inter-sampradaya wars

[theist]

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------

[gHari]

Oh yah, well we worship those words.

 

Clearly my big bag of words is superior - it has to be twice as big as yours.

 

Yes, but we are better at manipulating our words logically. We can generate innumerable deductions from our words.

 

Okay, prove it. How shall we compete to objectively quantify each other's greatness, errr, that is the greatness of each other's bag of words?

 

Words at twenty paces - last man standing, the victor.

 

STOP BORING ME TO DEATH, PUNDITS! Don't talk the Caitya dialect? Then I just don't wanna hear it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

So if you don't like inter-sampradaya "wars," then why do you guys criticize mayavadis?

 

[theist]

It denies the Person of Krsna and its spread is misdirecting living entities into a course of spiritual suicide. It is against the principle of eternal love as it takes two to love.

 

It is not the teaching of this Krsna conscious sampradaya in any case.

[Guest guest]

Spiritual suicide? Nope, just an excuse to carry on your war.

 

Prabhupada says:

 

The Mayavadi sannyasis sometimes fall down from the path of self-realization and again enter into material activities of a philanthropic and altruistic nature, which are nothing but material engagements. Therefore, the conclusion is that those who are engaged in Krsna consciousness are better situated than the sannyasis engaged in simple Brahman speculation, <font color="red">although they too come to Krsna consciousness, after many births</font color> (http://www.asitis.com/5/6.html)

 

Krishna himself says:

 

But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, fixed and immovable--the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth--by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me

 

PURPORT

 

Those who do not directly worship the Supreme Godhead, Krsna, but who attempt to achieve the same goal by an indirect process, also ultimately achieve the supreme goal, <font color="red">Sri Krsna</font color>, as is stated, "After many births the man of wisdom seeks refuge in Me, knowing Vasudeva is all." When a person comes to full knowledge after many births, he surrenders unto Lord Krsna. If one approaches the Godhead by the method mentioned in this verse, he has to control the senses, render service to everyone and engage in the welfare of all beings. It is inferred that one has to approach Lord Krsna, otherwise there is no perfect realization. Often there is much penance involved before one fully surrenders unto Him (http://www.asitis.com/12/3-4.html)

[theist]

So you desire to take to mayavada philosophy in order to come to Krsna.

 

Good luck

 

By the way. I was referring to something other than the debate over impersonalist philosophy.

[Guest guest]

 

It denies the Person of Krsna and its spread is misdirecting living entities into a course of spiritual suicide. It is against the principle of eternal love as it takes two to love.

 

It is not the teaching of this Krsna conscious sampradaya in any case.

 

 

I have no disagreement with the above. But there is an entire sampradaya focused on mayavada aka advaita philosophy. Either you are opposed to intersampradaya arguments or you are not.

 

Perhaps what you should have said is that intersampradaya arguments are ok when they are done against mayavada. But when they are with other sampradayas, and the issues are beyond you, then they are merely "intersampradaya wars" which are to be discouraged, i.e.

 

 

Clearly my big bag of words is superior - it has to be twice as big as yours.

 

Yes, but we are better at manipulating our words logically. We can generate innumerable deductions from our words.

 

 

 

We should all trivialize discussions on things we cannot understand. This way the world will be a better place, and no one will have to think unnecessarily. Thinking being a dangerous thing and all.

 

 

 

 

 

[theist]

I may have given the wrong impression through misusing the word inter sampradaya. Maybe I should have said intra sampradaya. I am still not sure.

 

Please accept my apologies if I caused this misunderstanding.

 

What I was refering to are the various disputes and divisions within the Gaudia Vaisnava community specifically.

 

Well I just checked the dictionary and it seems I used the term properly. Anyway...

 

------------------------

[krsna]

CONTROVERSY AMONGST DEVOTEES

by

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur Prabhupada

 

What the unalloyed devotees of the Supreme Lord say is all true and is independent of any consideration of unwholesome pros and cons. There is, however, an element of mystery in the verbal controversies that are sometimes seen to arise between them. Those whose judgment is made of mundane stuff, being unable to enter into the spirit of the all-loving controversies among pure devotees due to their own want of unalloyed devotion, are apt to impute to the devotees their own defects of partisanship and opposing views.

