanisadic senses of words in the Gita and that the other

schools erroneously ignore such a context. Overall, I think these

presentations are strong. In passages where Gaudiyas agree with the

Maadhva's, we could accept the latter's refutations in addition to

developing new ones. However, when they diverge, the inapplicability of

the Maadhva refutation as presented in these two books would have to be

addressed.

 

Another not-so-unrelated issue is defending Vedanta-sutra against

Buddhism. One Gregory Darling wrote a book "An Evaluation of the

Vedantic Critique of Buddhism" (1987) where he criticizes all the

Vedantists for misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints and for being

inconsistent with each other. An answer to this would/should show the

integrity of Srila Vyasadeva and Vaishnavism.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

 

In general, I think it would be easy to show superiority of

> the the Gaudiya perspective over the Ramanuja views. However, I

think

> it would take some effort in regards to the Maadhva interpretations.

 

Interesting. I actually would have thought the reverse. Madhva is the

one who seems most liberal in his interpretations, judging by some of

what we see in his Giitaa commentary.

 

Of course, if by "show superiority..." you are referring to

converting followers as an endpoint, then you are probably right!

Personally I think this is not a very objective endpoint though,

since recent history shows that people will hawk their party line no

matter what you say against it. Gone is that culture where a defeated

party became the disciple of the one who defeated them.

[Guest guest]

Vedanta philosophy is not a joke. It requires a great

soul blessed by Lord Vishnu to be a proper Vedantist.

 

We have seen enough of pseudo vedantists like

Vivekananda , aurobindo, arya samajist Dayananda and

hundreds are joining in by the day :-).

 

We must stick to the well known Vedanta philosophies

and not apply our brains too much. For the common

people like us, we must stick to Smriti, because by

reading Shruti, we will end up with complete

falsehood. Further, the "Shruti is potential, Smriti

realizes the potential": the words of Advaitin

Paramacharya. Paramacharya also says "Shruti and

Smriti are equal and don't distinguish between them".

So treating Bhagavata Purana as a basis for Vedanta is

fully acceptable provided the acharya in question is a

God realized soul with the necessary qualifications.

 

I have been reading a bit about the devotional works

of Adi Sankara and he definitely gives Vishnu the

supreme status ( Achyutashtakam among others). So the

three schools of Vedanta and all the remaining schools

have in common:

1. Vishnu as supreme being.

2. Authenticity of Itihasas.

3. Acceptance of all Hindu Gods and their legends.

 

So there is at the minimum 80% convergence, the

divergence is mainly at the philosophical level,

however a devotee who follows a particular Acharya

strictly will surely get very close to liberation. The

supreme Lord Vishnu will by his power ensure that a

devotee is not penalized for choosing one path over

the other (any path which is within the ambit of Vedic

literature).

 

Now the question of which path leads to the final

Moksha is rather irrelevant because once you have

chosen a particular path and reached very close to the

gate, further guidance will be automatically provided

at that point.

 

One thing about ISKCON which I personally debate is

that they contradict the Tamasic Puranas and Tantras

which say that Shiva is eternal, Devi is eternal,

Ganesha is eternal. They

refer to these Gods as positions which are occupied by

different persons in different Kalpas. I find no

reason for this theory, Krishna has Himself said that

He stabilizes the faith in the appropriate demigods

for those devotees, so there is no way Krisha can

cheat the devotees of demigods by giving them faith in

a God who is not permanent when their faith has been

developed by the Vedic Puranas itself. Of course this

reasoning does not apply to Brahma and the lower Gods

who no Purana or Tantra says is an eternal being.

 

Conclusion: The demigods in the Smarta philosophy

(Shiva, Ganesha, Devi, Skanda) have to be "eternal

expansions of Krishna himself", though they manifest

as beings different from Krishna. This is the only way

the Puranas and Tantras can be reconciled, without

cheating the devotees of those DemiGods, and this was

one of the goals of Sankara's Advaita. This doesn't

affect Krishna's position as the supreme and brings

all the schools of Vedanta very close to each other in

essence.

Praying to Krishna directly is the best, but the other

paths cannot be far behind.

 

The essence is captured in "Just like waters of the

rivers converge at the ocean, all salutations reach

Keshava only". But the rivers do exist and exist as

long as the ocean exists.

