The Avadhuta Gita of Dattatreya

[Dark Warrior]

Theist, you are way off the mark.

 

Like it or not, advaitins are Vaishnavas. The Upanishads talk about 32 different Brahma Vidyas. A path is provided for every seeker of the truth. Hence, Advaita is certainly a valid path to follow, albeit a difficult one.

 

I notice that your hatred for advaitins is similar to the views of some Hare Krishnas I have met before. I have lived abroad for 17 years, therfore, despite my identity as a Sri Vaishnava, I have interacted with many Hare Krishnas, so I respect Srila Prabhupada as my own personal acharya. ISKCON played a great role in introducing me to spirituality.

 

Some Hare Krishnas who were christians or jews have taken with them their stubborn one-mindedness - like calling Narayana or Vishnu as inferior to Krishna (akin to the monotheistic 'One Living God' of Christians), or that all impersonalists are demons (akin to saying all 'unbelievers' go to hell) , extreme hate of homosexuals (irrelevant to Vedic Culture), etc.

 

However, these are few and far, and most Hare Krishnas have left behind their prejudices long ago.

 

Coming back to the point, Advaitam exists in the Vedas. True Advaitins are Vaishnavas. They say Narayana is the ultimate truth, and that itself qualifies as Vaishnavism. Think about it - Is Vaishnavism simply worship of Vishnu, or all about personalism? No. Vaishnavism can be both impersonal or personal. It is up to individual choice.

 

Christianity, for instance, may be personal, but it is not Vaishnavism. Advaitam is based on the sastras and on realising Narayana, hence it is Vaishnavism.

 

I am myself a follower of qualified monism. I'd like to ask Theist (respectfully, with no offense intended) exactly what knowledge of the Upanishads he has to condemn monism so totally, because Vishishtadvaita is most definitely monism (although different from Advaita).

 

Srila Prabhupada was a great Bhagavata and hence, being so in love with Lord Krishna's personal form, He went overboard in criticising mordern day advaitins (who are not Vaishnavas as they advocate demigod worship). This does not mean all advaitins are evil. They are 100% Vaishnava if they accept that Self is Narayana and that they will become one with Narayana.

[theist]

 

 

Like it or not, advaitins are Vaishnavas.

 

This is such a bogus statement. No one that considers bhakti as a means to merge into Brahman is a Vaisnava.

 

 

 

I notice that your hatred for advaitins

 

You notice your own illusions created by your mind. I don't hate advaitins. I do however want to strongly as possible challenge advaita as well as voidism and gross materialism.

 

Until you understand this we have nothing to discuss. I am burned out on this one.

[raghu]

I don't agree that Advaita is a "valid path to follow." How can any Vaishnava suggest that it is a "valid path" when acharyas have take great trouble to refute many of its conclusions?

 

Whether or not you call the Advaitins "Vaishnavas" has a lot to do with what "Vaishnava" means to you. Certainly there are Advaitins whose ishta-devata is Krishna. But then again to a staunch Advaitin, any form of Vishnu is at best temporary "saguna brahman" for them...

 

Having said that, I agree that Advaita has a long and venerable tradition with a history of Vedic scholarship that is unparalleled in gaudiya circles, and its followers should at least be given some perfunctory respect. For them to be called "demons" by so-called Vaishnavas who do not even have a guru, don't know Sanskrit, and cannot even properly represent their own philosophy strikes me as an embarassment to the sampradaya they claim to represent. I've seen many an arrogant "Vaishnava," puffed up with their so-called knowledge, challenge Advaitins only to get converted into mayavada themselves. Then of course there are the "Vaishnavas" who have nothing but scorn for Advaita while simultaneously praising Christianity or Islam. We would all benefit if these would-be dig-vijays could spend less time posting trite generalizations about their religious misconceptions and spend more time studying their sampradaya's philosophy with a good dose of humility.

[xexon]

When you are locked into an identification with a form, you have set rules and limitations.