 

— Purport to Sri Brahma-samhita 5.37.

 

[Guest guest]

So if you don't like inter-sampradaya "wars," then why do you guys criticize mayavadis?

 

maya vadis are'nt in any sampradaya

 

if they believe that all is maya, also their sampradayas are maya

[Guest guest]

Guestji,

 

Theist was referring to "various disputes and divisions within the Gaudia Vaisnava community specifically."

 

The proper term should have been intra-sampradaya wars.

[theist]

Thanks, I should have gone to school a little more than I did. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

In my mundane writings (yeah, even more mundane than the stuff yall read), i solve this problem like this inter/intranet or inter/intra-departmental. So we could call this the inter/intra-sampradaya wars. Same effect. While intra may refer to the rtvik/gbc controversy, gm will chime in and take a crack at the rtviks, the rtviks will lump independents who gave up on GBC long before they did as equal offenders by not following fuzzy documents as if they were shastra, and the GBC will keep both away from their centers unless they cork up. So inter/intra is a non issue. The real issue is finding all these silly things to bicker about while finding all kinds of excuses to avoid any declaration of unity on what really matters, giving Krsna to the worlds needy.

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist]

Everybody just CHILL! please

[Guest guest]

 

maya vadis are'nt in any sampradaya

 

 

That is incorrect, ISKCON propaganda. See http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html for a listing of the Advaita paramparA.

 

Theist, thank you for clarifying your position. Personally, I think introspection and polite disagreement are signs of a healthy spiritual tradition.

 

However, when ISKCON/Gaudiya types disagree with each other, they usually do so in a very aggressive and divisive way. And rarely does any side support their position with sAstra, rather it usually boils down to "my guru is right, because he is so pure and advanced...." etc etc.

 

So I guess I can see where you are coming from....

[Guest guest]

That is incorrect, ISKCON propaganda. See http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/advaita-parampara.html for a listing of the Advaita paramparA

 

parampara? narayana,brahma, vyasadeva and sukadeva gosvami are advaitist?

naah!

[Guest guest]

 

parampara? narayana,brahma, vyasadeva and sukadeva gosvami are advaitist?

naah!

 

 

Well, madhva, narahari tIrtha, and vyAsa tIrtha are not achintya bedha abedha followers. Yet you guys list them in your paramparA.

 

So it's wrong for Advaitins to list non-Advaitins in their paramparA. But it is not wrong for Achintya-ites to list non-Achintya-ites in their paramparA.

 

Can you say, "double standard?"

 

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavats

 

It is true that the advaita philosophy has been existing since time immemorial. To refute the other five schools of philosophy (which includes the advaita one) Srila Vedavyasa established the Vedanta siddhanta. Some advaita schools try (as you have given in the link but have a hard time linking gaudapada with Srila Shukadeva whose conclusions are expressed in the Bhagavata) to link to Vedavyas, in particular those of the Kashi school, but they are considered out of the sampradaya since they do not accept the final conclusions of Vedas as expressed in Srimad Bhagavatam. Only the followers of Naimisharanya school are considered in the sampradaya since they consider Srimad Bhagavatam as final conclusions. In fact, only the vaishnava sampradayas consider all the scriptures as authentic; the advaita proponents consider Srimad Bhagavatam as concocted as you must be well aware. This (and other points) are dealt here

http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/bmgs/acaryas/bhaktisiddhanta/writings/sct1.htm

by Srila BhaktiSiddhanta Saraswati. So it is "vaishnava propaganda" if you want to believe that way.

The feat of Sripad Shankacharya was to interpret the Brahma Sutra so as to show it as expounding the advaita siddhanta, even to the extent of claiming that Vyasadeva is mistaken.