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

[Guest guest]

achintya, subash r <rajaasub> wrote:

> Vedanta philosophy is not a joke. It requires a great

> soul blessed by Lord Vishnu to be a proper Vedantist.

 

> We must stick to the well known Vedanta philosophies

> and not apply our brains too much.

 

No one here is proposing a new Vedaanta philosophy. Nor is anyone

suggesting that it is a joke. Obviously we don't consider it a joke

or else we would not be discussing the subject.

 

Also, I don't agree with your theory that studying shruti leads to

falsehood. Although I do agree in principle that we should emphasize

the Bhaagavatam, I have no objection to braahmanas studying and

commenting on the shrutis, since that is their traditional calling.

 

I'm also not sure I agree with this statement:

 

> So treating Bhagavata Purana as a basis for Vedanta is

> fully acceptable provided the acharya in question is a

> God realized soul with the necessary qualifications.

 

Either the Bhaagavatam is Vedaantic or it is not. This must be true

independently of the speaker's qualifications. Whether or not the

speaker is speaking according to the Bhaagavatam may be another

issue. But requirements that he be a "God realized soul" are not

traditional Vedaantic stipulations. Such requirements cannot be

evaluated objectively. In fact, traditionally Vedaanta tends to

minimize assumptions at least in principle. Needless to say one's

guru must have the appropriate qualification, without which one

cannot appreciate the inner meaning of the Bhaagavatam (or any

shaastras). But the Bhaagavatam's authority is independent of this.

 

> I have been reading a bit about the devotional works

> of Adi Sankara and he definitely gives Vishnu the

> supreme status ( Achyutashtakam among others). So the

> three schools of Vedanta and all the remaining schools

> have in common:

> 1. Vishnu as supreme being.

> 2. Authenticity of Itihasas.

> 3. Acceptance of all Hindu Gods and their legends.

 

#1 is not disputed by anyone. But Advaitins historically do not

accept that this means "exclusive supremacy." There are prominent

Advaitins today who wear the sectarian signs of Shaivite schools, for

example. #2 is also accepted in theory by Vaishnava Vedaantins, but

different traditions will usually have qualms about some sections

they cannot successfully interpret in light of their thinking. #3 is

a little vague - obviously even Vaishnavas "accept" that other

deities mentioned in the Vedas are real. But they do not accept that

they are the Supreme Deity. So I'm really not sure what you meant by

this.

 

> So there is at the minimum 80% convergence, the

> divergence is mainly at the philosophical level,

 

This is obvious. But "80% convergence?" Come now, how have you come

to these figures?

 

> however a devotee who follows a particular Acharya

> strictly will surely get very close to liberation. The

> supreme Lord Vishnu will by his power ensure that a

> devotee is not penalized for choosing one path over

> the other (any path which is within the ambit of Vedic

> literature).

> Now the question of which path leads to the final

> Moksha is rather irrelevant because once you have

> chosen a particular path and reached very close to the

> gate, further guidance will be automatically provided

> at that point.

 

I simply do not agree. Well, it's not that I want to disagree, but

the fact is that there is no basis for this sentiment, however

laudable it may be for its wishful thinking.

 

regards,

 

HKS

[Guest guest]

--- krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote:

Also, I don't agree with your theory that studying

shruti leads to

falsehood. Although I do agree in principle that we

should emphasize

the Bhaagavatam, I have no objection to braahmanas

studying and

commenting on the shrutis, since that is their

traditional calling.

 

^^^ Almost everyone who reads the Shruti directly

comes up with different conclusions. That is the

reason people including Brahmanas accept the

commentary on Shrutis by the great acharyas who meet

every qualification to read the Shruti to the dot. To

emphasize the point "in the ramanuja discussion forum,

there was one self-proclaimed master of shruti who

repeatedly stressed that Vishnu's supremacy was not

there in the Shruti, and not a single member could

refute him". But one of the members suggested "The way

we look at Vedas now is completely different from the

way Vedas were looked upon by the past masters. He

also stated that without the aid of Ramanuja's

commentary, it is difficult for anyone to interpret

the Shruti in the perfect manner and get the correct

conclusion of Vishnu's supremacy from it."

 

But they do not accept that

they are the Supreme Deity.