 

When you are locked into identification with the formless, there are no rules or limitations.

 

This is why it is far easier to explain God to a young child. They don't have the decades of belief fencing them in. They are open, and willing to entertain possibilities. They'll judge later, but for now, they enjoy the innocence that life brings. They are in a constant state of bliss because of it.

 

To enter the kingdom, you must become like a child once again.

 

Feel more. Think less.

 

 

 

x

[theist]

It should be noted that just as I do not consider myself a Vaisnava I do not consider the majority of these I AM godists as true Advaitins.

 

Those who are on the beginning levels of either path and then pretend to be very advanced and promote themselves as special and worthy of worship either as fake vaisnava gurus(and we know their names) or fake advaitins like Sai Baba, Rajneesh/Osho, Meher Baba, Guru Maharaja ji and the like are deserving of public scorn because they are prominent and cheating the public. They are frauds and there is no sincerity in them.

 

I draw a distinction between them and someone like Paramahamsa Yogananda and his teacher Sri Yuktesvar for example. I criticize Yogananda's advaita conclusions but I in no way consider him a scam artist like some of the rest (including from vaisnava traditions).

 

This works for me.

[raghu]

 

When you are locked into an identification with a form, you have set rules and limitations.

 

When you are locked into identification with the formless, there are no rules or limitations.

 

This is why it is far easier to explain God to a young child. They don't have the decades of belief fencing them in. They are open, and willing to entertain possibilities. They'll judge later, but for now, they enjoy the innocence that life brings. They are in a constant state of bliss because of it.

 

To enter the kingdom, you must become like a child once again.

 

Feel more. Think less.

 

 

 

x

 

This is a perfect example of the sort of watered-down, quasi-Advaitic, new-age fluff that passes for "philosophy" amongst neo-advaitins and gives orthodox Advaitins a bad name.

[xexon]

Actually what I've done is defluff.

 

I've stripped all the hard to understand nonsense away, and given it a modern day, easy to understand, point of view.

 

God is not hard. Those who make it so will encounter me sooner or later.

 

 

 

x

[raghu]

Right, that's what all the modern neo-advaitin god men say. "Truth isn't hard, let me just strip away all that Vedanta stuff and make it so easy that you can absorb in the span of a 15-second sound byte."

[Dark Warrior]

 

I don't agree that Advaita is a "valid path to follow." How can any Vaishnava suggest that it is a "valid path" when acharyas have take great trouble to refute many of its conclusions?

 

Certainly, our acharyas have refuted advaita. When I say 'valid', I mean it is indeed Vedic, and its practice is not condemned by the Vedas or by Lord Narayana, as many people think.

 

 

Whether or not you call the Advaitins "Vaishnavas" has a lot to do with what "Vaishnava" means to you. Certainly there are Advaitins whose ishta-devata is Krishna. But then again to a staunch Advaitin, any form of Vishnu is at best temporary "saguna brahman" for them...

 

The whole concept of 'ishta-devta' is nothing more than a concoction by neo-vedantins. All our Sri Vaishnava Acharyas indeed accept advaitins as Vaishnavas. Even Sri Ramanujar, who defeated so many advaitins, did so only based on their philosophy. He never had to argue the supremacy of Narayana.

 

Many of our Sri Vaishnava acharyas were former advaitins (Nanjeeyar, Yajnamurthy, etc.). They were defeated only in philosophy and not in the deity concept. Narayana was Brahman for all advaitins at that time.