 

There are philosophical differences in the bona-fide Vaishnava schools (so are there differences in different advaita schools) but the fundamental priciple is the same viz. Sri Narayana is Supreme Brahman, Supreme Soul, Supreme Lord and jivas are His fragmental infinitesimal parts.

 

In my opinion, if you want to discuss this point then we better place arguments rather than sarcasms.

[Guest guest]

 

Some advaita schools try (as you have given in the link but have a hard time linking gaudapada with Srila Shukadeva whose conclusions are expressed in the Bhagavata) to link to Vedavyas, in particular those of the Kashi school, but they are considered out of the sampradaya since they do not accept the final conclusions of Vedas as expressed in Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

 

Well, gauDIya vaiSNavas try very hard to link to srI Ananda tIrtha (aka madhvAcArya), but since they do not accept the final conclusions of tattvavAda, they are considered out of that sampradAya.

 

 

In my opinion, if you want to discuss this point then we better place arguments rather than sarcasms.

 

 

I am not interested in discussing the point, as I do not believe in Advaita. I only object to the blatant dishonesty by ISKCONites who claim that Advaitins have no sampradAya. Then they claim it is not a sampradAya because of lack of philosophical agreement, though they have no such objection to their own sampradAya, which disagrees on many fundamental principles from that of srI Ananda tIrtha.

 

It isn't sarcasm. The above represents a double standard.

 

If you want to refute advaita, you will have to do your homework and study how it is incorrect as per sAstra, rather than using cheap and ultimately incorrect arguments like this to give the appearance of an upper hand.

 

 

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavats

 

 

Well, gauDIya vaiSNavas try very hard to link to srI Ananda tIrtha (aka madhvAcArya), but since they do not accept the final conclusions of tattvavAda, they are considered out of that sampradAya.

 

 

 

You didn't read the post, did you? rather you read only what you wanted to read. Let me repeat "they are considered out of the sampradaya since they do not accept the final conclusions of Vedas as expressed in Srimad Bhagavatam"; the advaitins consider Srimad Bhagavatam as concocted and unauthorized. The philosophy has some differences in the four vaishnava sampradayas, but their basis is authorized Bhagavata commentry on Vedanta sutra.

Let us see, whether your opinion of gaudiya vaishnavas not being in the Madhava sampradaya matters, or whether the opinion of Acharyas from Madhava sampradaya matters; see http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/pejavara.html or http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/index.html or http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/asta_matha/pejavara-prabhupada.rm, for example.

 

 

I am not interested in discussing the point, as I do not believe in Advaita. I only object to the blatant dishonesty by ISKCONites who claim that Advaitins have no sampradAya.

 

 

 

That is a fact. This linking to Srila Sukadeva is a later phenomenon only (this was never put forward by Shankaracharya) which was done after challenge from bona-fide vaishnava schools. Also, you would do well to research the meaning of Sat-Sampradaya, and by definition advaitins are out of it.

 

 

If you want to refute advaita, you will have to do your homework and study how it is incorrect as per sAstra, rather than using cheap and ultimately incorrect arguments like this to give the appearance of an upper hand.

 

 

 

Point is moot since you do not claim to profess advaita philosophy. If you have something substantial to say then there can be a discussion.

[Guest guest]

 

You didn't read the post, did you?

 

 

Actually, I did read it, but unlike you, I read it in the context of what was spoken before it.

 

The principle of understanding the context is paramount in understanding any given set of words. This can lead you to an understanding of why one may object to the biased and ugly comment about Advaitins having no sampradAya, and why Advaitins would probably object too were it not for the fact that they would likely be met with bitter and unyielding hostility in a forum like this.

 

 

Let me repeat "they are considered out of the sampradaya since they do not accept the final conclusions of Vedas as expressed in Srimad Bhagavatam";

 

 

Considered by whom? You?

 

I can tell you for a fact that many tattvavAdis do not consider gauDIyas to be within their sampradAya for not accepting the final conclusions of tattvavAda, the public remarks of well intentioned leaders not withstanding. Does this make it a true statement that gauDIyas have no sampradAya? Before answering, read on.

