re: Gaudiya epistemology and ontology

February 21, 2006

>

> Pls tell us more about this.

>

Dear Bhakti-vikas Swami Maharaj,

Please accept my humble obeisances at your lotus feet. Jaya Srila

Prabhupada.

I was referring to the current revisionist trend in science in

understanding organic systems. In the earlier, Cartesian thought, it

was believed that in every complex system the behaviour of the whole

can be understood from the properties of its parts. This belief was

fundamental to "analytical" science. Modern theories in science say

otherwise: Systems, as we now understand them, cannot be understood

by analysis. Which also implies that properties of the parts are not

intrinsic entities — it's something that can be understood only

within the context of the larger whole.

I was referring to Capra's book 'Web of Life', in which he

says: "The new paradigm implies that epistemology has to be included

explicitly in the description of natural phenomenon..." This echoes

what the renowned biologist Edward O. Wilson refers to as

the 'Consilience of Knowledge'. Capra and many scientists now

recognize the fact that all scientific concepts are limited and

approximate...and, that science can never provide any complete or

definitive understanding.

The new understanding of epistemology is very close to our

sampradaya's explanation of it also -- that consciousness is

inherently subjective, self-referential, recursive, etc. More

importantly: Srila Prabhupada has exercised some caution in using

terms, like stating that consciousness is the "symptom" of the soul,

thereby being ontologically precise. Several Advaitic and other

Indian writers blithely use terms like "pure consciousness"

with reference to the "soul", but this is not precise, and conveys

little information about the nature of the PROCESS of purification

itself. As per my understanding, our ontology emphasizes the

concept of 'context' and 'contents', and stresses

that "consciousness" itself is an abstract ontological class which,

together with an "object" and "relations" forms a concrete class

called Experience, which itself has a relation with another concrete

class, the Living Entity. Thus, we cannot talk of "consciousness"

separate from "objects" and "relations"...and "pure consciousness"

must refer to the quality of the contents of consciousness. This,

then, provides a background for a proper discussion of the process

of purification of consciousness...and the importance of the nature

of the OBJECT of Meditation (the Supreme PERSONALITY of Godhead). By

following this line of discussion, we lay the basis for Krishna

Consciousness, because even neurophysicists acknowledge that

relationship forms a very important part of a "complete meditation".

The Advaitic idea that "suject, object and relation ultimately merge

into one" is nonsense, since they can't even seem to agree on their

ontology. Even in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, samadhi is defined, "tad

evAthamAtrAnirbhAsam-svarUpa-shUnyam iva samAdhih" -- "that

(consciousness, engaged in sustained focus upon a single object),

reflecting the object alone, as if empty of its own nature, is

samadhi." Consciousness cannot be divorced from its object. And the

shastric statements alluding to a changing relationship ("merging")

of object-relation-subject refer to a pure relationship *unmediated

by Time*. Transcendent reality is Immediate, not mediated by Time.

But the three do not "disappear". They exist, and their

relationship is governed by non-Cartesian logic, which is now the

rage in cutting-edge scientific understanding. So, I think the neo-

Advaitins and other impersonalists were cheering a bit too

early...Their favourite scientists' latest theories are a shot in

the foot.

Note: Beyond his admission that there is no such thing as an

independent, "objective", empirical reality, Capra doesn't pay any

attention to the nature of Absolute Reality. In fact, he now seems

to be only fascinated by the inter-operations and flux of what we

would call the Modes of Material Nature. Of course, the greater part

of Vedic literature also deals with precisely these Three Modes of

Nature (BG 2:45), and that's about where we can expect scientists

will continue to graze for the near future. Still, I

thought we could use these admissions of their own epistemic

inadequacy to help audiences to take Vaishnav scriptures more

seriously.

Unfortunately, I think some Madhvas have done harm to our

presentation of epistemology by their shallow argument against the

Gaudiya precept of shabda-pramANa being above sense-perception and

inference, which tend to be flawed. On this achintya forum, we

discussed this in the thread about "flawless" sense perception...Sri

Madhvacarya has clearly stated that only flawless sense perception

and inference is understood to be on par with shabda-pramana. The

way some modern Madhvas argue that scienntific descriptions are

objective and independent from the human observer is very

inconsistent, in my humble opinion. Or, by their own standards, they

must now agree with science's new revelations of its own

subjectivity! I hope the hotheads on dvaita.org read this.

Your servant,

Carl

March 5, 2006

> The Advaitic idea that "suject, object and relation ultimately

> merge into one" is nonsense, since they can't even seem to agree

on > their ontology.

Advaitam has been propounded by great seers of the past and it is

not good etiquette to call it non-sense. I dont see ISKCON devotees

making similar comments about semitic philosophies, if there is one.

This is a free world and advaitam is not a holy cow. One can always

have constructive criticism of the philosophy advaitam but to simply

use temrs such as this is what is not appropriate.

As a matter of fact, there is a consistent explanation on the nature

of subject, object and relation if you read sankara's works on this.

The knower is the subject and is pure knowledge or consciousness.

When he projects himself as isvara, he is still jnana svarupa. This

isvara, he performs janmadasya activities as a sport. He projects

differentiation on the Knower (brahman / himself) by his

inconceivable power of illusion. Though in this illusory world,

there is ignorance and desire for knowledge, the knowers and objects

of knowledge are both brahman. That is because every thing is

brahman only, there being the possibility for nothing else. Though

Isvara is same as brahman and in essence inconceivable, the knower,

the innermost Self, he appears as though he were merely an object of

knoweldge. Thus meditating on him, one realizes his true nature.

Regarding the question who realizes, the answer is as one

progresses, the nature of identity continously tranforms until one

comes to the point of realizing aham brahmasmi. Just before the

advaitic realization of brahman, there is isvara sakshatkaram where

the knower is in the state of pure goodness and realizes isvara as

if he is external to him. Though ignorance continues for the purpose

of lila, this state of pure devotion is non-different in bliss

compared to the state of pure knowledge. Realization of identity is

not detrimental to pastimes. One clay can be moulded in to king and

a maid servant dolls. The knowledge of both is present in the potter

and the potter is verily the clay here. In him there is identity

with respect to subject, object and relationship but there is no

differentiation.

One can differ with this but I dont know how this is non-sense.

March 6, 2006

Dear raja_ram prabhu,

Hare Krishna.

> Advaitam has been propounded by great seers of the past and it is

> not good etiquette to call it non-sense.

I apologize for using that word. Thank you for pointing it out.

I have deep respect for Shripada Shankara, and I'm still

a 'recovering Mayavadi' in some ways. However, thanks to the

Vaishnava acharyas, I respect him now for very different reasons

than I did earlier. While I would still like to call the "NEO"-

Advaitist theories nonsense (they barely even comprehend Shankara),

I should take a less dismissive approach to the authentic works of

Acharya Shankara himself.

1) From what I understand, Vedic cosmology seems to be based on the

principles of Emanationism. In this context, the hypostatic

relations are based on a LOGICAL hierarchy, rather than

being causal in the factor of time. Perhaps this is why one of the

theories of creation that even Shankara advocated was ajaata-vaada.

So ideas like "becoming", "projecting", etc cannot be *processes* in

any "consistent" philosophical sense. At best, we can only use such

metaphors to explain the archetypal *relationships* between absolute

categories, which reflect themselves holographically in every

inferior hypostasis. Like using the milk-curd metaphor to explain

the *relationship* between Visnu-tattva and Shiva-tattva.

But categories can be absolute, without violating the Vedic

conception of Brahman. You probably know the concept of visesa,

which explains this. "Everything is indeed Brahman" is applicable

when Brahman is understood as the abstract root class that contains

uniqueness (and therefore diversity) as an inherent property. We say

this is inconceivable, because in this conditioned state and in this

material nature we have no experience of such a class, and so

cannot "visualize" it. But we can intellectually "formulate" it --

to a certain extent, and no further. Categories do not successively

vanish on realizing the absolute. Rather, they may be differently

experienced in their original harmony and in relation to the Whole

gestalt.

2) The realization of "identity" may be understood in terms of

realizing the state of *immutable relationship*. The process of self-

realization may be compared to a recursive algorithm. This is an apt

metaphor because Consciousness is certainly recursive, i.e., it is

able to act on its own contents. Like in a recursive algorithm, a

new subroutine is opened in each iteration, until a 'base condition'

is reached -- after which the algorithm bubbles back up through all

internal calls and finally returns...

The ontological Knowledge in the seat of Intelligence determines the

recursive function that operates in consciousness. A materialistic

ontology, for instance, has no baseline condition, and so cycles

indefinitely. A correct, spiritual ontology, however, ends the cycle

after a certain number of iterations...depending on the "length of

the array" being processed (i.e, "karmic ramifications of

the subtle body" in the case of individuals)...

The realization of "identity" is when no experience of

transformation occurs any longer, just like an *identity

operator*. "Identity" can, therefore, be understood in the context

of *relationships* between absolute categories. Shankara's

explanation (as normally understood by Mayavadis) cannot

explain 'raso vai sah', for example.

3) I think there are a lot of other things to be said. But, at best,

one can credit Shankara's semantics as an ingenious attempt to

be as faithful as possible to Vedic concepts while trying to sound

as much like the Voidist school as possible, for the purpose of

acceptability in the contemporary intellectual climate...and also to

avoid controversy in tying to politically unite 72 admittedly

heterodox sects of 'Hinduism' at the time. He obviously succeeded in

his mission to re-establish the authority of the Vedas by using such

double-edged semantics. But the flip side is that the heterodox fans

(who at one point had "accused" him of being a pracchanna Vaisnava)

started subscribing to Voidism in the garb of Vedanta -- effectively

the opposite of what Shankaracarya had done. They found in his

theories a justification for their arbitrary predilections as far as

spiritual practice was concerned, while earlier they couldn't

justify their practices on the full authority of the Vedas, and

therefore always envied and hated the Vaishnavas. In any case, I

think Sripada Sankara serves as the marker that separates the

devotees from the non-devotees.

>I dont see ISKCON devotees making similar comments about semitic

philosophies, if there is one.

4) I'm not sure why you brought that up, though the West-vs-India

and anti-Christian remark seems to be a refrain on achintya. I

personally am from India, though I'm studying in the US right now.

And I have met many Western ISKCON devotees who quite openly

critique "semitic" philosophies. Srila Prabhupada openly did it,

too. The only people I've met who demand this equal-equal criticism

from ISKCON (one for the Semites for every jab at Hindu Mayavada)

are Hindu cultural chauvinists.

Everybody knows that Christian doctrine borrowed freely from Neo-

Platonic and other philosophies as it evolved. In some marginal

gnostic cases, this lead to impersonalistic conceptions; in others

it didn't. Similarly, the "semitic" Jewish doctrine of Tiqqun Olam

may be of interest to you. I personally see it as a confirmation of

the ancient idea that the non-self-realized state is where one's

experience of reality is likened to "broken" glass, and the self-

realized state is where the harmony of categories is restored. There

is no "disappearance" of categories involved. Still, even some

marginal Jewish speculators became Impersonalistic. In Islam, the

Emanationist philosophy is enshrined in the doctrine of Maaba'ad al-

Tabiyyat. Again, some marginal schools arrived at impersonalistic

conclusions, but the bona fide esoteric Tareeqats to the

doctrine of "the mystery of Ahadiyyat (uniqueness) within

Wahidaniyyat (oneness)".

Your servant,

Carl.

March 6, 2006

achintya, "Carl" <rind_19 wrote:

> 4) I'm not sure why you brought that up, though the West-vs-India

> and anti-Christian remark seems to be a refrain on achintya. I

> personally am from India, though I'm studying in the US right now.