 

Read this:

 

 

According to the present day advaitins, SrI Adi Sankara Bhagavad

pAdAL was a great synthesizer of all these six religions and

that it is well incorporated within the advatia vEdAnta. Anyone

of these specific six dEvatas can thus be considered as

saguNa-brahman for them and intense devotion unto them will make

these persons fit to receive the teachings of mahAvAkyas from a

Guru. But, unbiassed scholars are of the opinion that SrI Adi

Sankara recognized only Lord NArAyana as the SaguNa-Brahman, since

in all of his commentaries on SAstras like Upanishads-Brahma

SUtras-Bhagavad GIta-VishNu SahasranAma, he has equated only Lord

NArAyana to SaguNa-Brahman and all other dEvatas as being

sub-ordinate to Him. According to these scholars, some stotras

etc on other dEvatas as being SaguNa-Brahman, attributed to SrI

Adi Sankara is a later fabrication.

 

In Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy's site, (an eminent Sri Vaishnava acharya who gives discourses), an advaitin asked him a question and he gave the answer. Here it is:

 

Question ID: 11 - Namaskarams to my Guru I am a saivaite(Smarta) by birth.Actually I feel that we do not observe any thing exclusively to identify us as Saivaites. The Great 12 Namas of Vishnu are said during Sandhya Vandanam, The Shrardams are performed before " Prathyaksha Mahavishnu" and most of the offerings made to AAdi Narayanan .and Sarvam is Krishnarpanamasthu . I do believe that Sriman Narayanan is the Supreme Lord. I would like to start my religious quest in a more ardent way. Like the true Vaushnavite can have a Samashrayanam what is possible for me being a woman. Kindly clarify. Namaskarams Kala - Question By - Kala.

 

Answer by Swami: smarthas are not saivites. They are all vaishnavas only. You have rightly identified that there are no prostrations to Siva in our daily anushthanams which itself proves the earlier statement. You can get samasrayanam administered provided you have well understood the significance of it. This cannot be explained in mail. You have to meet an acharya in person to get all needed inputs about this.

 

 

I do not know about Gaudiya or Madhva Vaishnavas, but Sri Vaishnavas accept the Smartas as Vaishnavas, definitely. The mordern day Smartas worship demigods and mistakenly consider Adi Sankara to have been an advocator of such systems. But it is all false and the corruption of advaita lineage happened in the 16th century roundabouts. Until then, all advaitins were Vaishnavas.

 

 

This is such a bogus statement. No one that considers bhakti as a means to merge into Brahman is a Vaisnava.

 

Vaishnavism means worship of Vishnu, or acceptance of Vishnu as ultimate. It does not mean bhakti is a prerequisite to be a Vaishnava. Of Course, Bhakti is naturally the superior way, but even if you consider the Self to be Vishnu and that Vishnu has no attributes, you are a Vaishnava.

 

Read Sri Krishnamachari's book 'Adi Sankara and Vaishnavism'. Our acharyas such as Nanjeeyar were certainly Vaishnavas even before they became followers of a personal philosophy.

[theist]

Dark Warrior,

I suggest you upgrade your definition of the word vaisnava. This is from Bhaktisiddhanta's vaisnavism Real and Apparent

 

 

<center>Real Vaishnavism

 

</center> The word 'Vaishnavism' indicates the normal, eternal and natural condition, functions and devotional characteristics of all individual souls in relation to Vishnu, the Supreme, the All-per- vading Soul. But such an unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense has been attributed to the word as to naturally make one understand by the word, Vaishnava (literally a pure and self- less worshipper of Vishnu), a human form with twelve peculiar signs (Tilaka) and dress on, worshipping many gods under the garb of a particular God and hating another human form who marks himself with different signs, puts on a different dress and worships a different God in a different way as is the case with the words 'Shaiva', 'Shakta', 'Ganapatya', 'Jaina', 'Buddhist', 'Mohammedan', 'Christian' etc. This is the most unnatural, unpleasant and regrettable sense of the word, 'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return. Vishnu, the Supreme, All-pervading Soul gives life and meaning to all that is. He is the highest unchallengeable Truth devoid of illusion everywhere and through eternity. He is Sat - ever-existing, Chit -all-knowing, Ananda -ever-blissful and fully free. He is in jivas and jivas are in Him, as are the rays in the glowing sun and the particles of water in the vast rolling ocean. As nothing but heat and light of the sun, and coldness, liquidity etc. of the sea is found in the constituents of the rays and the particles of water respectively, so nothing but Sat, Chit or free-will and Ananda is found in the jiva. The ingredients and attributes of the whole must remain in the part in a smaller degree.