 

By the way, the idea that bhAgavatam gives the final conclusions of vedas is a distinctly gauDIya belief. Other vaiSNava sampradAyas, such as that of rAmAnuja and Ananda tIrtha, do not hold to this as an obvious fact. Do you reject them as sampradAyas also?

 

 

the advaitins consider Srimad Bhagavatam as concocted and unauthorized.

 

 

Please explain the basis of this statement with explicit reference to the works of known Advaitins. If you cannot, then it is nothing more than an empty accusation.

 

 

Let us see, whether your opinion of gaudiya vaishnavas not being in the Madhava sampradaya matters, or whether the opinion of Acharyas from Madhava sampradaya matters; see http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/pejavara.html or http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/index.html or http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/asta_matha/pejavara-prabhupada.rm, for example.

 

 

Thank you sir, for proving my point.

 

The fact is, gauDIyas have a sampradAya, even though their philosophy is not inherited from madhva.

 

Similarly, it is also acceptable to say Advaitins have their sampradAya, even though they have diverged philosophically from vyAsa.

 

It is really a very elementary point - one either has a sampradAya regardless of philosophical agreement, or one does not. Arguing one way for the gauDIyas and another way for advaitins is the worst kind of sectarian hypocrisy.

 

 

This linking to Srila Sukadeva is a later phenomenon only (this was never put forward by Shankaracharya)

 

 

The linking of gauDIyas to madhva is a later phenomenon in gauDIya vaiSNava history. srI caitanya never claimed such a paramparA, nor did his immediate disciples. Rather interesting, don't you think?

 

The claim of link to madhva only emerged with baladeva vidyAbhUSana, himself allegedly a former tattvavAdi, but almost 150 years after caitanya!

 

These are facts. Now ask yourself the question - if the claim of a link of sankarAcArya to sukadeva Rshi being "relatively later" makes it invalid, is it similarly invalid for gauDIyas to claim link to madhva on the grounds that this too is a "relatively later" claim?

 

One standard for all. That is all I advocate.

 

 

which was done after challenge from bona-fide vaishnava schools.

 

 

Rubbish. What challenge are you referring to? Philosophical challenge? Irrelevant, since disagreements with respect to doctrine do not mean much to you when definining your sampradAya. If there is a disagreement with regards to the historical likelihood of shankara's line of succession from sukadeva, then either present those facts or admit you have no case. By the way, before you go down this road, let me point out that there is no historical evidence that srI caitanya's guru was initiated in madhva's sampradAya. The individuals listed after vyAsa tIrtha (lakshmIpati, mAdhavendra, etc) are not recorded in any of the mAdhva maths.

 

Thus, I say again:

 

If you want to refute advaita, you will have to do your homework and study how it is incorrect as per sAstra, rather than using cheap and ultimately incorrect arguments like this to give the appearance of an upper hand.

 

 

Point is moot since you do not claim to profess advaita philosophy.

 

 

Actually, the point is germane. A standard ISKCON excuse for an ISKCONite's excuse for anti-advaita polemic is "you have no sampradAya, therefore you are not Authorized." Aside from the fact that this is wrong, it is also dishonest. Any criticism against the legitimacy of shankara's line of succession can easily be made against the gauDIyas as well.

 

Thus, you would be better off sticking to scripture and its interpretation in your discussions with advaitins, rather than adopting double-standards about sampradAyas and what makes them legitimate.

 

 

If you have something substantial to say then there can be a discussion.

 

 

I believe I have already said it, several times. Either you can accept it because it is the right thing to do, or you will continue to make excuses for a sectarian policy of outright misrepresentation. The choice is yours. But be warned, the public is watching.

 

[Guest guest]

Well, madhva, narahari tIrtha, and vyAsa tIrtha are not achintya bedha abedha followers. Yet you guys list them in your paramparA.

So it's wrong for Advaitins to list non-Advaitins in their paramparA. But it is not wrong for Achintya-ites to list non-Achintya-ites in their paramparA.

Can you say, "double standard?"