> And I have met many Western ISKCON devotees who quite openly

> critique "semitic" philosophies. Srila Prabhupada openly did it,

> too. The only people I've met who demand this equal-equal

criticism

> from ISKCON (one for the Semites for every jab at Hindu Mayavada)

> are Hindu cultural chauvinists.

I don't consider myself a "Hindu cultural chauvinist" (whatever that

means), but I would like to echo Ram's concern that there is a

definite double standard among lay devotees regarding sectarian

criticism when it comes to neo-Advaitins vs followers of semitic

religions. Of course, this is probably not the case as far the

acharyas are concerned. Those who knew of Christianity were

certainly not very enamored with it - see for example Bhaktivinod

Thakura's scathing criticism of Christianity in Tattva Viveka.

But this critical approach rarely seems to trickle down to the

average ISKCON devotee in the West, for whom preaching seems to

emphasize the unfounded divinity of Jesus Christ (or Mohammed, or

Moses, etc) and the highly superficial similarities between

religions while totally neglecting the differences. The books by

Satyaraja dasa such as Om Shalom and East-West Dialogs (both of

which I read) were much like this, as was a similar one written by

Bir Krishna Swami years ago. They almost totally gloss over all

differences and try to emphasize sameness. There has also been a lot

of attention to a spurious extract of the Bhavishya Puraana that

allegedly predicts Jesus, although (as the gosai.com people pointed

out), this section is almost certainly a recent interpolation. On a

local ISKCON temple forum, a devotee posted a lecture by his guru

which basically said something to the effect that Valentine's Day

has a bona fide religious basis, and that there is a Vedic way to

celebrate it too (he gave the example of some devotees

giving "valentines" to the Deity of Krishna... too bad he didn't

realize that the Catholic Church officially disowned Valentine's Day

in 1964 owing to the scarcity of facts concerning the celebrated

saint). A few months ago, I was having a discussion with some ISKCON

academic types who were telling me that none of Srila Prabhupada's

teachings which lacked scriptural support should be taken as true. I

then asked if his views about Jesus being pure devotee should

therefore be rejected, and they emphatically said "no" - they wanted

to keep the Jesus stuff, though they admitted it had no scriptural

evidence to support it. I have even encountered ISKCON devotees who,

due to their Christian sympathies, try to argue that the eating of

beef is not sinful to Christians, since cow-protection is after all,

nothing more than a quaint, Hindu principle. I could go on and on

with similar examples, but hopefully I do not have to.

I agree with Ram that, among lay Western devotees at least, there is

a definite difference in the way they deal with Mayavadis as opposed

to Christians. Whether this has philosophical justification may be

another argument, but in any case it is tangential to this thread,

so I'll leave it at that.

K

March 7, 2006

> I apologize for using that word. Thank you for pointing it out.

>

> I have deep respect for Shripada Shankara

You could have simply defended saying that "non-sense" is not

offensive and that it just means it does not make sense to you. But

instead of that you have chosen the humble option of publicly

apologizing for the improper attack on the teachings of the venerable

teacher. It is all very glorious. Sankara is an ocean of mercy and

destroyed the sins of the poor brahmana lady by the power of his

devotion please with her act of charity. And blessed Totakacharya with

the knowledge of all the schools of thought for his humility. He will

definitely shower you with knowledge, devotion and victory in your

endeavours to establish devotion as supreme.

Please forgive me for considering myself worthy of pointing out

mistakes in others.

March 7, 2006

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Carl wrote:

> I have deep respect for Shripada Shankara, and I'm still

> a 'recovering Mayavadi' in some ways.

AA = Advaitins Anonymous

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :-)

MDd

March 7, 2006

v_raja_ram <v_raja_ram wrote:

Advaitam has been propounded by great seers of the past and it is not good

etiquette to call it non-sense.

>>>Nonsense literally means "No meaning" - so, for a devotee who has complete

faith in the words of Krishna and acharyas represented by Srila Prbahupada, the

theory that subject-object difference is not eternal does not have any meaning,

however eloquently it is put forth. So, I don't see any reason why Carl pr.

shouldn't call it that way. Ramanujacharya, Vedanta desikar, Madhvacharya and

all Gaudiya acharyas call it as such. So, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't

continue to do so, following in their footsteps, in a *humble* mood. Further, he

did not criticize any philsopher(s), but the philosophy.

Also, the greatness of a seer/philosopher is also defined by how surrended he

is to Lord Krishna, not just because he knows 'aham brahmasmi' or he is a great

scholar. Srila Prabhupada and all Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas have great regard

and respect for Sankaracharya, but they were not afraid to speak the truth, for

the sake of being politically correct. In fact, devotees who follow in their

footsteps should develop more and more convincing arguments as to why Advaita

philosophy has no meaning for any aspirant desiring to surrender at Krishna's

lotus feet.

I dont see ISKCON devotees making similar comments about semitic philosophies,

if there is one.

>>>I have noted some of the valid points that KS raises alongwith the above

comment. But, it is worth remembering that Srila Prabhupada and acharyas vowed

to fight "impersonalism" and "voidism" and all those following in their

footsteps and chanting the pranama mantra *must* vow to fight against these two,

primarily. The other evils mentioned by KS are also worth a fight, but these are

lesser, I would opine.

From my limited experience w.r.t preaching at Universities here in the US, I

have observed that the most dangerous influences on the youth are impersonalism

and voidism . And, our primary duty is to fight these two evils. If it requires,

from a strategic viewpoint, that sometimes we have to side with the

Christians/Jews, I think we should consider, albeit cautiously. Also, the

reasoning that we should support advaita/Hinduism more than than

Christians/Jewish philosophy comes from the viewpoint that all Hindus should

unite together - but, this is purely based on bodily conception, identifying

oneself with a particular religion - Having said that, I do believe we should be

strongly critical of tactics such as forcible conversions.

Some hindus are upset that devotees support the Intelligent design movement,

because they feel that evolution (Darwin's version) and Vedic version are

completely in sync. While, I agree that we cannot blindly agree with the

Christian-backed ID proponents and have to evaluate their position critically,

it is nevertheless a better option to side with them than the impersonalist

Hindus, who don't have the courage to point out Darwin's atheistic foundation,

which Srila Prabhupada also did vociferously.

One might say that it was Sankaracharya and his followers, who were

responsible for the Vedic tradition's survival in the face of many onslaughts -

true, their contribution was significant - because of an important reason that

Sankaracharya stressed the importance of both philosophy and religion (or

bhakti) - and people who came in his tradition faithfully followed his

instructions for ages - but, this system is slowly wearing down - today's

educated youth is opting for pure abstract philosophy (with advaitic basis) w/o

any religion whatsoever - and this, trust me is a dangerous trend.

Thus, as Krishna conscious devotees, it behooves us to fight the primary evils

of impersonalism and voidism - the lesser, superficial evils will fade with time

and ofcourse a little bit of our effort:).

in your service,

Aravind.

March 7, 2006

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind

wrote:

>

> >>>Nonsense literally means "No meaning" - so, for a devotee who

has complete faith in the words of Krishna and acharyas represented

by Srila Prbahupada, the theory that subject-object difference is

not eternal does not have any meaning, however eloquently it is put

forth. So, I don't see any reason why Carl pr. shouldn't call it

that way. Ramanujacharya, Vedanta desikar, Madhvacharya and all

Gaudiya acharyas call it as such. So, I don't see a reason why we

shouldn't continue to do so, following in their footsteps, in a

*humble* mood. Further, he did not criticize any philsopher(s), but

the philosophy.

>

"Nonsense" has negative connotations and it is best not to use the

word when discussing the philosophy of a respectable aachaarya.

Shankaraachaarya deserves a bit more respect than that. He is, after

all, the incarnation of Lord Shiva. Are we really so full of

ourselves that we think we could defeat him that easily? Actually,

as an accomplished scholar, someone on his level could easily defeat

our fledgling faith. Don't underestimate a Vedaantin scholar, even a

mayavadi one. Other Vaishnava aachaaryas obviously felt his

philosophy was significant enough a threat to devote much time to

refuting it.

> >>>I have noted some of the valid points that KS raises

alongwith the above comment. But, it is worth remembering that Srila

Prabhupada and acharyas vowed to fight "impersonalism" and "voidism"

and all those following in their footsteps and chanting the pranama

mantra *must* vow to fight against these two, primarily. The other

evils mentioned by KS are also worth a fight, but these are lesser,

I would opine.

>

Lesser? That is historically incorrect. Much of the damage done to

the social fabric of Vedic culture was done not by Mayavadi

philosophers nor by Mughal invaders but rather by scholars

professing friendship with Hinduism although serving the interests

of fundamentalist Christianity. The devastating impact they have had

on the Hindu intellect can only be truly appreciated when one

realizes that their prejudiced scholarship has never been

acknowledged to be an historic injustice by their modern-day

followers. Small wonder that their descendants continue dismantling,

to this day, the fledling faith of Hindus in their own traditions.

Just recently in the US, a Christian-led coalition of "scholars"

defeated a Hindu initiative to edit out inaccurate and frankly

blasphemous remarks about Hinduism in California elementary school

textbooks. These people are controlling what your children will

learn about their religion in school. And don't think they will be

better of in India, because in India Christians receive money from

Hindu temples to spread anti-Hindu propaganda.

Hindus being converted to Christianity aren't learning how to love

Krishna better. They are only learning to eat cow meat and blaspheme

Vedas. Let's not kid ourselves. Whatever praise Srila Prabhupada

made of Christianity does not change the fact that it is tinged with

materialistic ideas and continues to pose a significant threat to

Vedic culture. Trying to argue that Christians can be allies in the

fight against mayavada is counter-productive and just plays right

into their hands. Obviously, they want you to think like that. But

ask yourself who is really influencing whom? Is it that orthodox

Christians are imbibing ideas from Vedic culture, or is the reality

that many Western devotees accept unhesitatingly ideas borrowed from

Christianity? I think we all know the answer to that one.

K

March 8, 2006

> "Nonsense" has negative connotations and it is best not to use the

> word when discussing the philosophy of a respectable aachaarya.

> Shankaraachaarya deserves a bit more respect than that. He is,

after

> all, the incarnation of Lord Shiva.

HKS prabhu & Devotees,

Again, I want to clarify that I used the word casually, directed

more at the effusive modern-day Neo-Advaitic "scientism". It was

certainly NOT directed at any venerable Advaitic Acharya, least

of all Sankara. Also, I post on achintya as a way to sort out good

arguments to present to students on campus, where we try to do a lil

bit of preaching work.

As per Madhvacharya, who quoted references to the Puranas, Sankara

was a combination of Lord Shiva and a demon named Maniman. Therefore

Madhvacharya says that whatever Sankara said that was in line with

Vedanta is from Lord Shiva, and the blasphemy is from Maniman.

raja_ram prabhu,

Sankara has said in a couple of places that Vyasadev is wrong(!),

and that he is now presenting a new "Advaita" Vedanta. So without

even going into the instructions of Vaishnav acharyas who came AFTER

Shankara, it is necessary for any Vaishnava to make an attempt to

counter the Mayavada understanding of Shankara. I look forward to

corrections that help make a better argument, but

discouraging any such effort in the name of "humility" seems

misplaced. Only recently H.H. Bhaktivikasa Swami posted some quotes

from Madhvacarya about how a neophyte SHOULD engage in arguing

against impersonalists and condemning their *philosophy*. Similarly,

I think Srila VCT says that neophytes should NOT shy away from good

argument, because "it strengthens the mind". So as a neophyte, I

seek encouragement and guidance from the pundits here. It should be

clear that commenting against a philosophy does not automatically

tantamount to personal slander (though that risk is always there.)