So the part is identical with the whole when taken qualitatively and different, when taken quantitatively. This is the true and eternal relation between jiva and Vishnu. So He always prevails over jiva who is also ever subject to Him. As the service of the master is the fundamental function of the servant, so the service of Vishnu is natural and inherent in jiva and it is called Vaishnavata or Vaishnavism and every jiva is a Vaishnava. As a person possessing immense riches is called a miser if he does not display and make proper use of them, so jivas when they do not display Vaishnavata, are called falses though in reality they are so.

 

[raghu]

 

Certainly, our acharyas have refuted advaita. When I say 'valid', I mean it is indeed Vedic, and its practice is not condemned by the Vedas or by Lord Narayana, as many people think.

 

I'm afraid I do not follow. Advaita is refuted by acharyas, but still valid. But it's not really valid, just "valid" in the sense of being "Vedic?" And despite not being condemned, purvacharyas took so much time to refute it?

 

A lot of philosophies may be "Vedic" in the sense of acknowledging the authority of the Veda and developing their metaphysics on the basis of interpretation of Vedas. If that is what "Vedic" means to you, then so be it. However, quoting Vedas to establish a philosophy and actually being derived from valid interpretation of the Vedas are two different things.

 

 

The whole concept of 'ishta-devta' is nothing more than a concoction by neo-vedantins. All our Sri Vaishnava Acharyas indeed accept advaitins as Vaishnavas. Even Sri Ramanujar, who defeated so many advaitins, did so only based on their philosophy. He never had to argue the supremacy of Narayana.

 

This is getting off on a bit of a tangent. My point was only that one might call some Advaitins/Smarthas as "Vaishnavas" because their family deity is Vishnu, or in other words use "Vaishnava" as a more or less functional definition (engaged in ritual worship of Vishnu) rather than a metaphysical one (understanding one's self to be eternally the devotee of Vishnu). Personally, I tend to prefer the latter, but that is just me.

 

 

Many of our Sri Vaishnava acharyas were former advaitins (Nanjeeyar, Yajnamurthy, etc.). They were defeated only in philosophy and not in the deity concept. Narayana was Brahman for all advaitins at that time.

 

Obviously worship is rarely the issue. Rather, it one's understanding of the tattvas and their relationships(s) that is the point.

 

 

Read this:

 

 

Who is the author of this quote?

 

 

According to the present day advaitins, SrI Adi Sankara Bhagavad

pAdAL was a great synthesizer of all these six religions and

that it is well incorporated within the advatia vEdAnta. Anyone

of these specific six dEvatas can thus be considered as

saguNa-brahman for them and intense devotion unto them will make

these persons fit to receive the teachings of mahAvAkyas from a

Guru. But, unbiassed scholars are of the opinion that SrI Adi

Sankara recognized only Lord NArAyana as the SaguNa-Brahman, since

in all of his commentaries on SAstras like Upanishads-Brahma

SUtras-Bhagavad GIta-VishNu SahasranAma, he has equated only Lord

NArAyana to SaguNa-Brahman and all other dEvatas as being

sub-ordinate to Him. According to these scholars, some stotras

etc on other dEvatas as being SaguNa-Brahman, attributed to SrI

Adi Sankara is a later fabrication.

 

 

No doubt Sri Adi Sankara acknowledged that Narayana is Brahman. But in other instances even within his commentaries he is agreeable to anya-devata upasana. His views are thus inconsistent and unclear.