 

no...madhvacharya and other members ov vaishnava parampara' are vaishnavas, people who believe that the personality if god is the absolute and ultimate truth. So parampara' has the meaning to trasmit this consciousness trough his members to the last diciples

 

to put vyasadeva and sukadeva goswami.. and narayana too, among a line of people who believe that the form of god is maya and that only impersonal brahman is real is very funny

 

it is like to put bin laden in the succession of US presidents..

 

so advaita parampara' does not exist... and it is funny that they try to sell it to us... if personality and individuality is maya, what's the use to declare a disciplic line made of individual masters?

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavats

 

It is quite a problem when you refuse to follow the links that are provided, before formulating your response; case in point the interview of Srila BhaktiSiddhanta and the links to statements of acharyas of Madhva sampradaya.

Since you do not understand the meaning of sampradaya as we understand it viz. Sat-sampradaya, you seem to hold the opinion any disciplic succession constitutes a sampradaya. So unless we have a common understanding of the meaning of sampradaya, the claims of a bona-fide sampradaya can be made for or against any of the existing sampradaya. Apart from gaudiyas, the same claims could be made for the Madhva-Sampradaya and other three vaishnava sampradayas; so proving Gaudiyas to be in line with Madhva makes no difference (which has been done by many of our acharyas; see http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Madhvacarya-Gaudiya.html for example, which provides answers to the points raised by madhavites which you repeatedly put forward) as the question then shifts to the validity of Madhva and other sampradayas.

 

Actually, our claim that advaitins do not belong to any sampradaya is not at all ugly; ugly is the attempt of advaitins to describe the Supreme Lord as having no personality and that He comes under the influence of Maya implying that Maya is greater than the Supreme Lord and their attempt to imply that Vedantic siddhanta is advaitism, trying to make Vedantin synonymous with advaitin.

 

 

 

Considered by whom? You?

 

 

 

No, an insignificant person like me holds no position to make such a statement. Read the link http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/bmgs/acaryas/bhaktisiddhanta/writings/sct1.htm

again.

 

 

I can tell you for a fact that many tattvavAdis do not consider gauDIyas to be within their sampradAya for not accepting the final conclusions of tattvavAda, the public remarks of well intentioned leaders not withstanding. Does this make it a true statement that gauDIyas have no sampradAya?

 

 

 

Yes, many tattvavadis do not consider gaudiyas to be in line and many do. Similiarly, even many apa-sampradayas from Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu claim Srila BhaktiVinoda/BhaktiSiddhanta etc. are not in line; then what does this prove. How would you consider opinion of some tattvavadis conclusive?

 

 

By the way, the idea that bhAgavatam gives the final conclusions of vedas is a distinctly gauDIya belief. Other vaiSNava sampradAyas, such as that of rAmAnuja and Ananda tIrtha, do not hold to this as an obvious fact. Do you reject them as sampradAyas also?

 

 

 

No, their conclusions are directly in line with the Naimisharanya school from Srila Suta Gosvami. You are right about the fact that gaudiyas place greatest importance to Srimad Bhagavatam compared to other vaishnava schools, but the issue is not the Book rather the conclusion of Bhagavata purana that Sri Narayana is the Supreme Brahman/Super Soul/Supreme Lord and jivas are His infinitisemal parts.

 

Regarding the Bhagavata purana, what is your position on this matter and then it can be discussed; do you claim advaitins considers puranas as authentic. Advaitins do not take the statements of any of the puranas as authentic, let alone bhagavata purana, and base their philosophy on Upanishads, Vedanta and Bhagavad Gita; what is your position in this regard.

 

 

Thank you sir, for proving my point.

 

The fact is, gauDIyas have a sampradAya, even though their philosophy is not inherited from madhva.

 

Similarly, it is also acceptable to say Advaitins have their sampradAya, even though they have diverged philosophically from vyAsa.

 

It is really a very elementary point - one either has a sampradAya regardless of philosophical agreement, or one does not. Arguing one way for the gauDIyas and another way for advaitins is the worst kind of sectarian hypocrisy.

