ISKCON: It's Role, Idealogies, And World-view.

[Sunder]

<b><i>
Gnanaanandha mayam devam nirmala spatikakruthim
adaram sarva vidyanam hayagrivam upasmahe…
</i></b>

Why do you wantingly inject these words like 'superior' to discredit me? Do you have enemity with Vaishnavism or myself? Again, what really is the purpose of this thread?! To pick up fights or to know?

Hyagriva, I have nothing to gain or lose by picking up a fight. I think we got off the wrong foot. I have nothing personally against you, or against Vaishnavism. I admire and adore Sriman Narayana who is none other than a manifestation of Raja Rajeshwari. Advaitins are never averse to any other school. Dvaitha Bhakthi is very necessary for spiritual development before it fructifies and leads to Gnana where one attains Nirvikalpa samadhi.

You started with claiming some undercurrents, spoke of ISKCON as if all other Vaishnavites disowned them for some devilish reasons unknown, went on to find fault with Vaishnavas interacting with Christians and even asked if ISKCON asked its followers to read and follow Bible!! What didn't you accuse ISKCON of?

I also posted the prison ministry of ISKCON. Perhaps you did not see it. The purpose of the thread is not to sing praise of iskcon unconditionally, but to understand it better. At this point I do not have any perception either positive or negative of Iskcon. When I see things like Prison ministry, I laud it. When I see Iskcon equating Jehovah with Krishna, I question it. When they call Advaita Siddhantha as Mayavada I question it. When Iskcon poses it’s idea as FINAL and complete, I contest it. Thus the purpose is to understand Iskcon’s rationale of believing what it believes, and yes, to throw in my ideas as a purvapakshin and challenge Iskcon. This cannot be seen as raking up abuses about Iskcon.

Also Hyagriva, please do not thing I have something against you or am out to get you. I gain nothing by putting you down, but I gain quite a lot by challenging you with an open mind.

The fact that Vaishnavism believes the Shiva is an expansion of Vishnu such a big problem in the Hindu Society that you and Gangajal make it out to be?

No, this is no problem at all. Vishnu, who is indeed a devotee of Shiva, is indeed a form of Sri Raja Rajeshwari. As the Soundarya Lahari states, Sri Vishnu is a parama bhaktha of Lalitha Devi. (Hari: thwaam aaradhya pranatha jana soubhaghya janani. Puraa nari bhoothva pura ripum api kshobham anayath. – Shloka 5.)

I do not see Shiva and Hari as different entities. They are one and the same. When “He” is Sarva-guna-sampanna, He is Narayana, when “He” is Nirguna, He is Sadha Shiva. There is no ‘distinctness’ seen by me. Thus I contest the concept of “Extensions” or “Subsidaries” on ground of absurdity. (Then the question arises, if there are no Extensions, how can Hari be an extension of Sri Lalitha Maha Tripurasundari? The answer is, there is no real difference in who is the amsha of whom. There is only One Entity, called and interpreted by different names and forms.)

Yes, you are right, I am not knowledgable in Advaita vada.
I only need to know how to differentiate Advaita-vada and what is wrong with it. I am not qualified to speak about Advaita so I am sorry that I even started to talk about it.

You wrongly assume that there is something wrong with Advaita. If seen with a pre-set mind, then like Duryodhana, even Krishna can be seen as faulty. Thus, instead of finding “what’s wrong with Advaita”, the right approach will be “What is Advaita.” If you understand Advaita, there will be no confusion about what Vaishnavism is or isn’t. True Krishna Consciousness is indeed Advaitha. (I am aware this also goes for my attitude towards iskcon. I am not seeking to find fault with Iskcon, I am only trying to understand it better.)

All I said was that Advaitins claim that Shiva/Vishnu have no independent and real existence and are just names for the formless Brahman.

IS this right or wrong? You either say that Shiva and Vishnu exist seperately, truely and as real personalities OR you say they don't.