 

^^^ When one reads the Tantras and Puranas which extol

Shiva or Ganesha as the supreme, some devotees are

bound to get attracted to those statements like a

magnet. Since all Puranas fall within the ambit of

Vedic literature, certainly a devotee cannot be

penalized heavily for following a particular Purana.

 

 

This is obvious. But "80% convergence?"

^^^Because the Puranas and Itihasas which are not

debated by the schools amount to roughly 80% of the

Vedic literature in content.

 

> Now the question of which path leads to the final

> Moksha is rather irrelevant because once you have

> chosen a particular path and reached very close to

the

> gate, further guidance will be automatically

provided

> at that point.

 

I simply do not agree. Well, it's not that I want to

disagree, but the fact is that there is no basis for

this sentiment, however laudable it may be for its

wishful thinking.

 

^^^ How can any devotee be penalized for following

Advaita or Madhwa or Ramanuja over ISKCON? All these

paths are within the ambit of Vedic literature? Lord

Krishna cannot deprive the devotees of the other

paths. Yes, ISKCON may be the best path, but the other

paths are also revealed by Vasudeva Himself.

 

^^^ Since I am in India I can feel the enormous

problems our internal divisions within Hinduism have

caused. I am just for a simple policy "Emphasize the

commonalities and deemphasize the differences", at

least for the moment.

 

 

HKS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Achintya Homepage:

achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the

property of their authors, and they may not be

cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by

said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are

those of their authors only, and are not necessarily

endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the

Gaudiiya school.

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

achintya/

 

achintya

 

Terms of Service.

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

> achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

> wrote:

> > And, even a cursory reading of the respective commentaries seems

to

> indicate that the 3 schools used more critical thinking, unlike in

> our society, where any kind of critical thinking is put down as

> mental speculation,and devotees are constrained in exploring deeper

> truths.

> >

> Of course, what lay practitioners do in each tradition is a

different

> story. But then again, Gaudiiya Vaishnavism does not hold the

> monopoly on sentimentalists and fanatics. A couple of years back

> there was some Maadhva fellow named Abhishek who tried to spam some

> nonsense to this list. He could barely even write in complete

> sentences and seemed to have no clue as to what Madhva's doctrine

> was, and yet he knew enough to know that everything we said was

> wrong, even before we said it. Just to give you an example of this

> man's ignorance, he was criticizing us for believing that the Lord

> resides as Paramaatmaa in the heart, even though this is said in

many

> places in shruti and smriti. Then there are plenty of the more

> intellectual Tattvavadis, who hate us so much that they even

> criticize their own aachaaryas for claiming that our paramparaa is

> shared with theirs. And of course, there is no shortage of

Advaitins

> who preach some "all paths lead to the same goal" sentiment. Or

> Advaitins who claim that everyone is a fanatic except for those who

> believe as they do that all religions are the "same." Or how about

> Tenkalai and Vadakali Sri Vaishnavas, who won't even intermarry

> despite their belonging to the same tradition. Or Sri Vaishnavas

who

> let their children eat meat, etc.

>

> Anyway, we can go on and on with this. My point is simply that we

> must distinguish between the orthodox tradition as practiced by the

> aachaaryas, and lay followers who may misuse or misrepresent it.

 

I am posting a followup to this to clarify what I said in the above

paragraphs. Please note that I intended no disrespect to the

traditions named above or their followers. I was trying to make the

point that many people may claim to belong to a particular tradition

but not follow it entirely. We should not judge the traditions badly

because of the weaknesses of some followers. On the same grounds I

objected to the idea that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is averse to critical

thinking simply because of fanatics who linger in its missionary

societies. Similarly, I would not (for example) criticize Sri

Vaishnavism simply because I've met Iyengar kids in the US who eat

meat. Nor would I attack Advaita on the grounds that Ramakrishna Math

sannyasis eat meat and drink liquor.

 

In other words, what I am trying to say is that we must distinguish

between the less-than-stellar behavior of the unorthodox and the

actual way in which the tradition is supposed to be practiced as

demonstrated by the acharyas. Please therefore, do not compare the

pristine form of one tradition with the degraded form of another.

When comparing two different traditions, look at them both as they

are practiced by the faithful followers and acharyas.

 

Thanks, and sorry if there was any misunderstanding. I most certainly

did not intend any disrespect to any of the Vaishnava traditions,

with whom we share a common bond.