1) It may be impossible to counter Impersonalistic propaganda

without dealing with the personality and times of Acharya Shankara

himself. I think it is *very* important to study any Acharya's

teachings in conjunction with the *historical context* in which it

was preached. This angle should also figure prominently in exposing

the antecedents of Advaitic dogma to innocent people today.

Further, with many modern-day insights, it is possible to pull the

carpet from under the feet of any (neo-)Advaitin scholar. Following

are a few thoughts on these points:

2) I have plenty of respect for the argumentative skills of

scholarly Advaitins, but the tyre is punctured if we broaden the

framework of argument. The Advaitin's self-

consciously "jnani"/intellectual approach to spiritual truth is

patently one-dimensional (notwithstanding the show of

mishrita "bhakti", as we shall see). Psychologically, we know today

that intellect is SUBORDINATE to "will", which is a function of the

EMOTIONAL disposition of the individual. So when the Advaitin starts

off with impersonalistic tendencies, his intellectual gymnastics is

of no independent value.

With this insight into the process of acquiring knowledge, we can

now argue that the dialectic of karma-jnana-bhakti should logically

have bhakti as its source, its engine, and its synthetic end-point.

This we can argue from the standpoint of modern psychology.

3) This is not a new-fangled approach either. If you follow the

history of modern philosophy in the last 100 years, you will see

that psychology is an integral part of philosophy and science today.

In a recent post in this thread, I had pointed out the newly

admitted role of "epistemology" even in hardcore scientific research.

4) This idea finds repeated support in all Vedic literature. Take

even the Bhagavad Gita. Early on, Shri Krishna speaks of "knowledge"

in purely intellectual, Sankhya terms. But later, in the 13th

chapter (v.8-12), he starts speaking of "knowledge" in terms of

qualities of character...qualities that shape the *basic

disposition* of a person. He says that He considers THIS to be real

knowledge, a deeper level of knowledge.

So the intuitive, qualitative knowledge is given greater importance

than intellectual or quantative knowledge. Again, in the 18th

chapter, in explaining the source of inspiration, we find all 3

factors come into play -- knowledge, the object of knowledge, and

the (qualities of) the knower himself.

5) From practical experience also we can see that qualitative

knowledge is at a deeper level, and is at the level of real

inspiration. When I first met an ISKCON devotee, I wanted to argue

about meat-eating. But her first argument was that it "kills the

mercy in your heart". That was the end of the "argument" for me.

Although it was not a "logical" argument in the intellectual sense,

something in me could immediately grasp the merit of that argument,

the *value* of the quality being referred to in the argument. This

interaction was a commmunication of real jnaana, as per the 13th

chapter of the BG.

6) So our reply to the Advaitin "scholar" is that, without an

appreciation of the correct *subordinate* role of intellect w.r.t.

psychological orientation, any amount of intellectual flatulence is

just that -- hot air. Of course, the Advaitins also speak

of "intuition", "anirvachaneeya", etc, especially when they're

losing an argument, but we should establish the legitimate roles and

place of psychology and intellect in acquiring knowledge.

7) But a skeptic, especially a moralist, may point out that

Advaitin swamis do not lack the qualities described in those verses,

such as humility, mercy, etc. But we can argue that the seed is of a

different species, and its *ultimate* fruit will be according to the

source. Once H.H.Varsana Swami Maharaj gave me the example of the

lila in which Balarama kills Pralambasura. The demon cames in the

guise of a cowherd boy, sports just like a cowherd boy, but then,

when he has Baladeva on his back alone...he suddenly reveals his

original form and intent. Of course, Sri Balarama exhibits His mercy

by knocking him out. Varsana Swami explained that Impersonalism is

the ultimate (short-lived) truimph of false ego over spiritual

impetus. Another example is the churning of the milk ocean. The

jewels and other treasures are thrown up, but the penultimate

appearance of poison is significant. Interestingly, it is Lord Shiva

who intervenes and mercifully consumes it. Our point is that the

mere appearance of transcendental qualities alone is not proof of

the validity of a path. The false ego is always in the wings,

waiting to hijack the spiritual impetus. As the Upanisads warn, he

who follows a false doctrine of the self will perish. Therefore,

beginning axioms are important.

A powerful argument for the above is to expose an inconsistency in

the Advaitin metaphysics of morals. They pay lip-service to these

transcendental qualities of character, but it does not flow from

their ultimate siddhanta of Absolute Truth. At an Advaitin seminar

recently on the Maniisha-pancakam, the eloquent speaker told

everyone that shankara says they are all God, but just in case they

felt pride, Shankara ends with a mangala-stotra saying that he is

merely an infinitesmal fragment of God. This is ridiculous.

Their axiology is inconsistent with their ontology. Humility is

apparently a valuable quality in its own right, or perhaps a time-

serving pretense.

8) Sri Madhvacharya is well-known as a fierce debator and was even

accused by injured Advaitins of being a pracchanna taarkika. Yet

even Madhvacharya said that he only wanted to fashion one thorny

argument to take out another. With Buddhists he argued against the

utility of intellect alone in determining Truth. But with Advaitins

he used logic based on the evidence of Vedic scripture, which

Sripada Sankara had expertly re-established as the authoritative

reference. Thus we see one Acharya serving the Absolute Truth after

another -- according to desha-kaala-paatra.

9) As I said, I love Shankara today for very different reasons than

his semantic ingenuity. I think he had a mission, and against his

heart he had to cut a Faustian bargain in order to bring the Vedas

back into currency. It was a case of desha-kaala-paatra. In his

political mobilization, the great majority of his fans came from the

heterodox sects who found new legitimacy under the Sankarite

doctrine for their stubborn non-Vaishnav preferences.

As per the info I have: In the beginning we clearly see Shankara

making very Vaishnav statements, which drew suspicion from these

heterodox groups. So he started speaking in more ambiguous

phraseology, avoiding explicitly theistic parts of the Vedas to

avoid controversy. This also mimicked the intellectual fashion of

the day which was dominated by the Buddhist logicians.

His purpose would have been served if he could establish the

existence of a superconscious reality as spoken of in the Vedas

rather than a "plenum void".

10) When the heterodox 'Hindu' sects suddenly found this new

legitimacy for their practices in Shankara's partial presentation

of "Vedanta", they became his devoted followers. Actually -- and

VERY interestingly -- this was a missionary tactic already in use

by clever Buddhist preachers to convert Hindus. It is very impishly

spoken of in one section of the Buddhist corpus called the Kaala-

chakra Tantra. The writer in that section says that Buddhist

preachers must show respect to the Hindu gods and godesses and the

idea of deity, and then slowly establish the superiority of an

impersonal plenum void. Deity becomes a means to an end. It is

noteworthy that the "Pure Land" kind of Buddhist school grew in our

very own Mathura. Today this is EXACTLY what the Mayavadi followers

of Sankara do, except they do so in the name of "Vedanta".

Anyway, thus began a complicated web in the tactic adopted by

Sankara. The heterodox followers now claim proprietorship

of "Vedanta", but prod for explanations of ALL its precepts.

Obviously this is not possible without again raising questions that

favour Vaishnavism, which his followers weren't ready to accept. So

ultimately Shankara is forced to say that Vyasa didn't quite seal

the meaning of the Upanishads. The theistic references are filtered

out or explained away. A disciple whose cup is not quite empty, who

still clings to his own conditioned preferences or prejudices, is

only asking to be cheated.

But throughout his life Shankara left enough hints of Whose Lotus-

feet his heart lay at. Take the episode of the passing away of his

mother, or his decision to comment on the Visnu-sahasranaama.

11) In any case, I don't think we should let our love for Shankara

the PERSON get in the way of trying to undermine the dozens of

philosophical concoctions that market themselves in his reflected

glory. We have to deal with these pernicious philosophies when it

comes to sharing this lovely Vaishnavism. Many of the proponents of

Impersonalism dissimulate to a great deal, and are often very

politically astute. Without mentioning names, I rarely get the

impression of a "fearless preacher". Even historically, I know of

only one Advaitin scholar who frankly admitted that

Shankara's "Vedanta" was clearly at odds with Vyasadev's Vedanta-

sutra...and then declared that Shankara had thereby DEFEATED

Vyaasa!

So this, briefly, is my understanding, which helps in sharing

Vaishnavism with my fellow students and others who have doubts. I

would be very grateful if members could point out factual, logical

and other errors,or provide further references. But I hope my

intentions in approaching such subjects are not mistaken as arising

from disrespect for Shankaracharya or any kind of aparaadha. I

apologize again if I came across as such.

Your servant,

Carl.

March 8, 2006

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Aravind Mohanram wrote:

> v_raja_ram <v_raja_ram wrote:

>

> Advaitam has been propounded by great seers of the past and it is not good

> etiquette to call it non-sense.

It's worth remembering that there are bonafide Vaisnava acaryas who taught

advaita, yet fought against impersonalism and mayavada. Also, any philosophical

approach to the absolute will run into similar problems regarding maya as does

advaita.

MDd

March 8, 2006

achintya, "Carl" <rind_19 wrote:

>

> As per Madhvacharya, who quoted references to the Puranas, Sankara

> was a combination of Lord Shiva and a demon named Maniman. Therefore

> Madhvacharya says that whatever Sankara said that was in line with

> Vedanta is from Lord Shiva, and the blasphemy is from Maniman.

I could be mistaken, but I believe Maadhvas actually consider

Shankaraachaarya to be a full incarnation of the demon Manimaan, who

was appointed by Lord Shiva to carry out this task. For support, they

have some quote from the Garuda Puraana (which I never bothered to

check), and I think it is also mentioned in Mani-manjari, one of

Madhva's principal biographies.

I questioned them about this, since the Padma Puraana, Uttara-khaanda

says that Lord Shiva will appear in Kali Yuga in the form of a

braahmana, thus implying that Shankara is Lord Shiva, not a demon. In

response, I was told that the Uttaraadi Math's edition of the Padma

Puraana has the words in the instrumental case - i.e. "braaahmana-

ruupena" or by means of a braahmana's form or something like that. So

in other words, they are interpreting that Shiva is doing this through

a demon who appears as a braahmana. Not our view, but interesting

enough to be aware of, I think.

K

March 8, 2006

Haribol,

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: "Nonsense" has negative

connotations and it is best not to use the word when discussing the philosophy

of a respectable aachaarya...Other Vaishnava aachaaryas obviously felt his

philosophy was significant enough a threat to devote much time to refuting it.

>>>Although, these are tangential to my original comments, I agree with you

that there are more appropriate words than 'nonsense' for discussions/debates.

But, for a devotee, understanding that word w.r.t advaita will assure his swift

progress. As mahaprabhu recommends,we should be ready to offer respects to

everyone.

Lesser? That is historically incorrect. Much of the damage done to the social

fabric of Vedic culture was done not by Mayavadi philosophers nor by Mughal

invaders but rather by scholars professing friendship with Hinduism although

serving the interests

of fundamentalist Christianity.

>>>historically speaking, what you are saying is true. My comments were about

the future and as far as our main challenge is concerned, it'll be countering

impersonalism/voidism, I would say. The damage done by Christianity-biased

western scholars is now fully known and genuine Indian scholars are taking steps

towards rectifying it. And, given the fact that India is growing materially and

will become a nation of great power in the next few decades, I'm confident that

we can re-establish the glory of its past, most of it, if not completely - yes,

we will still have onslaughts from other religions, but with the help of a

government sympathetic to Vedic culture, we can safeguard it reasonably well.