 

 

In Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy's site, (an eminent Sri Vaishnava acharya who gives discourses), an advaitin asked him a question and he gave the answer. Here it is:

 

Question ID: 11 - Namaskarams to my Guru I am a saivaite(Smarta) by birth.Actually I feel that we do not observe any thing exclusively to identify us as Saivaites. The Great 12 Namas of Vishnu are said during Sandhya Vandanam, The Shrardams are performed before " Prathyaksha Mahavishnu" and most of the offerings made to AAdi Narayanan .and Sarvam is Krishnarpanamasthu . I do believe that Sriman Narayanan is the Supreme Lord. I would like to start my religious quest in a more ardent way. Like the true Vaushnavite can have a Samashrayanam what is possible for me being a woman. Kindly clarify. Namaskarams Kala - Question By - Kala.

 

Answer by Swami: smarthas are not saivites. They are all vaishnavas only. You have rightly identified that there are no prostrations to Siva in our daily anushthanams which itself proves the earlier statement. You can get samasrayanam administered provided you have well understood the significance of it. This cannot be explained in mail. You have to meet an acharya in person to get all needed inputs about this.

 

 

I don't know what the point of this is. I do agree that in worship, even in anya-devata worship, there is often some component of Vishnu worship. For example if you have ever heard smarthas doing Vinayaka-puja, you will hear some mantras that clearly invoke Vishnu. However, many smarthas still downplay Vishnu's significance, align themselves with Shaivites, or (even worse) claim that there is no difference between Vishnu and Shiva. This is in spite of the mantra they chant! All of which goes to show that one may or may not call someone a "Vaishnava" for different reasons.

 

 

I do not know about Gaudiya or Madhva Vaishnavas, but Sri Vaishnavas accept the Smartas as Vaishnavas, definitely. The mordern day Smartas worship demigods and mistakenly consider Adi Sankara to have been an advocator of such systems. But it is all false and the corruption of advaita lineage happened in the 16th century roundabouts. Until then, all advaitins were Vaishnavas.

 

This is news to me. As far as I knew Sri Sankara was the one who promoted panchopasana. But I would be happy to see the evidence that says otherwise.

 

 

Vaishnavism means worship of Vishnu, or acceptance of Vishnu as ultimate. It does not mean bhakti is a prerequisite to be a Vaishnava. Of Course, Bhakti is naturally the superior way, but even if you consider the Self to be Vishnu and that Vishnu has no attributes, you are a Vaishnava.

 

That is of course your opinion. Personally, I favor a less liberal understanding of the term "Vaishnava." But that is just me.

 

raghu

[Dark Warrior]

 

I'm afraid I do not follow. Advaita is refuted by acharyas, but still valid. But it's not really valid, just "valid" in the sense of being "Vedic?" And despite not being condemned, purvacharyas took so much time to refute it?

 

A lot of philosophies may be "Vedic" in the sense of acknowledging the authority of the Veda and developing their metaphysics on the basis of interpretation of Vedas. If that is what "Vedic" means to you, then so be it. However, quoting Vedas to establish a philosophy and actually being derived from valid interpretation of the Vedas are two different things.

 

Raghu, you must understand one thing. Sri Vedanta Desikar, a Sri Vaishnava Acharya, has refuted Dvaita philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya. Does that make either Sri Desikar or Sri Madhva as unvaishnavite? Similarly, Dvaitins do not recommend VA. Does that mean either VA or Dvaita are invalid? Both are apparently accepted by all Vaishnavas as being legitimate.

 

Its just a difference in philosophy. For instance, dvaita and vishishtadvaita are also followed by many Shaivites. Yet, when you think of Dvaita, or VA, the term 'Vaishnava' comes to mind, rather than Siva Dvaita or Siva VA.

 

It is all due to conditioning. Similarly, there are Advaitin Vaishnavas and Shaivas. BUT, the difference here is that the whole philosophy wasa espoused by a Vaishnava Acharya only, and that acharya was Sri Sankara.