Lack of separate existence does not mean lack of existence altogether. Advaita correctly echoes the Shruthi says there is nothing independent of Brahman. The Shruthi also states that Brahman ALONE existed. It also states that “Sarvam Kalvidham Brahma”. The keyword being SARVAM - Everything. This includes, well, EVERYTHING relative to the Absolute.

Advaita, echoes the Narayana Suktha in stating:
<i><b> tasyaaH shikhaayaa madhye paramaatmaa vyavasthitaH |
sa brahma sa shivaH sa hariH sa indraH so.aksharaH paramaH swaraaT.h ||</b>

In the Middle of That Flame, the Supreme Self dwells. This (Self) is Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Indra, the Imperishable, the Absolute, the Autonomous Being.
</i>

You yourself agree that Shiva and Vishnu have no real existence, but go on to...

I said, “Shiva and Vishnu are not different from the SELF.” If you believe YOU – the observer - exist, know that the Observer is none other than Shiva/Vishnu. Shiva and Vishnu are but names assigned to your Self. I realize that Dvaitha cannot not fully appreciate this viewpoint. This will be realized gradually. <i>Bahoonaam Janmanaam anthe gnaanavaan maam prabhadyathe. Vaasudevah Sarvam ithi, sa mahaathma sudurlabhah. </i>

This only plainly means that the existences of Vishnu and Shiva are only as objects in dreams with no inherent reality.

If dreams are dreams, what permanence can be found in them? You say the 'one permanent aspect in your dream'. You also say that 'THIS reality is YOU.' This refers to WHAT????

This refers to YOU. What else can it refer to? The Mandukya Upanishad clearly mentions this in twelve beautiful verses. Read it and come back.

How can there be permanence when the basis of dreams is impermanence? And what reality can be in dreams? What reality are you talking about?

The DREAMER is constant. Taijasa is his name in dreams. Vishva is his name in waking state, and he is Praagna in deep sleep. He alone is constant, and is changeless. He alone exists. He alone is permanent. Courtesy, Mandukya Upanishad.

You end that para by saying, 'Thus Shiva and Vishnu are Real, and in Reality, they are your Self.'

The “thus” here is the same “thus” that occurs at the end of the Mandukya Upanishad.

That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, <b>the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self.</b> He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

http://www.celextel.org/ebooks/upanishads/...a_upanishad.htm

So you mean to say that dreams need the framework of the mind?

YES. Absolutely. When the mind is quiescent, it is deep-sleep.

You refer to the 'external manifestation of Avatara', then what is the 'Inner manifestation of avatara'? Is that manifestation in your dreams? Are these two different? Are there really two manifestations? Or is there more? If just two, why is it restricted to two? And this avatara is as real or false as your dream? Or is this all illusion?
What is this 'framework' of relativity? Relative to what? From which point of reference?

'Inner manifestation’ is Paramatma who resides in the Hrud-desa (Heart). It is said in the Lalitha Sahasranama “Antharmukha samaaradhya, bahirmukha sudhurlabha.” You can easily find Her when searching inside, and is quite difficult to find Her outside. The Paramatma, when he ‘comes down’ is called an Avatara. The Sarva-vyaapi, when He resides in the cave of the heart, (Nihitham guhaaya. – Katha upanishad) is called "internal". The external and internal are only relative to the body, and will disappear as soon as Gnana shines forth.

The manifestation is not in the dream, the manifestation is the *dreamer*. There are no two manifestations as the duality does not exist in Thuriyam. The Duality however exists for an unrealized mind, as long as the mind is active. The perceiver in “Vishva state”, and Taijasa state are not different from that of the Thuriya State. The Mandukya Upanishad (the epitome of all Upanishads.) can explain this better than I ever can.

http://swami-krishnananda.org/mand_0.html

'It is the same Self (which is within this body too)' what else is in the body to qualify for your usage of 'too'?