But, the more fundamental disease is mayavada, which will be very difficult to

root out, if devotees do not take serious steps to enlighten people, especially

in colleges and schools, which breed the intellectuals that will go on to make

policy and political decisions. The ego level of students in today's

Universities is unbearable, and this is directly the effect of atheistic and

impersonalistic philosophies. And, what is unfortunate is that impersonalism is

spreading like a virus through yoga societies, pranayama societies etc. and

unless devotees stand up and fight (following the example of Arjuna), things

could get ugly.

While what I'm writing may clearly sound fanatical, I'm not advocating

fanaticism. Instead, my desire is simply to encourage devotees to stand up and

counter destructive philosophies in an appropriate manner and through innovative

ways.

Whatever praise Srila Prabhupada made of Christianity does not change the fact

that it is tinged with

materialistic ideas and continues to pose a significant threat to Vedic culture.

>>>I agree. So is growing materialism within so-called Hinduism. We should be

ready to counter both. Most of my brahmin-born friends now eat meat - what's the

difference?

Srila Prabhupada praised anything that was in line with Krishna consciousness

- he strongly denounced meat-eating by Christians. I don't see why we cannot

take a similar approach.

Trying to argue that Christians can be allies in the

fight against mayavada is counter-productive and just plays right into their

hands. Obviously, they want you to think like that.

>>>Not for everything, but as I mentioned in my earlier email, this has to be

done cautiously. On some issues like forcible conversions, we may have to align

with mayavadis - so, we can give issue-based support, even while strongly

condemning anything that is against Krishna's instructions.

iys

Aravind

March 8, 2006

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Aravind Mohanram wrote:

>Much of the damage done to the social fabric of Vedic culture was done not by >

Mayavadi philosophers nor by Mughal invaders but rather by scholars

> professing friendship with Hinduism although serving the interests

> of fundamentalist Christianity.

It was mainly later, especially after MacCaulay, that Europeans acted so

inimically towards Indian values and traditions. Early Europeans in India

actually appreciated its culture greatly--even intermarrying, adopting the dress

and languages of India, and sometimes even nominally converting. I would guess

that it was mainly out of deep seated ignorance and well ingrained bad habits

that they harmed what they thought they loved.

Its relevence to our circumstances is that those of us of the same ilk can do

likewise, and probably will, unless we realize how profund our deficiencies

actually are, and can act appropriately in response to that realization. In

India it has now become quite obvious that ISKCON has given at least as much as

it has taken, and maybe it has given more materialism than it has taken

spiritualism. Of course, urban centers like Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, etc. are

already hardly Indian anymore, and are nonspiritual, so the same applies even to

Indians socialized in such environments.

>The damage done by Christianity-biased western scholars is now fully known and

genuine Indian scholars are taking steps towards rectifying it.

In fact, post-Orientalism is already a well-established insitution in the

Western Indological academy, especially since Edward Said wrote a seminal book

about this (regarding the Middle East) some thirty years ago. Subaltern studies

are in some sense the inverse of that recognition.

>And, given the fact that India is growing materially and will become a nation

of great power in the next few decades, I'm confident that we can re-establish

the glory of its past, most of it, if not completely - yes, we will still have

onslaughts from other religions, but with the help of a government sympathetic

to Vedic culture, we can safeguard it reasonably well.>

I doubt this. What is now one of the most salient aspects of Srila Prabhupada's

teaching, largely because we are so blatantly neglecting it, is his emphasis on

simple living and high thinking. The India that is now growing materially also

ignores this aspect of its tradition. Even ISKCON's

"Glory of India" temple in Delhi is not particularly Indian in that it its

practical elements are solidly based, and dependent, upon Western technology,

commmercial hype, and a degree of streamlined spirituality. So many scholars

would insist that such is different than the wonder that was India.

And maybe that's necessary; I'm not going to judge that. But it definitely isn't

the glory of India's past, and we will do well to recognize that.

> Whatever praise Srila Prabhupada made of Christianity does not change the

> fact that it is tinged with materialistic ideas and continues to pose a

> significant threat to Vedic culture.

>

> >>>I agree. So is growing materialism within so-called Hinduism.

What about the growing materialism within ISKCON? Many people have called this

trend "Krishnianity." Is there not some connection between these three diverse

communities? Everybody suffers from a relatively godless spirit.

MDd

March 8, 2006

> As per Madhvacharya, who quoted references to the Puranas, Sankara

> was a combination of Lord Shiva and a demon named Maniman.

> Therefore Madhvacharya says that whatever Sankara said that was in

> line with Vedanta is from Lord Shiva, and the blasphemy is from

> Maniman.

Madhwas, in Mani Manjari, call Sankara a son of a characterless

woman, albeit is chaste sanskrit. They call him incapable of sense

control. They consider Saradambal an adulterous. None of this known

to any of his bographers who are all praise for his/his

family's/saradambal's glorious conduct. Not even his contemporary

opponents / sri vaishnavas ever wrote any thing low-class about him.

Even Dravidian tabloids such as Nakkeeran known for anti-hindu /

anti-brahmin fanaticism do not stoop this low. Please note that

Gauidya Acharyas refer to Sankara with reverence.

> Sankara has said in a couple of places that Vyasadev is wrong(!),

> and that he is now presenting a new "Advaita" Vedanta.

Please quote with reference to context and if necessary we can

discuss.

> Shankara, it is necessary for any Vaishnava to make an attempt to

> counter the Mayavada understanding of Shankara.

> But throughout his life Shankara left enough hints of Whose Lotus-

> feet his heart lay at. Take the episode of the passing away of his

> mother, or his decision to comment on the Visnu-sahasranaama.

As you would agree, he never compromised advaitam in bhaja govindam

or sahasranama bhashyam or sariraka bhasyam or govindashtakam or

viveka chudamani.

> 11) In any case, I don't think we should let our love for Shankara

> the PERSON get in the way of trying to undermine the dozens of

> philosophical concoctions that market themselves in his reflected

> glory.

The question is what happens to one who follows Sankara, not what

happens to neo-vedantins who exploit his name. nitya pooja, trikala

sandhyavandanam, sahasranama parayanam, veda parayanam, vaidhika

samkaram, srauddha karma, vedanta vicaranam, svadhyaya, participate

in sadas, follow anushtanams, celebrate festivals, giving in

charity, etc. will lead to purification of mind and ekantha bhakti

and jnana. Even if a person tries to meditate on formless brahman

will ultimately reach sri govinda though his path is austere (BG

Bhakti Yoga). Please let me know if you disagree. If you agree,

what are you opposing?

But on the other hand, people who blast temples, rape women,

slaughter cows and animals, wage unnecessary wars, perpetrate lies

will suffer in hellish conditions. Some people on this forum suggest

that we align with them. What are they supporting?

March 9, 2006

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind

wrote:

> >>>Although, these are tangential to my original comments, I

agree with you that there are more appropriate words than 'nonsense'

for discussions/debates. But, for a devotee, understanding that word

w.r.t advaita will assure his swift progress. As mahaprabhu

recommends,we should be ready to offer respects to everyone.

>

There is no getting around the fact that even Vaishnava aachaaryas

may have expressed dismissive views towards Shankara's ideas. Madhva

writes in his Giitaa-bhaashya that Shankara's interpretation of BG

14.27 is "word jugglery." Nevertheless, as we are not on their level

of erudition, it is probably best for us to avoid obviously

condescending remarks like "mental gymnastics,nonsense,word-

jugglery," etc as much as possible with reference to other Vedaanta

schools.

> >>>historically speaking, what you are saying is true. My

comments were about the future and as far as our main challenge is

concerned, it'll be countering impersonalism/voidism, I would say.

The damage done by Christianity-biased western scholars is now fully

known and genuine Indian scholars are taking steps towards

rectifying it.

>

If you think that the damage done by Christianity to Vedic culture

is only a thing of the past, then think again. The Christian culture-

destroying conversion machine is very much alive and well. Consider:

* A recent Hindu initiative to edit out offensive remarks in 6th

grade textbooks about Hinduism was effectively defeated by academic

scholars who are mostly Christians by upbringing if not practice.

These books actually teach that Hinduism is about bride-burning,

caste discrimination, and discrimination against all other

religions, and the Christians felt that this was a very fair

treatment of Hinduism for 6th graders. Strangely enough, they had no

objection to the white-washed treatment of Christianity in the same

books, which neglect to emphasize Inquisitions, witch hunts,

slavery, etc. These people are controlling what YOUR children learn

about their religion in school.

* Christian philologists have successfully advanced a theory even

among Hindu scholars that the original Raamaayana had no bhakti or

Vaishnava themes, and that these are only later interpolations by

some "later Vaishnava editor." There are even HIndu scholars who are

blindly hawking these theories.

* Christian missionaries receive funding from the Government of

India, part of which comes from Hindu temples which are forced to

surrender part of their income to fund anti-Hindu activities of

Muslim and Christian organizations. This is a well-known fact and it

is nothing new.

* Hindu places of pilgrimmage are routinely vandalized by Christians

with impunity. When I was last in Sri Rangam, one of the inner walls

was marked with the words "JESUS LIVES." Everyone just quietly went

about their business, hardly paying it a second thought. I have

heard similar stories about Rameshvaram and other places.

* Courses on Hinduism in India continue to teach outdated theories

of Hinduism's origins and its social conventions that were

propagated by Christian proselytizing missionaries. Each year,

India's universities breed larger and larger swarms of Hindu-hating

Indians. These then go on to become graduate students in Western

academia, where they are received as "native voices" agreeing with

the grand, Western, Christian narrative about India's history, thus

lending it some semblance of intellectual credibility. That it

really is the blind leading the blind is not appreciated by

university intellectuals or people who make foreign policy.

* Conservative Hindus desiring a good education in India know very

well that they must send their children to Christian-run, English-

medium schools, where their children will invariably learn more

about Shakespeare, the Bible, and John Locke than they will about

the Gita, Ramayana, etc.

* The chief minister of Andhra Pradesh is a converted Christian who

has sold land on the Seven Hills of Tirupati to Christians for the

purpose of building a church there. Imagine their audacity! These

are the same Seven Hills which the blessed Shrii Raamaanuja would

not walk on (he was said to have done dandavat obeisances all the

way up to the temple) because he revered them as an incarnation of

Adi-Sesha, and now beef-eating Christians are going to have a church

on those same sacred lands!?!?

And any attempt to stop or rebuke these Christians leads only to

cries that they are being persecuted. Actually, that is a part of

their religious psychology. It is the dream of many a fundamentalist

Christian to be persecuted for their religion, just as Jesus was

persecuted by the Romans. One has to hand it to them - even when

they are stopped from doing injustice, the Christians will cry that

they are being "persecuted." Hence, you can see the difficulty in

trying to engage them in rational dialog. Things like "you should

always tell the truth.... you should respect what belongs to

others... you should not destroy other cultures" just don't make

much sense to people who believe they are dying for Jesus.

> And, given the fact that India is growing materially and will

become a nation of great power in the next few decades, I'm

confident that we can re-establish the glory of its past, most of

it, if not completely - yes, we will still have onslaughts from

other religions, but with the help of a government sympathetic to

Vedic culture, we can safeguard it reasonably well.

>

As MPT pointed out earlier, the India that is poised to become the

next great superpower is NOT Vedic India, nor Hindu India, nor any

sort of India that is friendly towards varnaashrama-dharma. The

India in question is run by a secular elite who are brainwashed by

leftist theories of Hindu class conflict and Christian rationalism.

There is no evidence that a "Hindu-friendly" India is waiting to

rise from the ashes of America's newest nation-clone.