 

 

 

This is simply not reading. May i request you not to put in the reply hastily without reading the links, so that i do not have to cut-paste from those.

From

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/pejavara.html

Pejavara Swami

"The message of Jagad-guru Madhvacarya and the message of Caitanya Prabhu are the same. Their messages are identical. And in this way, it is a confluence. Caitanya Prabhu actually gave what Madhvacarya gave, and thus I belong to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's line. Therefore, I feel proud that Swami Prabhupada, who actually belongs to our sampradaya, has done such a wonderful job by distributing Krsna consciousness all over the world."

 

From http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/asta_matha/sriroor_english.html

Shiroor Swami

"Sri Chaitanya Sampradaya is a branch of Madhwa philosophy. there are historic proofs to substantiate this fact."

 

From

http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/udupi/asta_matha/kaniyoor_english.html

Sri Vidyavallaba Tirtha Swamiji

"Some argue that there is no relationship between "Chaitanya prabhu parampara" and "Sri Madhwacharya parampara." We wish to put forth our opinion on the matter.

According to our views, Sri Chaitanya prabhu having embraced "virakti," approached Sri Vysatheertha, who belongs to the Madhwacharya's traditional Vyasaraya Mutt. Sri Vyasatheertha graced him offering "deeksha" to him and commanded him to spread the philosophic ideals fo Sri Madhwacharya."

 

Again, i repeat the same things that there are differences in the philosophy between the gaudiyas and madhva sampradaya, just as there are differences in the four vaishnava sampradayas (and for this reason gaudiya sampradaya is called Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya instead of just Madhva sampradaya) but their central point is the same (as i mentioned above). If you regard the differences in the vaishnava sampradayas on the same level as that of the difference between advaita and vaishnava schools then what can be done. The point is elementary in that any disciplic succession does not become sampradaya, and that those whose sole aim is service at the feet of Supreme Lord (whether the disciplic succession is connected by diksha or siksha) are in the sampradaya and not others -- such is our understanding. You are trying to make it appear that its okay for anybody to claim to be in sampradaya if they are linked in some way or the other, irrespective of their philosophy.

 

 

The claim of link to madhva only emerged with baladeva vidyAbhUSana, himself allegedly a former tattvavAdi, but almost 150 years after caitanya!

 

 

 

No, the first written reference is from "Sri Gaura ganodesa dipika" by Srila Kavi Karnapura who is a direct disciple of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

 

If there is a disagreement with regards to the historical likelihood of shankara's line of succession from sukadeva, then either present those facts or admit you have no case.

 

 

 

As stated before, whether or not there is a physical succession link does not make much difference to the point since the advaitins are considered out of the sampradaya by definition (as the gaudiyas understand it). You may present your own definition of a sampradaya (apart from any disciplic succession connected to Vyasadeva in some way irrespective of philosophy which is not acceptable) but our understanding is clear and that was being referred to in the original posts.

 

The questions of disciplic links in gaudiya sampradaya have been dealt with in the link given earlier.

 

 

If you want to refute advaita, you will have to do your homework and study how it is incorrect as per sAstra, rather than using cheap and ultimately incorrect arguments like this to give the appearance of an upper hand.

 

 

 

not me, this has been dealt with in some (rather huge) detail by various vaishnava acharyas. If you want to read it, i will be willing to provide you links/material on this matter.

At one point you do not claim to profess advaita philosophy, and at other you want me to refute advaita by discussing with yourself -- i do not know what to make out of this.

[Guest guest]

It really amazes me the lengths which ISKCON people will go through to justify their sectarian prejudices and refuse to admit when they are wrong.

 

The fact that Sumedh has utterly failed to grasp the real point has been obfuscated by numerous tangential arguments offered by him with no real relevance to the main point.

 

By the way, even the link offered by Sumedh does not say about Advaitins what he claims it says. There is nothing there about Advaitins claiming the bhAgavatam is "concocted and unauthorized," nor is there any evidence quoted from Advaitins substantiating this. Nor is there anything there about "Advaitins having no sampradAya," nor are there any remarks or evidence to substantiate this.