 

Advaita was more strongly refuted simply because it denies the one thing that our acharyas of all bhagavata sampradayas cherished the most - the beauty of Sriman Narayana. Otherwise, they had no debates regarding the supremacy of Narayana with advaitins. It was a recognised fact in those days.

 

 

 

 

This is getting off on a bit of a tangent. My point was only that one might call some Advaitins/Smarthas as "Vaishnavas" because their family deity is Vishnu, or in other words use "Vaishnava" as a more or less functional definition (engaged in ritual worship of Vishnu) rather than a metaphysical one (understanding one's self to be eternally the devotee of Vishnu). Personally, I tend to prefer the latter, but that is just me.

 

No, you are missing the point here.

 

1) All advaitins may not be Vaishnavas. But the advaitins who follow Sankaracharya WERE MEANT TO BE Vaishnavas because Sankara Himself was a Vaishnava. His image has been corrupted of late by pseudo scholars like Appaya Dikshita and Vivekananda. I gave the example of sandhya vandanam to illustrate how Adi Sankara established only Vaishnava rituals for his followers. He never advocated worship of Siva as Saguna Brahman.

 

Some people born in a family of Gaudiya Vaishnavas or Sri Vaishnavas, may in their ignorance, worship other gods as well. That makes them unvaishnavite, but that does not dismiss their entire ancestry as being Unvaishnavite. Similarly, the mistakes of mordern neo-vedantins should not be taken as a representation of Sankaracharya's interpretations.

 

2) The whole claim of being a Vedantin is to know the meaning of Vedas. Sri Annangrachariar of the 20th century, a stalwart Vaishnava, has said that in order to be eligible for debate, the scholar should first accept that Sriman Narayana is Brahman and none else.

 

That is why even Sankaracharya himself condemned Shaivism and Shaktism as unvedic. Notice, Sri Madhvar and Sri Ramanujar condemned Advaita, but they never called that philosophy as unvedic. Because despite Sankaracharya's philosophy being less than accurate, he was a vedantin in the sense that his brahmin followers knew that Sriman Narayana is the ultimate, as prescribed by the Vedas.

 

 

Obviously worship is rarely the issue. Rather, it one's understanding of the tattvas and their relationships(s) that is the point.

 

Wrong. Siva worshippers accept that they are servants of god and that love is the highest form of worship. But their 'love' is directed towards Siva. Would you call them Vaishnavas?

 

 

No doubt Sri Adi Sankara acknowledged that Narayana is Brahman. But in other instances even within his commentaries he is agreeable to anya-devata upasana. His views are thus inconsistent and unclear.

 

Not really. His core works reveal his Vaishnavite stance. He didn't accept the agamas simply because they were against his conception of Narayana (ie, Narayana is impersonal to Sankaracharya). Works like Saundarya Lahiri and Sivananda Lahiri attributed to Sankaracharya are authored by Saivas like Appaya Dikshitar, who passed it off as Sankara's.

 

Which leaves us, after weeding out false works, with compositions like hymns to Ranganatha of Srirangam, Bhaja Govindam, etc...pure Vaishnava works.

 

 

 

I don't know what the point of this is. I do agree that in worship, even in anya-devata worship, there is often some component of Vishnu worship. For example if you have ever heard smarthas doing Vinayaka-puja, you will hear some mantras that clearly invoke Vishnu. However, many smarthas still downplay Vishnu's significance, align themselves with Shaivites, or (even worse) claim that there is no difference between Vishnu and Shiva. This is in spite of the mantra they chant! All of which goes to show that one may or may not call someone a "Vaishnava" for different reasons.

 

I told you, Smarthas are no longer Vaishnavas. I am saying, advaitins used to be Vaishnavas before. Now, they are following a distortion of Sankaracharya's works.

 

I am merely saying that true followers of Sankaracharya ARE Vaishnavas. The Sankara Sampradaya of today is different from what it used to be.

 

 

 

This is news to me. As far as I knew Sri Sankara was the one who promoted panchopasana. But I would be happy to see the evidence that says otherwise.