> But, the more fundamental disease is mayavada, which will be

very difficult to root out, if devotees do not take serious steps to

enlighten people, especially in colleges and schools, which breed

the intellectuals that will go on to make policy and political

decisions. The ego level of students in today's Universities is

unbearable, and this is directly the effect of atheistic and

impersonalistic philosophies. And, what is unfortunate is that

impersonalism is spreading like a virus through yoga societies,

pranayama societies etc. and unless devotees stand up and fight

(following the example of Arjuna), things could get ugly.

>

Unlike you, I do not see any real difference between impersonalism

and modern-day, Christianity. Let us review the facts, which I know

will be unpalatable to friends of Christianity. But nevertheless, we

must adhere to truth.

1) Christians have this belief that their faith is evidence of the

truth of what they believe. This is very similar to the

impersonalist new-age view that "truth is whatever is true to you."

2) Christians eat beef (which is highly sinful according to Vedic

regulations), and see no problems at all with this. Even if they

were problems, it would be ok to them, because simply surrendering

to Jesus means one will be saved from his sins, according to that

religion. Similarly, new-age impersonalists also rationalize their

own sinful activities with equally arbitrary arguments.

3) Christians believe Jesus is God, and then say that God actually

suffered and was crucified for them. What?? A God that has a

material body made of flesh and blood? How is this different from

the impersonalist view that ordinary human beings with bodies of

flesh become God by some process, or are glorified as God by later

generations?

You want me to believe that modern-day Christianity is somehow

better than the virus of impersonalism? Sorry, but you will have to

face the facts.

> While what I'm writing may clearly sound fanatical, I'm not

advocating fanaticism. Instead, my desire is simply to encourage

devotees to stand up and counter destructive philosophies in an

appropriate manner and through innovative ways.

>

At the risk of sounding fanatical or fundamentalist, I hardly think

you can make the case based on history that Christianity is not one

of the destructive philosophies. Christian-led initiatives are

destroying Vedic culture on an ongoing basis even today. We should

stand up and oppose all false doctrines, not just those which are

conveniently labeled as "impersonalist."

> Whatever praise Srila Prabhupada made of Christianity does not

change the fact that it is tinged with

> materialistic ideas and continues to pose a significant threat to

Vedic culture.

>

> >>>I agree. So is growing materialism within so-called Hinduism.

We should be ready to counter both. Most of my brahmin-born friends

now eat meat - what's the difference?

>

The difference is that meat-eating cannot be maintained on the

authority of HIndu scriptures, while Christian scriptures do not

adequately prohibit meat-eating or even beef-eating. Do NOT confuse

non-practicing Hindus with the sinful habits that are casually

accepted among today's orthodox Christians. If "thou shalt not kill"

included even animals, then why did Jesus perform a miracle of

supplying fish to starving fisherman? Why didn't Jesus, being a

messenger of Krishna, instruct his followers to protect cows, when

they are supposed to be dear to Lord Govinda? I hope you aren't

going to argue that cow-protection is only a sectarian, Hindu

principle. Frankly, there is no place on Achintya for that sort of

rubbish being professed by people calling themselves Vaishnavas.

Mayavadis in theory share the same scriptures as Vaishnavas, and so

there is at least a chance of dialog based on mutually accepted

pramaanas. Many of Sri Madhva's and Sri Chaitanya's associates were

former mayavadis. But Christians do not accept Vedas or Puraanas.

Thanks to the trickle-down effect of academic prejudices, Christian

priests are teaching that Hindu scriptures are only the product of

corrupt, evil-minded brahmins. So no wonder there is no chance of

meaningful dialog.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a big discussion about Christianity

and its flaws, and thus provoke some other sympathetic opinions

about it, which I must then balance with the historical reality of

present-day Christianity and its various assaults on Vedic culture.

Suffice it to say that Christianity is as much a threat as

impersonalism (if not more so), and should be countered with the

same intensity with which we object to impersonalism. We have no

business cozying up to these religions, even to propagate our own.

Our business is to stick to the truth, always.

yours,

K

March 9, 2006

>>>If you think that the damage done by Christianity to Vedic culture is

only a thing of the past, then think again. The Christian culture-

destroying conversion machine is very much alive and well. Consider:<<<

This could be another example that is propagating "beef-eating brahmanas"

and how cow-protection is all "non-sense". This link was sent to me by the

President of Hindu Student Council at Penn State on one e-mail exchange that

we had about sanctity of cows:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/82/story_8229_1.html

Hare Krishna,

Vidyadhar

March 9, 2006

Jai prabhus.

"Between the devil and the deep sea":

On representing Vaishnavism in a field dominated by Hindu-Buddhist

Impersonalism on one hand, and the "3 great (semitic) monotheistic

religions" on the other

HKS prabhu:

> Suffice it to say that Christianity is as much a threat as

> impersonalism (if not more so), and should be countered with the

> same intensity with which we object to impersonalism. We have no

> business cozying up to these religions, even to propagate our own.

> Our business is to stick to the truth, always.

1) I've been on this forum for only a few months, and I'm not

able to understand why some are so antsy about this point w.r.t.

ISKCON. At least here in America, almost ALL non-Hindu ISKCON

devotees I've met are openly critical of Christianity, which is why

they're practicing Vaishnavism in the first place. Just like the

attitude of most Hindu ISKCON devotees towards Mayavada, I haven't

come across any atavistic apologists for Christianity amongst

devotees here. That's why raja_ram prabhu's comment puzzled me.

Vaishnavism has a more sophisticated meta-knowledge about religion,

and intelligent people grown up in other traditions will grasp that

eventually. In explaining it to them, it may be necessary to draw

comparisons to help sift out the essence from the accumulated dogma,

and then show howmuch more Gaudiya Vaishnavism has to offer.

In dialogue with members of Christianity/Islam, the farthest

devotees go is to point out how esoteric sects within those

traditions adhere to the regulative principles that we advocate. For

instance, in Islam, a student undergoing 'riyaazat' (serious

religious practice) is on a purely sattvik vegetarian diet, without

onion and garlic. Ditto the Essene monks of Christianity, for

example. Any references to other similarities in teachings of our

respective traditions is only to let them know that many

devotees have seriously studied other traditions, and made a choice.

When we tell a Christian that the earliest Christian philosophers

like Origen spoke of reincarnation as a matter of fact, it puzzles

him. Or consider asking a Muslim why Abu Hurayrah, one of their

most prolific Hadith recorders, told the Muslims after the Prophet's

death: "One level of truth has been given to you in the Qur'an. But

he taught us (close companions) deeper truths, and if I were to

reveal it, you would cut this throat (pointing to his own

throat)." Similarly, the Prophet Muhammad criticized the

corrupted religions of Rome, Abssynia and Persia, but of India he

once said: "The fragrance of Monotheism will come/is coming from

Hind". I had written to even prominent Muslim scholars in the U.S.,

London and Istanbul, but they couldn't even begin to explain the

first quote, and of the second they "interpreted" it to mean that it

was a prediction that India would be converted to Islam.

2) I agree with your idea that Mayavada and Christianity/Islam are a

two-pronged threat to the Vedic religion (Vaishnavism). You pointed

out the similar thought-process of both parties. But I don't think

there is any more "common ground" with Mayavadis just because we

share the same scriptures, just as our "common ground" with

Christianity/Islam doesn't go much beyond some philosophical concept

of "monotheism" and "love of God". There are serious problems on

both sides: One side is misusing the Vedic scriptures, the other

side is misrepresenting the doctrine (devotional service

and "monotheistic" faith.)

Our best strategy is to do what Srila Prabhupada recommended: He

wasn't particularly interested in "interfaith dialogue" with the

Western religions; not more than was polite and friendly. But

establishing some common ground is often necessary, because of

preconceptions. On the other side, it is necessary to SEPARATE

Vaishnavism from the confused hodgepodge that goes by the name

of 'Hinduism'. This is necessary in the Western world mainly for

cultural reasons, and probably even MORE so in India for spiritual

reasons. In my humble opinion, when it comes to even basic

siddhanta, the average Hindu doesn't know his elbow from his arse.

That includes most of my Brahmin friends (even the few pious ones.)

They don't know the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and

often use the former in the sense of the latter.

consider this case: There is a large Hindu "temple" in the city

here, with a gallery of deities of a few devas/devis, Lord Siva, and

Radha-Krishna. The pujaari is dressed more opulently than all the

deities, and the temple serves more as a community center (their

entire website doesn't contain the word "God", but waxes eloquent

on "great ancient culture", "roots", etc). The management there is

not concerned that a couple of other temples are coming up in the

city, built by Sai Baba devotees, etc. since their general

congregation would enjoy 'temple hopping'. However, their management

IS certainly concerned that the ISKCON shrine here has plans to

expand. They know that those who become devotees at an ISKCON temple

stop visiting other kinds of temples.

Hindu community leaders (and so-called "Hindu nationalists") are

either pious traditionalists or outright atheists subscribing to

some form of Mayavada and socialist philosophy, because only that

can provide an over-arching framework to *politically* or *socially*

bring together all kinds of Hindus under one umbrella. As is to be

expected, their attitude towards ISKCON and Vaishnavism is one of

serious discomfort. There is a potential problem with pitching in

with their ilk even when they're mobilizing a campaign that may be

of use to us. They would be happy to cautiously and condescendingly

accommodate you, but the banner on high reads 'Mayavada'. They love

the RK mission with the cross and crescent painted on it, even while

Vivekananda says that "Muhammad is an imperfect yogi" in his books.

I think we should stick to very clearly, gently, and

uncompromisingly sharing what comes from parampara with people who

are genuinely serious about their own spiritual lives. Pointing out

similarities is only to appreciate and encourage the good points in

others, as we devotees try to do even amongst ourselves.

Distinguishing and delineating Sri Chaitanya's teachings is, of

course, the whole point.

> As MPT pointed out earlier, the India that is poised to become the

> next great superpower is NOT Vedic India, nor Hindu India, nor any

> sort of India that is friendly towards varnaashrama-dharma.

3) True, but given the current social flux and free and chaotic

situation within, it is definitely possible to lay a few good eggs

in this nest, like the cuckoo does in the crow's nest. Strategic

preaching in India at this point can sow the seeds for favorable

transformation a generation from now. To quote Shakespeare

(oops!): "There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the

flood..." All missionary mischief-mongers think far ahead, and we

should too And the current crop of bi-lingual English-speaking

Indians, if converted by the heart, can really help the mission.

This may also be a generation of arrogant young Indians, but in

their tendency to question and challenge tradition lies the

opportunity to give them real understanding free of sectarian

baggage. I see a lot of opportunities in the emerging chaos. Ordo ab

chao.

>The India in question is run by a secular elite who are brainwashed

by leftist theories of Hindu class conflict and Christian

rationalism.

So varna-asrama dharma, explained in a Krsna Conscious way to the

masses, offers a socialistic Vedic paradigm of development. Who has

the advantage in preaching to the Indian masses? The economic growth

model being pursued by India right now is NOT sustainable, and there

will be plenty of disaffected elements. E.g.: China's economic boom

has been much bigger, including in the SME manufacturing sector. But

just see their latest budget -- totally targetted at the agrarian

sector, responding to an increasingly restless countryside.

In my hometown Hyderabad and other cities, the congregation is

growing rapidly. I hear of campus preaching in good Indian colleges

doing well. And so is the preaching work in several small towns and

villages in at least Maharashtra, AP and Karnataka. There are

definitely devotees out there who are in the jihaad, so to speak,

happily sharing Krishna Consciousness with people, without much

communal rhetoric. They're making devotees, in Krishna

Consciousness. Of course, no spiritual movement is "perfect". But I

found that focussing on this is way better than joining

political "internet" campaigns coordinated by paranoid Hindu

chauvinists who find their (false) sense of identity under threat.