 

Sumedh, you have no clue as to what sampradAya means. In fact, you really have no clue in general. This makes you very qualified to continue hoisting the ISKCON flag. They don't want thinkers, just mindless followers who will swallow their propaganda without even a hint of scrutiny. I am sure you will go far in that organization. Good luck!

 

[gHari]

If we are to live by words alone, then here are some words by an 'ISKCON' Acarya found in the Introduction to his Sri Krsna Samhita:<blockquote>The constitutional activities of a pure soul are called sva-dharma, or one's prescribed activities. The sva-dharma of a living entity is prominently manifested in his pure state of existence. In one's pure state of existence this sva-dharma is present in the form of spiritual activities.

 

All the above-mentioned material tendencies become successful when dovetailed with spiritual activities. Otherwise they cannot independently help one attain the highest goal.

 

From engagement in material activities up to the awakening of spiritual activities is called the preliminary stage of God consciousness. From this preliminary stage up to the uttama-adhikari stage there are innumerable levels: <blockquote>ONE - Inquiring about the truth of the material world is called Sakta-dharma, because the predominating deity of the material world is goddess Durga. All behavior and practice instructed in Sakta-dharma is helpful only in the preliminary stage. Such behavior and practice is meant to bring one closer to spiritual life, and materialistic people may be attracted by this only until they begin to inquire about the Supreme Absolute Truth. Sakta-dharma is the living entity's initial spiritual endeavor, and it is extremely essential for people of that level.

 

TWO - When the preliminary stage is further strengthened, one attains the next level. One then considers the energy of work and the superiority of heat over dull matter, and one therefore accepts the sun-god, who is the source of heat, as one's worshipable deity. At that time, Saura-dharma is awakened.

 

THREE - Later, when one considers even heat as dull matter and animal consciousness as superior, one attains the third stage, Ganapatya-dharma.

 

FOUR - In the fourth gross stage, Lord Siva is worshiped as the pure consciousness of the living entities, and Saiva-dharma manifests.

 

FIVE - In the fifth stage, the consciousness of the living entity worships the supreme consciousness, and thus Vaisnava-dharma is manifest. </blockquote>By nature, there are five types of paramarthic dharmas, or spiritual duties, which have been known throughout the world by different names at different times. If one considers all the different dharmas that are current in India and abroad, one can see that they certainly fall within these five categories.

 

The religious principles taught by Mohammed and Jesus Christ are similar to the religious principles taught by Vaisnava sects. Buddhism and Jainism are similar to Saiva-dharma.

 

This is a scientific consideration of truths regarding religious principles. Those who consider their own religious principles as real dharma and others' religious principles as irreligion or subreligion are unable to ascertain the truth due to being influenced by prejudice.

 

Actually religious principles followed by people in general are different only due to the different qualifications of the practitioners, but the constitutional religious principles of all living entities are one.

 

It is not proper for swanlike persons to reject the religious principles that people in general follow according to their situation. Therefore, with due respect to the religious principles followed by people in general, we will now discuss the living entity's constitutional religious principles.

 

Satvata-dharma, or nonsectarian Vaisnava-dharma, is the living entity's constitutional, or eternal, religious principles. The Vaisnava principles that are found in the Mayavada-sampradaya are only indirect imitations of those principles.

 

When such sectarian Vaisnava principles become transcendental, that is, when they are free of impersonalism, then they become Satvata-dharma, or religious principles related to the Supreme Truth. The different sampradayas, namely: <blockquote>dvaita (dualism),

dvaitAdvaita (simultaneous oneness and difference),

suddhAdvaita (purified oneness),

and visistadvaita (specific monism) </blockquote>that are found in satvata-dharma are nothing but wonderful varieties of sentiments within the Vaisnava science. Actually the various sampradayas are not the result of differences in the basic truth.

 

Impersonalism is diametrically opposite to the science of bhakti. Those Vaisnavas who have accepted impersonalism are not pure Vaisnavas. </blockquote>