The Self that is present everywhere is in this body (too). The key is the placement of the word TOO. If I had mentioned "The Self too is in this body", then your question was justified. The placement of too AFTER the word body means, the Self that is in "your" body is in "this" body too.

It is an old trick of neo-advaitins to express themselves in sentences too unambigious and confusing to give their understanding a kind of aura.

Unambiguous and confusing are contradictory terms. Are they unambiguous, or confusing? Which one? If it is confusing, then please ask for clarification, and I shall do my best to dispell your doubts, or lead you to sources which will dispell your confusion.

This gives a sense of satisfaction to the word juggler that after any longer debate they will say that this Brahman is indescribable, beyond grasp of thought and all human understanding.

The Shruthis say so too. Avyavahaaryam, Agraahyam, Alakshanam, Achintham, Avyapadesyam etc. are terms used to describe that which is beyond words and thoughts. Anyone who claims to describe "God" fully in words does not understand it's nature as Indescribable. (Kena Upanishad 1st chapter.)

The Vaishnavas say, 'ENOUGH of all this words. These words won't take anybody any nearer to the goal of self-realization.

Very true. Silence alone will clear all Doubts. Sri Dhakshinamurthy’s MOUNA VYAAKHYAANAM is the Only Way.

Sri Sankaracharya says,

Bhaja Govindam, Bhaja Govindam
Bhaja Govindam, Muda mathe
Samprapthe Sannihithe kale
Nahi Nahi rakshathi Dhukhrum Karane!
Hari Govinda, Hari Govinda
Hari Govinda - Anara Manda
Mrithyuvu Dapuna Mesaletapudu
Vyakaranamu kapadadura.

Nice to see the telugu translation. Sri Shankara is quite right there. Vyaakaranam does not help one understand the nature of Brahman. Arguments only takes one away from the main goal. Our goal is the same, it’s quite funny to see that we are continuing the tradition of our ancestors, indulging in hair splitting polemics.

When you ask for Shruthi pramana, are you sure you want to hear it? Because, to hear Shruthi, you will have to qualify as a Brahmacharin which means that you will have to stay at the Ashrama of a Guru and learn obedienty and submissively. If you really want to learn the Shruthi, you are most welcome to join any of the various Vaishnava mathas. The Bhagavat-Gita says,' Approach a bonafide master submissively and seek to learn'.. not arrogantly demand on discussion boards for Shruthis which aren't so cheap.

As for me, I am not that careless to throw about Shruthi pramanas around as you ask them. And more importantly, I am so disqualified to even talk about them. Actually I know nothing about them for I am just a student.

I think we live in a different age now. Upanishads are already online, and so are the Vedas. Iskcon too sells CD’s and books on Upanishads (Which is shruthi) to anyone who can pay money. There is no doublechecking on who is qualified to read them or even if it is being read. Thus asking for Shruthi Pramaana cannot be brushed off on grounds of ‘adhikaari’ and Ashrama when the argument is already on cyberspace. If you are unable to provide a pramaana, I can understand.

I however accept your argument that you are *UNqualified* (not disqualified) to talk about Shruthis, and that you do not know much about it as a student. (I am not saying this in a scoffing tone. I really admire and respect your sincerity in stating so.) If some day you can find that Shruthis do back up your view point, please do feel free to post it.

There is more to Love of Godhead. Before one can talk about love of Godhead, ONE NEEDS TO KNOW ALL ABOUT THE GODHEAD. Only Vaishnavism talks about all the divine auspicious atributes of Godhead.

Sri Devi Bhagavatham is much more detailed and is quite a pleasure. Shiva Puranam is yet another great source. There is no dearth of description about the Lord manifest. Vaishnavism too has beautiful descriptions.

Even if at times I feel the topic is getting nowhere, at this very moment I am enjoying this discussion. I only hope I can word my replies in a way that is acceptable to you..

Final note: I have nothing against Vaishnavism. I have nothing against Shaivism. I have nothing against Duality. In fact, I have nothing against anything, for I am everything.