Our social program is about setting up self-sufficient farm

communities parallel to preaching in universities, neither of which

is on the top of the list of the Hindu "civilizational warrior".

Hindutva-vadis think that the pinnacle of Vedic culture was an

ancient nuclear bomb. In Indonesia, H.H. Bhakti-Raghava Swami

Maharaj told Muslim university students about the soft Lotus Feet of

Mahaprabhu, and they gave up promising careers after graduation to

help him set up farm communities in recent years.

>Nevertheless, as we are not on their level

> of erudition, it is probably best for us to avoid obviously

> condescending remarks like "mental gymnastics,nonsense,word-

> jugglery," etc as much as possible with reference to other

Vedaanta

> schools.

4) I admit to being an incorrigible snippety rascal. If my posts on

countering ARMCHAIR-Mayavada sound a little polemical, its

only because I'm responding to the tone of Mayavadi books and

people while I'm typing. The Hitopadesha says that it takes a

kshudra to tackle a kshudra. A lion cannot hunt down a mouse! I'm

not a pundit, and am not being presumptuous with the Acharyas.

I heard that sometimes polemic helps people to retain a point in

memory, by association. I believe the Indian Buddhists used it a

lot. But I will curb this tendency from now on. Gimme some time

prabhuji, but keep chastising!

Your obedient,

Carl.

March 9, 2006

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram wrote:

> Madhwas, in Mani Manjari, call Sankara a son of a characterless

> woman, albeit is chaste sanskrit. They call him incapable of sense

> control. They consider Saradambal an adulterous.

Just like Carl's remarks about Shankara contradicting Vyaasa, I

think these need to be spelled out with explicit references. It

really isn't fair to make these sorts of claims without proof. I

know I didn't provide any regarding Shankra and Manimaan, but I was

only reporting there what I was told by Maadhvas. If you truly

believe Maadhvas say this in Mani Manjari, it would be best if you

could provide the evidence. And to Carl, I agree with Ram's

suggestion that you should provide examples from Shankara's bhaashya

to support your claims (though I have heard as you do, I do not

recall the exact suutras in which he directly and unequivocally

contradicts Vyaasa).

> The question is what happens to one who follows Sankara, not what

> happens to neo-vedantins who exploit his name. nitya pooja,

trikala

> sandhyavandanam, sahasranama parayanam, veda parayanam, vaidhika

> samkaram, srauddha karma, vedanta vicaranam, svadhyaya,

participate

> in sadas, follow anushtanams, celebrate festivals, giving in

> charity, etc. will lead to purification of mind and ekantha

bhakti

> and jnana.

Purification of mind, yes. But not to ekantha bhakti in the same

lifetime, unless they get the mercy of a devotee of the Lord. Or at

least, I believe this would be the Vaishnava view. But it is correct

that at least they are following dharma, in contrast to members of

certain other religions who

blast temples, rape women,

> slaughter cows and animals, wage unnecessary wars, perpetrate lies

> will suffer in hellish conditions.

And I agree, whatever objections we have to orthodox Advaita, we

certainly have no business cozying up with these people whose

religions and religious organizations allow them to do these things

or implicitly support them.

K

March 10, 2006

>>> sandhyavandanam, sahasranama parayanam, veda parayanam, vaidhika

samkaram, srauddha karma, vedanta vicaranam, svadhyaya, participate in

sadas, follow anushtanams, celebrate festivals, giving in charity, etc.

will lead to purification of mind and ekantha bhakti and jnana.<<<

So how do you reconcile following references that seems to contradict some

of your points:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Uddhava, by associating

with My pure devotees one can destroy one's attachment for all objects of

material sense gratification. Such purifying association brings Me under the

control of My devotee. One may perform the astanga-yoga system, engage in

philosophical analysis of the elements of material nature, practice

nonviolence and other ordinary principles of piety, chant the Vedas, perform

penances, take to the renounced order of life, execute sacrificial

performances and dig wells, plant trees and perform other public welfare

activities, give in charity, carry out severe vows, worship the demigods,

chant confidential mantras, visit holy places or accept major and minor

disciplinary injunctions, but even by performing such activities one does

not bring Me under his control.

=> SB 11.12.1, SB 11.12.2, SB 11.12.1-2

My dear Uddhava, the unalloyed devotional service rendered to Me by My

devotees brings Me under their control. I cannot be thus controlled by those

engaged in mystic yoga, Sankhya philosophy, pious work, Vedic study,

austerity or renunciation.

Ref. VedaBase => SB 11.14.20

>>> Even if a person tries to meditate on formless brahman will ultimately

reach sri govinda though his path is austere (BG Bhakti Yoga). <<<

If I am correct, some of the references that substantiate this would be BG

12.3-5. But then we have:

O lotus-eyed Lord, although nondevotees who accept severe austerities and

penances to achieve the highest position may think themselves liberated,

their intelligence is impure. They fall down from their position of imagined

superiority because they have no regard for Your lotus feet.

Ref. VedaBase => SB 10.2.32

In purport to this verse, Srila Prabhupada writes "Aside from devotees,

there are many others, nondevotees, known as karmis, jnanis or yogis,

philanthropists, altruists, politicians, impersonalists and voidists". So

how can one worshipping formless Brahman ultimately reach Sri Govinda when

references seem to suggest otherwise?

Please comment.

Hare Krishna,

Vidyadhar

March 10, 2006

>>> Just like Carl's remarks about Shankara contradicting Vyaasa, I think

these need to be spelled out with explicit references. It really isn't fair

to make these sorts of claims without proof. I know I didn't provide any

regarding Shankra and Manimaan, but I was only reporting there what I was

told by Maadhvas. If you truly believe Maadhvas say this in Mani Manjari, it

would be best if you could provide the evidence. <<<

I don't have access to Mani manjari, but Sumeet had once posted the

following on Vedic Society:

Atah Panchama Sargah

5.1 That Paramahamsa ye krsnabhimanusiksitah

Vyasasrayadatrijadya vedasastranyavartayat

Having been taught by Sri Krishna and Bhimasena, Durvasa, the son of

Atri Rsi and others spread Vedas and treatises of philosophical

theology with the authority of Sri Vedavyasa.

5.2 Krsne Bhime ca vidvesamaddhikam dadhato'surah

Bhagnabahubala isurvagyuddhaistatvaviplavam

Having realized that they could not defeat Krsna and Bhimasena with

muscle power, the Demons made up their mind with much more hatred, to

spoil the real meaning of Vedas and other related scriptures with

wrong interpretations.

5.3Kahah sambhuya te sarve buddhimanto nyamantrayan

Svakaryas ddayenyo'nyam yathoprajnavijrmbhanam

Those perverted men assembled in a secret place and had deliberations

as to how they could destroy the valid knowledge, derieved from

Vedas. They went on discussing the ways and means as they liked.

(`sarve buddhimanta' to be split as sarva + abuddhimanta

- thereby meaning, minds in perversion).

5.4Sakunirdwaparah smaha vacastattvartha brhmitam

Lokayatatanujena canikyena procoditah

Sakuni, the presiding demon for Dvapara yuga, having been instigated

by Canikya, the son of Carvaka, represented the following, which he

thought to be salient.

5.5Duradharso Bhimaseno nah Krrnopyatyanta dussahah

Tabhyam niriksita daityah mrtyum yanti na samsayah

Both Bhimasena and Krishna can hardly be defeated by me. If their

inflamed sight falls on demons, there is no doubt that the demons

will die away.

5.6Krishno daivam gururbhimo vedavidya ca parsati

Tasya utsadanensiva yatastavatisankatam

For all devotees, Krishna is God, Bhima is Spiritual master,

Draupadi, the daughter of Prsada, is the patron deity of all Vedas

and sacred scriptures. If this knowledge is destroyed in the minds of

devotees, they (Krishna and others) will be in distress. This is

how we can take revenge on them.

5.7Tasmajjanesu vidvatsu vedvyakhyanesalisu

Pravisya sadyatam vidya kaishitutpadya bhutale

Therefore some of us should take birth on the earth and enter the

minds of scholars, who are commentators of Vedas. Let the Vedas be

destroyed by wrong interpretation.

5.8Viparitani sastrani kartavyani bahunyapi

Asattarkaih kutarkairva vedavidya nirasyatam

Let the right knowledge of Vedas be distracted by interpreting the

scriptures illogically, resulting in many schools of thought,

confusing the valid knowledge.

5.9Vedasastrannano bhitirasti karyantaraprham

Lokayatamatam manahinam nadriyate janaih

As our aim is to plague Krishna and Bhimasena, we need not worry

about right knowledge of Vedas. The atheists were not accepted by

theists as they were against verbal testimony (vide. Pramanya).

5.10Aksapadah kanadasca kapilascaparo janah

Sastrantarni krtvapi vedadvesam na kurvate

Although Aksapada, Kapila (not the God incarnate Kapila, son of

Devahuti),Kanada have imposed their philosophies, they do not hate

Vedas.

5.15Sarvan vedan dvijo bhutva srtah paramasramam

Vedantivyapadcsena nirayannah parah suhrt

Now, therefore, one of us should take birth as Brahmin on the earth

and embrace sannyasa (or sainthood) and under the garb of Vedanta,

he should discard the validity of Vedas. He would be our trusted

friend indeed.

5.16Asminkarye vidagdhoyam Manimaneva drsyate

Adestavyo'muna rajna kalina karyasiddhaye

The fittest person to implement our plan is Maniman only, as he has

enemity with Bhimasena. Therefore, the King Kali (Previously,

Duryodhana) may order him to do so.

5.17Evamuktva dvaparena kalipurvah suradvisah

Hrsta ahuya sambhavya Manimantam babhasira

Kali and other demons (the enemies of Devatas) were very happy to

hear the plan of Dvpara (formerely Sakuni) and honoured Maniman with

zeal and spoke to him thus.

5.18Yahi bhratarnamastubhyanutapadyasva mahitale

Vidyavedapuranadyah bhrsam viplavaye drtam

`O brother, salutations to you; take birth on earth and destroy

the Vedas, puranas and other scriptures completely soon'.

5.19Vidusaya gunan visnorjivaikyam pratipadaya

Bhumau vrkodarabhavannasankam katrumarsi

`Condemn the attributes of Vishnu and proclaim the identity of

jives with Brahman. As there is no Bhimasena now on earth, you need

not have any fear'.

5.20Asmasu baddha vairah san svastopyasvastham gatah

Anujnabhavato visnoradhunavatrayatyayam

Being in heaven, Bhimasena is always alert and has close enemity

towards us, he will not come to earth as there is no command by

Vishnu. As such, we need not have any fear.

5.21Vamsayatsu sanakadinamadhuna yatayo bhuvi

Ekadandastridandasea vartante tadunuvrtah

There are many sages of different customs on earth who are in the

lineage of Sankara Maharishi (They all possess religious wisdom and

knowledge of Brahman).

5.22Paratirthabhidastastra yatireko mahatapah

Tamasritya pravrtasva tatah sambhavyase janaih

Among them there is one great ascetic by name Paratirtha ; you can

associate with him; you will be honoured by the people as a disciple

of the great sage; then you spread our own theory.

5.23Vedantasutrairnsmakam matamaikantyagocaram

Vitatya sakilanvedanatatvavedakanvada

Proclaim that the purport of the Upanishads and Brahmasutras is

oneness of Atman (ie. Identity of jives with Brahma, having no

attributes at all, etc). If any passages of the Vedas are opposed to

this conception, say that they do not preach reality and call

them `Atatvavedaka'.