 

Please read 'Sankara and Vaishnavism' by Sri Krishnamachari. Even the bogus Paramacharya of Kanchi Mutt is yet to reply to the great Sri Vaishnava's refutations of mordern day advaitins.

 

Speaking of Mutts, did you notice that most of the mutts established by Sankaracharya are near Vaishnava Temples? Puri, Badri, Dwaraka, etc. Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami is like the Srila Prabhupada of Sri Vaishnavism. I have attended many of his discourses, and he has clearly stated that Smarthas *Should* be Vaishnavas. It is true that they are no longer so, and unfortunately, advaita vedanta has itself been branded as unvaishnavite.

 

 

That is of course your opinion. Personally, I favor a less liberal understanding of the term "Vaishnava." But that is just me.

 

raghu

 

It is not my opinion. It is a fact. Vaishnavism has two sects: The Bhagavata and the Mayavada Sampradaya. Now, Mayavada is no longer part of Vaishnavism, but it used to be.

 

 

Dark Warrior,

I suggest you upgrade your definition of the word vaisnava. This is from Bhaktisiddhanta's vaisnavism Real and Apparent

 

Theist, although I am deeply indebted to the Hare Krishna Movement and Gaudiya Vaishnavism (a great Sampradaya with illustrious acharyas), I am not going to take Gaudiya views on some matters. My opinion is based on factual truth, not sentiment. Please stop endorsing Christianity and Islam as Vaishnavism. Vedic Advaita is nearer to Narayana than personal Christianity.

 

Your definition of Vaishnava apparently applies to even Jesus, yet it excludes a legitimate Brahmin Community who were Vaishnavas originally. Bhakti is the true marga, but Narayana is not like the Christian God in the sense that He condemns everything else as Heresy. Adi Sankara was a devotee of Lakshmi Narasimha.

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavas are great Bhaktas. So, some acharyas, in their bhakti, are extremely put off by the semitheism of Advaitins and so indulge in excesses at times. It is not a fault of course, only due to their immense devotion to Krishna. But factually speaking, Smarta Sampradaya was intended to be a Vaishnavite one. I have no gains in claiming Advaita to be bonafide, because I am not an advaitin, nor do I endorse that Philosophy. But Adi Sankara's greatness should not be undermined because of a few faulty advaita followers who paint the wrong picture.

 

As far as Srila Bhaktisiddantha and Srila Prabhupada are concerned, I merely respect them for their bhakti and high standing in the eyes of Lord Krishna. I regard Srila Prabhupada as empowered by Narayana Himself. Yet, it does not mean I accept Acintya Bheda Abheda as THE philosophy, or *all* the opinions put forward by Gaudiyas. I rely on fact.

[Kavine das]

The Lord bless you all,

 

I am just curious here, but why are people who follow Advaita Vedanta asuras [demons/filled with illusion/maya drunk]? Also, if one, say, follows Christianity, and another follows, say, Judaism, and yet, another follows Vishnu, and another Siva, how can anyone (and all of us short of the All-knowing Lord) say that his or her (as followers) religion/faith is the correct one? I am asking sincerely -- I am not trying to say one belief is higher or lower than another. Besides, I have found much help in my own life with much of what people have said in this forum. Nonetheless, if I follow Vishnu I will probably back my belief up with Vishnu scriptures, a Siavite Siva scriptures, a Christian Christian scriptures; so I guess my question is how can anyone determine through written word (scripture) what belief is the higher. I personally do not beleive that any one faith is higher or lower, or that any one faith can assimulate or absorb another faith simply to quell the argument with "they [meaning all faiths] simply flow back to 'my right' faith"? How are we to determine what written word is higher than another's? After all, with such arguments it just seems to go on, and on, and on off of who wrote what and how that dominates another's who-wrote-what.

 

With the Lord's blessings to you all,

Kavine das