5.24 Jivebhyo'anyo Harirbrahma srstavadigunanvitah

Iti Vedanta sutranam hrdayam tiraskuru

The Upanishads and Sutras preach actually the difference between Jiva

and Brahman; and proclaim the Supremacy of Brahman, ie. Vishnu,

glorifying His act of creation of the world etc., and His limitless

attributes. You must abuse all these aspects (stating and

establishing that all is `Mithya').

5.26Mithyavadam tatastei kecicchruddadhie pare

Udasate nirakartum kecideva samihate

When the mind is spoiled, some people will be fickle minded and they

will readily accept our Mithyavada philosophy; those not influenced

by us, will neglect it; and only some people will try to refute the

theory.

6.6Tameva samayam daityo Manimanapyajayata

Manorathena mahata brahmanyam jaratah khalat

At the same time, Maniman thought that his ambition could be achieved

immediately, and was born to a widow through aldultery.

6.7Utpannah sankaratmayam sarvakarmabahiskrtah

Ityuktah svajanairmata sankaretyajuhava tam

As his nature was rubbish as sweepings or his nature was to mix

castes, creeds etc, and as he was born to an adultress he was

prohibhited from all Vedic karmas by his own relations; his mother

called him `Sankara'.

Hare Krishna,

Vidyadhar

March 13, 2006

> So how do you reconcile following references that seems to

contradict some

> of your points:

There is no contradiction. These are activities recommended by the

vedas and lead to citta suddhi bringing one to the platform of sattva

guna. But it is bhakti and jnana that take one to the nirguna

platform beyond tri guna. Nevertheless sattva is preferable to rajas

and rajas to tamas for spiritual aspirants. Glorifying sattvic traits

is not equal to saying any thing against bhakti. So why condemn them?

Anyway, my point is that the Lord recognizes even "mayavadis", those

who meditate on nirguna brahman as supreme instead of worshipping and

serving his personal form, as vaidhika path albeit difficult to

follow. So why should you say it is not a bonafide vedic path???

Now Sankara admits Vasudeva has an aprakrta form. Does Bible /

Quran / Torah say so ?

Now Sankara says the son of devaki is the supreme. Does Bible /

Quran / Torah say so ?

Now Sankara says that Bhagavatha Dharma is glorious though he

disagrees with technical details of their philosophy? Does Bible /

Quran / Torah say so ?

Now Sankara does not condemn idol worship or support cow slaughter.

Does Bible / Quran / Torah say so ?

FYI, Sankara and Madhusudana equate Vasudeva / Isvara to Nirguna

Brahman. e.g. commentary to 14.26.

If Sai Baba and his followers call him God, we call him bogus. Why

double standards when Jesus is glorified as God? Please understand

the Church position on Trinity and why Jesus is God and the Ghost. I

agree he is the phantom (ghost), but not God.

March 13, 2006

raja_ram & HKS prabhus,

Dandavats. Sorry for the delayed response, exams just over.

> > Sankara has said in a couple of places that Vyasadev is wrong

(!),

> > and that he is now presenting a new "Advaita" Vedanta.

>

> Please quote with reference to context and if necessary we can

> discuss.

1) Without going into various biographical accounts and other works

whose authorship is questionable, we note that even in his

authoritative works, Sankara attempts to alter and "improve upon"

Vyasa's commentary, as if Vyasa didn't quite seal the meaning of his

own Vedanta. An example:

Vedanta-Sutra 1.1.17 states that the individual soul and Brahman are

declared to be different (bhedavyapadesac ca). Even Sankara himself

admits that sutras 1.1.16-17 are concerned with the difference

between Brahman and the individual soul. However, he then adds his

own comment, declaring that the difference only exists on a lower

level of reality (vyavaharika), whereas in ultimate reality

(paramaarthika) this illusion of difference ceases to exist.

But nowhere in Brahma-sutra is there any reference to Sankara's two

levels of reality, i.e., two levels of Brahman--a provisional

manifestation of the Absolute (Krsna/the avatara/isvara) and an

ultimate reality (unmanifest indeterminate Brahman). Thus Sankara

appears to have attached his own doctrine to the Sutras. To defend

this superimposition, he weaves his own semantics -- by "stretching

the meaning" of pre-existing terminology -- of "saguna"

and "nirguna", "vyavaharika" and "paramarthika", etc.

According to Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja, Sri Caitanya said that

Sankara, in asserting his opinion as to the meaning of the Sutras,

has in effect said, vyasa bhranta, "Vyasa is crazy, therefore let me

explain what the sutras of Vyasa should have said."

So, in conclusion, we have it on the authority of Sri Caitanya (or

Srila KK if you are doubtful), that by overlaying Vyasa's commentary

with his own, Sankara is condescendingly derogating the value of

Vyasadev's commentary.

Lastly, in Baladeva Vidyabhushana's Govinda-bhasya, the author

dwells on several other such points in the samsaya and purvapaksa

sections.

2) Its obvious that "oneness" has no meaning in the numerical sense,

because the Absolute is beyond time, space and number. So it must be

a qualitative oneness. That said, what more is possible to say? Why

the superfluous negation of uniqueness (and variegatedness), which

is an all-pervading (sarva-vyaapaka) attribute of observable nature?

This superfluous reductionism tantamounts to an error.

I had noted carefully in a previous post that it is possible to

ontologically speculate only to a certain extent -- and no more. One

side of a solipsism is when we construct a theory purely based on

our own *material* experience. The other side is when the theory is

a negation thereof. Both are erroneous when it comes to Absolute

Truth.

The primary meaning of "advaita" is "unique". This has a different

shade of meaning than "one" in the numerical sense. *Uniqueness

undeniably implies comparison and difference.* The more refined a

philosophy is, the greater the semantic precision employed, and the

more important the nuances of meaning become. For instance,

Prabhupada carefully qualifies terms ("material" qualities

vs "spiritual" qualities...or consciousness being the "symptom" of

soul, etc). But here we find Sankara doing the reverse -- diluting

the nuance of meaning of Vyasa's crucial ontological terms, and then

justifying it by weaving a web of semantic re-definitions of other

terms related to epistemology. E.g., Sankara gives "maya" an

ambiguous ontological position in his Viveka-cuDAmaNi, but again we

see unnecessary twists. In the Isopanisad itself we see that

ultimate self-realization involves a divine Ignorance along with the

divine Knowledge. Ananda is incomplete without that Mystery

(Ignorance). So Sankara's theorizing is certainly great

craftsmanship, and I think we can all admire it without buying it or

publicly legitimizing it in the name of "respect/humility".

In my limited reading of many philosophies, I found the simultaneous

usage of these two terms -- "unique" and "one", or sometimes the

word "one" is used in the collective case. In Hebrew also, "echad"

is used. In Arabic also, "ahad" and "waahid" are used in a different

nuance. In one esoteric Sufi school, they summed up their doctrine

of Absolute Truth as "the mystery of uniquenes (ahadiyyat) within

oneness (waahidaniyyat)." Sounds very much like achintya bheda-

abheda tattva.

It seems to me that an ontological description of Absolute Truth

MUST employ a paradox. Anything else is an error. Even the Buddhists

understood this principle and refined their "voidism" to "plenum

void".

3) > As you would agree, he never compromised advaitam in bhaja

govindam

> or sahasranama bhashyam or sariraka bhasyam or govindashtakam or

> viveka chudamani.

Sure, but taking the nuanced meaning of "advaitam" w.r.t. "ekatvam",

I found that in many cases it tantamounts to achintya bheda-abheda.

But still, Sankaracharya is held guilty by other acharyas of not

making it clear, even if that's what he knew it to be (which I am

totally willing to believe). He knew it would deteriorate into

Mayavada.

4) > The question is what happens to one who follows Sankara, not

what

> happens to neo-vedantins who exploit his name. nitya pooja,

trikala

> sandhyavandanam, sahasranama parayanam, veda parayanam, vaidhika

> samkaram, srauddha karma, vedanta vicaranam, svadhyaya,

participate

> in sadas, follow anushtanams, celebrate festivals, giving in

> charity, etc. will lead to purification of mind and ekantha

bhakti

> and jnana. Even if a person tries to meditate on formless brahman

> will ultimately reach sri govinda though his path is austere (BG

> Bhakti Yoga). Please let me know if you disagree. If you agree,

> what are you opposing?

Apart from what Vidyadhar prabhu pointed out, a person who knows

that this meditation on the formless aspect is an inferior path

beset by dangers, but still rejects the sublime path of Lord

Caitanya is, in one sense, committing an offense. It is either the

result of some attachment to caste-affiliation, or some other

psychological state of mind that finds the idea of servitude to a

Divine Personality distasteful. Srila Prabhupada has repeatedly

pointed to the psychology that leads to a preference for

Impersonalism, and conversely the psychology that Impersonalism

begets. Sankara's philosophy attracts mostly those who suffer from

laulyam -- "greed or the restlessness of the mind to adopt worthless

opinions." (Upadesamrta/NoI)

The real danger of Impersonalism is not just shaky moral metaphysics

(see how the Aleister Crowley types loved "Hinduism"). Rather, even

a pious moral Impersonalist (Mayavadi, not a Brahmavaadi) will, at

some point, express condescension or contempt for the devotee, and

therefore incur the displeasure of Shri Krsna.

5)> But on the other hand, people who blast temples, rape women,

> slaughter cows and animals, wage unnecessary wars, perpetrate lies

> will suffer in hellish conditions. Some people on this forum

suggest

> that we align with them. What are they supporting?

Again I ask: who on this forum has suggested "aligning" with

jihadists or missionaries? On the other hand, why don't we use the

logic you provided above and respect those who "truly" follow Christ

or Muhammad, rather than the majority of ignorant followers who

only "exploit their names"? Instead, in my short acquaintance with

achintya, I've seen some rather motivated assaults on the

personality of Christ -- but no one has yet spoken of "aligning"

with Semitic churches. I assume its some history here that I'm

unaware of.

Blaming the British Christian missionaries or Islamists for the woes

of "Hinduism" is also a little untruthful, in my humble opinion.

During British colonial exploitation of India, when the great

majority of Indians were reduced to sub-human poverty, it was said

that 50% of the cadre of the ICS came from the banks of the Cauvery.

There's a lot more that one can say, but its pointless. (I hope

you're not taking this personally; my mother is Zoroastrian Parsi,

and her ancestors belong to the same class of Indian compradores who

enjoyed a comfortable position within the "Raj").

Its pointless to carp and blame. When Chaitanya Mahaprabhu met the

Qazi, the first thing he did was to establish *kinship*. Despite the

initial tension, when the Sankirtan party left town, the streets

were strewn with flowers, and the footprints of the Lord and His

devotees. Of course, I'm not sugesting that that's feasible in the

face of, say, Pakistani cross-border terrorism. But as a general

attitude, I'll take a few lessons from it.

Hare Krishna,

Carl.

March 13, 2006

achintya, "Carl" <rind_19 wrote:

> 5)> But on the other hand, people who blast temples, rape women,

> > slaughter cows and animals, wage unnecessary wars, perpetrate

lies

> > will suffer in hellish conditions. Some people on this forum

> suggest

> > that we align with them. What are they supporting?

>

> Again I ask: who on this forum has suggested "aligning" with

> jihadists or missionaries?

Anand previously suggested that we cautiously align ourselves with

Christians for the sake of preaching against impersonalism. The

point I have been making all along is that you can't have

Christianity without the missionaries. We can talk about some

idealistic, fantasy vision of a primeval Christianity that was

allegedly friendly to icon-worship and cow-protection before it was

corrupted over the years, but the point remains that (realistically)

Christianity means the Christianity on record, and this Christianity

is quite hostile to Vedic culture.

The problem here is that many devotees who praise Christianity are

often idealizing it in some way. They don't seem to want to come to

terms with the fact that Christianity means "Jesus is the only way"

Christianity and "idol worship is sinful" Christianity. Separating

the religion from the logical results of its flawed beliefs poses

problems not just politically but also philosophically.

On the other hand, why don't we use the

> logic you provided above and respect those who "truly" follow

Christ

> or Muhammad, rather than the majority of ignorant followers who

> only "exploit their names"?

I am always for respecting religious people and trying to understand

their beliefs properly. However, the point remains that even "true"

followers of other religions must necessarily be opposed to

Vaishnavism, and we must recognize and come to terms with that.

There are no "allies" out there waiting to help us in our grand,

preaching mission.

Instead, in my short acquaintance with

> achintya, I've seen some rather motivated assaults on the

> personality of Christ -- but no one has yet spoken of "aligning"

> with Semitic churches. I assume its some history here that I'm

> unaware of.

Not here, but among Gaudiya Vaishnavas in the West who are motivated

by Srila Prabhupada's remarks that Jesus is a "pure devotee." I have

given you some examples of philosphical deviations that arose from

this. But just to make the point, allow me to provide some more

concrete examples of this attempt to appease and cozy up with

Christianity:

_East-West Dialogs_ was written by Satyraja dasa with a view of

emphasizing similarities between Christianity and Vaishnavism.

Another book of the same type was written by Bir Krishna Gosvami,

and it also emphasized similarities between the two religions.

http://www.omjesus.net/ is a website put up by a former ISKCON guru

(Prithu das) in which he goes on and on about the character of Jesus

and how he is to be understood by Vaishnavas. He argues that Jesus

is a Vaishnava and that worshipping Jesus is compatible with Krishna

worship.

The following ISKCON website

(http://www.iskcon.net/oregon/jesus/jesuskrishnaone.htm) which has

this to say about Christianity:

"The teachings of Jesus are universal, complete in themselves and

perfectly Salvific-sanatana dharma, the eternal religion of the soul

in its loving relationship to the Supreme Being, unadulterated by

the falsity of bodily designation, upadhis, i.e. designations as

Indian, American, Hindu, Muslim, Christian and so on-sarvopadhi-

vinirmuktam tat-paratvena nirmalam hrsikena hrsikesa-sevanam bhaktir

ucyate (Narada-pancaratra, quoted in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.1.2.)-

the actual purpose of life."

http://www.geocities.com/priitaa/krishna_conscious_web_sites.htm is

another webpage put up by an ISKCON devotee containing some articles

(scroll down) focusing on Christianity and its compatibility with

Krishna-consciousness. The ISKCON devotee quotes the spurious

section of the Bhavishya Puraana to establish her position that

Jesus is a shaktyavesha avataara of Krishna. She also promises in

these articles to explain the "connection" between Raadharaani and

the virgin Mary. Much information is given about Jesus' alleged

visits to India, etc.

The spurious Bhavishya Purana verses which describe Jesus have been

used by ISKCON devotees too numerous to mention here.

There is Bhakti Anand Gosvami (not an ISKCON devotee but I think he

is with WVA) who claims that Jesus is he incarnation of Balarama

(see http://www.saragrahi.org/Header%20Links/Articles%20By%

20Author/Bhakti%20Anand%20Goswami/938%20Balarama-Charaka%20as%

20Jesus%20Christ.htm). There is no scriptural evidence for this, but

that does not stop him from making the claim.

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9812/ET09-2640.html is another

article (this one on VNN) talking about Christianity and goes on and

on about Jesus and his devotional service.

Taken together, this is a pretty impressive (but by no means

exhaustive) list of ISKCON/Gaudiya Vaishnava attempts to rewrite

Jesus into their worldview, and/or to subtly rewrite Vaishnavism in

order to bring it more in line with Jesus. What is especially

bothersome is the fact that writings about Jesus are far more

predominant in Western Gaudiya Vaishnava circles than are

writings/research about the Gosvamis or into core literatures of the

sampradaya. Few Gaudiya people in the West care that we don't have

authoritative translations of Jiva Gosvami's Sat-sandarbhas, or

Baladeva's Govinda-bhaashya, but at the same time they just have to

have a heaping tablespoon of Jesus with their evening prasadam or

else Vaishnavism becomes unpalatable to them.

> Blaming the British Christian missionaries or Islamists for the

woes

> of "Hinduism" is also a little untruthful, in my humble opinion.

I am not one to constantly blame someone else for my problems, but

let us face facts. The degradation of Hindu faith was catalyzed by

Indology, which has its roots in evangelical Christian doctrine.

H.H. Wilson, one of the early pioneers of Indology, had this to say

about Hinduism:

"From the survey which has been submitted to you, you will perceive

that the practical religion of the Hindus is by no means a

concentrated and compact system, but a heterogeneous compound made

up of various and not infrequently incompatible ingredients, and

that to a few ancient fragments it has made large and unauthorized

additions, most of which are of an exceedingly mischievous and

disgraceful nature. It is, however, of little avail yet to attempt

to undeceive the multitude; their superstition is based upon

ignorance, and until the foundation is taken away, the

superstructure, however crazy and rotten, will hold together."

There is no use beating around the bush. We talk about how Advaita

misleads people into worshipping the formless, thus leading to

problems in sense control, unwanted progeny, etc. Well, by the same

token, Indology, which is the favorite son of Christianity, misled

and continues to mislead millions of Hindus with its deprecating

treatment of Hindu scriptures, and by extension Vedic and Puraanic

deities. As great as Shankaraachaarya was, even he did not do that.

Today, Christians continue to retain power over Vedic culture and

Hinduism which many devotees cannot appreciate. Most Indologists are

still either Christians in name if not in deed, and they control

what the developed nations learn about Vedic culture (in contrast to

other religions, whose members have substantial representation in

academia), which in turn influences foreign policy towards India.

Hindu temples in India are co-managed by Christians and other non-

Hindus, and money from the temples is taken away to fund Christian

projects - all this on the grounds that Christianity is a minority

religion which needs special status. Y. Samuel Rajashekhara Reddy is

the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and a born-again Christian. He

is overseeing the sale of sacred lands on the Seven Hills of

Tirumala for the building of a Christian Church as well as the

demolishing of thousand-year-old temple structures for this purpose.

Who are we to say that these people are not "truly following" the

ideals of Christianity? Has any single Christian organization

stepped forward and condemned as "not Christian" the venerable Mr.

Reddy, the anti-Hindu/temple-plundering laws of the GOI, or the lies

and hate speech spoken by Christian Indologists past and present?

The answer is a resounding "no." Christian organizations do not have

a problem with these things.

Why are we talking about this? It is only because some devotees have

an ongoing belief that white-washing Christianity and/or aligning in

some sense with Christians (as Anand suggested) may be a useful

preaching tactic for defeating impersonalism. Again, try to

understand - I am not trying to indulge in a blame game. I only

bring these points up in order to give a balanced view of the real

Christianity, past and present, in the hopes that we can try to get

away from artificial dialogs of alleged compatibility that only

emphasize a very "politically correct" version of that religion, and

which serve to blind devotees to the very real phenomenon that

Christianity continues via numerous institutions to denigrate Vedic

culture, its temples, and its literature.

yours,

K

March 14, 2006

HKS prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances and thanks on this Gaura Purnima

day!

> Anand previously suggested that we cautiously align ourselves with

> Christians for the sake of preaching against impersonalism.

My Freudian detector senses a remnant of the wog-mentality here

But seriously, my whole point is to *de-couple* our interaction with

the Impersonalists on one side, and the Semitic churches on the

other. I think preaching work is very *personal*. There is no

question of "aligning" with one *social group* "against" any other.

Similarly, a devotee voicing concerns over Hindu Impersonalism

should not be ambushed with demands to "balance" out his criticism

with a scathing indictment of Semitic churches also, or vice versa.

That is what perplexed me.

>What is especially

> bothersome is the fact that writings about Jesus are far more

> predominant in Western Gaudiya Vaishnava circles than are

> writings/research about the Gosvamis or into core literatures of

the

> sampradaya. Few Gaudiya people in the West care that we don't have

> authoritative translations of Jiva Gosvami's Sat-sandarbhas, or

> Baladeva's Govinda-bhaashya...

The volume of writings about Jesus is news to me, but I have noticed

the latter. Its hard to find authoritative translations of those

literatures. A few weeks ago I had posted a message here asking for

an authoritative Vaishnava commentary on the Upanishads. Only

Aravind prabhu replied, and even that book I could not find in most

public libraries here. The BBT also didn't ahve any info, and didn't

show much interest in my query.

One of Srila Prabhupada's disciples, H.G. Dasanudas vanacari (in New

Talavan), did work on an english translation of the GB, but did not

polish it up. He said it was because his Godbrothers didn't show

much interest in it. He was kind enough to share his incomplete work

with me though:

http://esotericteaching.org/articles/govinda_bhasya.zip

> I am not one to constantly blame someone else for my problems, but

> let us face facts. The degradation of Hindu faith was catalyzed by

> Indology, which has its roots in evangelical Christian doctrine.

Hard to tell whether this political mischief has its roots in

evangelical machinations, or whether the church has become an arm of

cynical political manipulators. I was an avid follower of the anti-

"RASA" list campaign, the work of Rajiv Malhotra et al who are

trying to expose the insidious rot in the "Indology" or "Hinduism

studies" depts in the West, the collusion between Communists and

Islamists and Xian missionaries in India, etc etc. I was very

involved in this, but then felt that it was not worth THAT much of

my time and energy. But Indians today are not naive enough to

believe in the "good intentions" of most missionaries, or see their

orgs as useful "allies" in any sense of the term. In the last 12

years, Xian missionaries have worked hand in glove with the govts of

the US, Australia and Netherlands to successfully cause a civil war

and partition of two countries (Ethiopia and Indonesia), and

unsuccessfully in other places (like India's northeast, a stone's

throw from Sridhama Mayapur). In any cadre-based org, you have

the "true idealistic believers" among the lower rungs, but as you go

up you have the more cynical, manipulative types. Same goes with

most Xian orgs, commie orgs, etc.

There's always that danger in organized religion. The spiritual

current seems to weaken under the resistance of perceived socio-

political considerations and moralistic, ceremonious,

rigid ways of interpreting scriptures. Here's a nice excerpt from

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's writings:

"Organized Religion"

http://www.bvml.org/SBSST/organised_religion.htm

Your servant,

Carl.

March 14, 2006

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, krishna_susarla wrote:

> achintya, "Carl" <rind_19 wrote:

>> 5)> But on the other hand, people who blast temples, rape women,

>>> slaughter cows and animals, wage unnecessary wars, perpetrate

> lies

>>> will suffer in hellish conditions. Some people on this forum

>> suggest

>>> that we align with them. What are they supporting?

>>

>> Again I ask: who on this forum has suggested "aligning" with

>> jihadists or missionaries?

>

> Anand previously suggested that we cautiously align ourselves with

> Christians for the sake of preaching against impersonalism. The

> point I have been making all along is that you can't have

> Christianity without the missionaries. We can talk about some

> idealistic, fantasy vision of a primeval Christianity that was

> allegedly friendly to icon-worship and cow-protection before it was

> corrupted over the years, but the point remains that (realistically)

> Christianity means the Christianity on record, and this Christianity

> is quite hostile to Vedic culture.

And this is why I suggested looking at ISKCON too; practically, ISKCON is

whatever you and I are doing with our lives, not what Srila Prabhupada's books

say. The point is that the people in general make judgements on this level.

MDd

re: Gaudiya epistemology and ontology

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups