Who Is A Hindu

Sunder · 06-16-2005, 12:21 PM

QUOTE(Carl @ Jun 16 2005, 11:01 AM) But I am still waiting for you to produce ONE historical example of a kevala-advaita scholar defeating a Vaishnava scholar in one of those famous public debates that are milestones in Hindu religious history. 
And I, my dear friend, am anxiously awaiting your thoughts on Mandukya Upanishad.

As for the rest of your post, I shall get back to you as early as I can. I am at this point taking care of some other priorities.

Sunder · 06-17-2005, 08:22 AM

Brahadaranyaka Upanishad (mayavadi junk)

brahma va idam agra asit, tad atmanam evavet, aham brahmasmiti: tasmat tat sarvam abhavat, tad yo yo devanam pratyabudhyata, sa eva tad abhavat, tatha rsinam, tatha manusyanam. taddhaitat pasyan rsir vama-devah pratipede, aham manur abhavam suryas ceti, tad idam api etarhi ya evam veda, aham brahmasmiti sa idam sarvam bhavati; tasya ha na devas ca nabhutya isate, atma hy esam sa bhavati. atha yo anyam devatam upaste, anyo' sau anyo' ham asmiti, na sa veda; yatha pasur, evam sa devanam; yatha ha vai bahavah pasavo manusyam bhunjyuh, evam ekaikah puruso devan bhunakti; ekasminn eva pasav adiyamane'priyam bhavati, kim u bahusu? tasmad esam tan na priyam yad etan manusya vidyuh.

QUOTEI-iv-10:Â This (self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, âI am Brahmanâ. Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men. The sage Vamadeva, while realising this (self) as That, knew, âI was Manu, and the sunâ. And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, âI am Brahmanâ, becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, âHe is one, and I am anotherâ, does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish, what should one say of many animals ? Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this.

When you pray to God, worship God, adore God, conceive God in your mind, you have already created a gulf between you and Him. You have there an unbridgeable difference between the object that you pray to, and yourself. The gulf is wide. This gulf is to be bridged. Until this is done, there cannot be any communication. It is something like an electric current that cannot pass even if there is a little difference of distance in the nature of the contact of the conducting element, and so, even if there is a little psychological distance between you and the Supreme Being, there cannot be then a real contact. And when the contact is not there, even if the distance is very little, it is as if there is a long distance. Therefore, the distance has to be abolished. The moment this distance is created, there is a fear coming from all sides. When the distance is removed, fear also goes with it, at once. And whoever conceives of various deities, various gods, various ideals and various objectives and aims of life, such a person is pitiable indeed, because there are no such many divinities, many ideals and many objectives in life. Whatever be your pursuit in life, it is a single pursuit in the end. All these roads which we are treading in this life, through the different avenues of activity, are really processes of the soul's journey for union with God. If this point is not remembered, there could be an unfortunate diversity in the objective of life, and it will look as if one has no connection with the other, while there is all connection between one and everything else. Every approach is an approach to the One, and it is necessary, at the very outset, to clear the cobwebs of confusion in the minds of people by enlightening them in the true relationship of the various ideals that appear to be diverse outwardly. They are interconnected. The ideals and pursuits in human life are various methods or means adopted by individuals according to their own mental patterns, but the aims are not different. So, you are not, in fact, worshipping many gods, but if you think that there are really many gods, then you will not reach the real God. If you think that God is somewhere, and you are here, well, you will always be here, and He will be there. There will be no connection between the two. Such a person knows nothing. He is illogical, and no knowledge is there. Like an animal is he. What knowledge has an animal?

The Upanishad says: a person who has no knowledge, and is ignorant, is like a victim of the celestials. He worships gods, various deities for propitiating them for selfish purposes, and he becomes a food of these gods. They control him, catch hold of him, as animals are caught. And these ignorant individuals who do not know the truth of things, but hang on individual deities, and become victims thereof, are naturally prevented by these deities from going above. Just as a Master of cattle does not want his cattle to be lost, says the Upanishad, these deities do not want you to reach the higher level; they do not want you to go above them, and so they always keep you under control, and, tell you, 'this much is enough, not more'. As you do not wish to lose even one animal, if it is yours, naturally, the celestials who are propitiated as deities keep you under subjection in a similar manner. And, why should they allow you to go above them? They are very selfish.

06-17-2005, 11:05 AM

sunder,
Still no coherent theory coming forth. Same old Goebbelsian refrain...

QUOTE"And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, âI am Brahmanâ, becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, âHe is one, and I am anotherâ, does not know. He is like an animal to the gods."Firstly, this verse is clearly speaking about karma-kAnDa, not raja-bhakti. The two are poles apart. Only a misinformed idiot confuses the two, and you failed to recognize it. The Vedic literature often refers to karma-kandis as dwipAda pashu -- two-legged animals. Also, "devaanaam" refers to any higher being, not Godhead. The demigods are not essentially different from us in an ontological sense, etc... A clear sambandha-jnana is a sine qua non for the practice of raja-bhakti. Certainly, if a misguided person "worships" some arbitrary deity in the Mode of Ignorance (tamo bhakti), then it is a waste of time.

An Upanishad is not junk, my friend, but it becomes junk when parsed by a mayavadi interpreter, just like the example I gave previously. An MP3 file opened with a word-processor application is junk. As peasant-headed as you are, you simply cannot let go of the junk that you have been told about "bhakti". I'll repeat once more:

"aham brahmaasmi" = "I am spirit soul" = "I am not this gross or subtle body, etc" (neti neti). I am not material. "Brahman" is not an object. It is an essence.

A comparison is given: In order to go into the sun, we have to become fire-like. If we go in with these gross bodies, we will perish, i.e., is it not possible. Likewise, to associate and reciprocate with Godhead, we have to become godly (not "God", but "godly"). IOW, we have to rid ourselves of the material contamination, and extinguish False Ego. Only an idiot thinks that he becomes God Itself by some process of yoga, or "suddenly realizes" that he has always been God, but somehow forgot about it.

Take one example: Bhagavad Gita, 18:54
brahma-bhutah prasannatma
na socati na kanksati
samah sarvesu bhutesu
mad-bhaktim labhate param

"One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman. He never laments nor desires to have anything; he is equally disposed to every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me."

Note how the sense of difference is still maintained. Note how the word "labhate" is employed. And note how brahma-bhuta is a preliminary qualification after which parabhakti becomes attainable if so desired.

Excerpt from the Bhaktivedanta PURPORT:
"To the impersonalist, achieving the brahma-bhuta stage, becoming one with the Absolute, is the last word. But for the personalist, or pure devotee, one has to go still further to become engaged in pure devotional service. This means that one who is engaged in pure devotional service to the Supreme Lord is already in a state of liberation, called brahma-bhuta, oneness with the Absolute. Without being one with the Supreme, the Absolute, one cannot render service unto Him. In the absolute conception, there is no difference between the served and the servitor; yet the distinction is there, in a higher spiritual sense..."

Before trying to talk of Mandukya or this or that Upanishad, get your ABCs right. Get your semantics right. As Walt Whitman wrote, "We read the Bible day and night,\ You read black and I read white..."

Other than maniacally repeating yourself, why don't you try to lay out your coherent theory of Vedanta, if you have one. Tell us, if you are God, why are you in maya right now, etc. But you don't want to get into that. You only want to keep splashing mis-translated and mis-interpreted verses about "one-ness" on this thread. Just like an ignorant karma-kAnDi, the mayavadi is also an unintelligent animal. The only differencce between a mayavadi and an ass is the numbber of legs.

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 06-17-2005, 11:01 PM by Sunder.)

QUOTE(Carl @ Jun 17 2005, 11:05 AM)The only differencce between a mayavadi and an ass is the numbber of legs.
Really??? I did not know Iskconites have more than two legs. But if you say so, I wont contest it.<!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> j/k.

BTW Carl, I have a quick question out of curiosity. Do you know basic samskrit or do you rely on translations to get the meanings of the upanishads? (the reason I ask is that I had pasted (not posted) the samskrit verse above ,and I am quoting the portion relevant below.

aham brahmasmiti sa idam sarvam bhavati; tasya ha na devas ca nabhutya isate, atma hy esam sa bhavati.
This says 'Sa idam SARVAM bhavathi'. Aham Brahmasmi was wrongly interpreted by you as 'I am just a spirit-being different from another Supreme Being which is also refered to as Brahman.' If Aham Brahmasmi means 'I am spirit-soul' (whatever that 'spirit-soul means), then the word Idam Sarvam Bhavathi would not arise if this spirit-soul is not the SAME as the Universal Soul which Alone Exists.

This has been clearly pointed out in the Mandukya Upanishad (which also explains why Sri Bhagavaan says 'Mayi sarvam idham protham sutre mahigana iva' in BG 7:7) The Immutable Self or Saakshi (Observer) is the link for the different worlds expereienced in Vishva/Taijasa/Pragna states. One who sees duality in these and misses the Substratum is called an animal of the devas above.

atha yo anyam devatam upaste, anyo' sau anyo' ham asmiti, na sa veda; yatha pasur, evam sa devanam; yatha ha vai bahavah pasavo manusyam bhunjyuh, evam ekaikah puruso devan bhunakti;
The above statement EXPLICITLY states that a person who worships a deva (any deva is a name-form combination) as "I am different and He is different" that person does not know. He is an animal.

QUOTETell us, if you are God, why are you in maya right now, etc. But you don't want to get into that. You only want to keep splashing mis-translated and mis-interpreted verses about "one-ness" on this thread. 
See, you make it easy for me. You ask the question, and you give the answer yourself. You already assumed I would not want to get into it... what more can I say?

But if you want to listen, you have to ask nicely. Then I shall perhaps reveal it to you.

you have typecast the Eternal Self as a personal being and call it only as Krishna to the exclusion of any other name-form. Such traits is forewarned in the Gita itself.

Avajananthi maam muooda maanushim thanum aashritam
param bhaavam ajaananto mama bhootha-mahesvaram. (9:11)

May your faith and good karma guide you towards Advaita Anubhava.

06-21-2005, 01:01 AM

Carl, Here are some more detailed responses. I have been trying to comprehend what you meant by spiritual-variegatedness and difference between material and spiritual. And the possibility of a non-material, but non-unitary (variegated) Vaikuntha beyond the Nirguna Brahman.

QUOTEAs I said, all Vaishnava literature insists on nirguna Vaikuntha. As I pointed out, even in the BG, Krishna points to Vaikuntha AFTER describing brahmajyoti, i.e., He points to this Vaikuntha as being transcendent even to brahman. Even more significantly, He says that while Impersonal Brahman-realization is NOT eternal, atttaining to Vaikuntha is eternal, never to return. So it is worth taking the time to understand how this kind of thing can be possible. How can a world of seeming "qualities" exist transcendental to this saguna, material world? IOW, how can we have a "nirguna Vaikuntha"??
By all accounts, this is a fascinating assertion made in various Vedic texts. This transcendental variegatedness is emphasized, but at the same time it is referred to as guna-rahita, nis-trai-gunya, nirguna. We have to get to the bottom of this. We cannot just brush all these Vedic statements under the carpet, because whether we like it or not, this forms a significant part of Vedic literature.


IMHO division between material and spiritual is an arbitrary division and quite artificial. What can be called spiritual by some can easily be considered material by others. Just to take an example, wireless communications would not have been classified as 'material' a few centuries ago. But an enhanced scientific understanding shows that they are very material. Plato's ideas of essential separation between mind and matter come against the biggest stumbling block when mind and matter actually are found to interact. Two things that can interact can't be two mutually exclusive realities. In mechanics, Newtons' 3rd law implies that interactions are always both ways. It can't be that 'spiritual' can affect the 'material' but in turn not get influenced by it.

I consider the more pertinent classification 'real' versus 'unreal' (sat -asat). That was the approach taken by Shankaracarya too. If something 'is', that is enough. There is no need to break it up arbitrarily into material or spiritual.

Nevertheless such divisions are often employed. In Samkhya manifestations of prakriti are taken as material. Even the highest category of Mahat is considered 'material'. The 'consciousness' part, the purusha is separate from prakriti. This dichotomy in Samkhya is resolved in advaita through the questions of 'sat' (being) and 'asat' (non being), rather than 'material' and 'spiritual'.

 If nirguna stands for no-attributes then Nirguna and 'variegated' are mutually contradictory. Since attributes are necessary for distinguishing one from another, attributes must be present for 'variegatedness'. Advaita nirguna is attributelessness, which implies, nirguna must be unitary. Apparentley, following your posts, vaishnava 'nirguna' is with attributes that can distinguish one from other.

Therefore it would be more correct to say that advaita nirguna, lies beyond the vaishnava nirguna, instead of the other way around. Vaishnava nirguna is quite saguna when seen from advaitic definition. And for a saguna, the infinite regress problem can be only resolved by sinking deeper to the level of advaitic nirguna.

QUOTETherefore, harking back to Sankhya definitions (by assumption not recognizing any supramundane reality like brahman, and certainly non-theistic) in an argument concerning Vedanta is an incongruous twist. It is anomalous at this height, it is a throwback. I hope you are understanding my point here. The Hindu shad-darshanas are NOT disjointed, mutually competitive schools of philosophy, nor are they different "viewpoints on the same plane (as they are unfortunately portrayed in some basic literature). Rather, they represent a gradual ascent on the path of jnana as discussed above, and different people may "get on" the train at a level they feel comfortable (i.e., how easily digestible the assumptions for each system are to them).

But this throwback to Sankhya (and certain Buddhist) and other "lower level" semantics while discussing a "higher altitude" system like Vedanta is characteristic of mayavadi commentaries, and I beg to argue that you may be making a similar error without realizing it.

I am not sure I fully understand you here. Just like sciences, spirituality may have developed through gradual efforts of many. But the earliest efforts are not altogether useless. Kapila's separation of the self from mana-budhhi-ahamkara, was momentous one, which formed the basis of whole of Indian meditative systems. It is no surprize that the Yoga-darshana is clubbed together with Samkhya amongst the shad-darshanas.

Vedanta obviously uses samkhya and yoga. For a clear example consider, Shvetashvatara upanishad which can be considered the original yoga text which emphasized meditation and uses samkhya basics:

'te dhyana-yoga-anugatanupashyan'

For me Samkhya is pretty 'high level'. Vedanta combines Rishi Kapila's original views with the essential 'unity' of self seen by many other sages. A good marriage IMHO.

QUOTENow when the Vaishnava acharyas insist on drawing a distinction between "material qualities" and "spiritual variegatedness", then it is worth some thought, and they have provided enough assistance to understand this. After all, this goes to the heart of the difference b/w "material" and "spiritual", a distinction the Vedas are constantly making. In a previous post you used the word "illusion" rather loosely, but could you now define it -- especially in the light of the good comments you made about "observer-object-observation"? The comments you made about cow-vision versus humann vision are really apt. This definition of "illusion" is important to understanding what the Vedas mean by "material" and "spiritual". So if we could crystallize your definition of "illusion", and the SOURCE of illusion, etc, then great progress can be made.
By 'illusion' in advaitic context I meant the usual definition of illusion, as taking something for something else.

Note that in advaita philosophy, Brahman is the only 'sat' or existence, phenomenal multiplicity world as seen by an observer is 'apparently real'. If an unity is supposed as the substratum, then an apparent multiplicity must arise (for that particular observer), through an agency that can be described thus:

For a certain observer, the action of Maya is twofold:

1. It hides (covering aspect) the one underlying reality from the concerned observer
2. It projects (creative aspect) variegated forms that are 'apparently real' as perceived by the concerned observer

Apparently real (or appearances) are objects that are perceived to be real temporarily but which can be subrated by a higher experience/knowledge.

There are many realms of 'appearances' and one realm of unity through which any given observer's observations can run.

This two fold action of hiding and projecting is due to the 'illusion' or Maya. Note that Maya is defined indirectly throgh the need to rconcile the existence of experiences that an observer can have (as claimed in Upanishads) that include a range from the ordinary world of multiplicity all the way to unity. Other systems such as Shaktas go into much more detail into the specific 'covering' and 'creative' aspects of Maya or Shakti. But in advaita vedanta, these two aspects of Maya are simply proposed, and origin of Maya itself is called 'anirvachaniya'.

Note also that defined this way, action of Maya is specific to the observer in world of appearances. If that specific observer attains 'mukti' and sees the unity of brahman, that doesn't imply that the same thing happens simultaneously for all the observers as seen from the world of apparent realities. Mukti is an individual experience, as seen from the world of appearances. As seen from the unitary level of brahman, there is just one universal observer anyway. And play of Maya is only for an observer making observations in the world of appearances, not for an observer that has attained unity.

QUOTEAlso, even though I didn't want to get into details, I did mention in my last post, that this so-called Vaikuntha is described as being transcendental to not only the gunas, but Time also. Now that should certainly have caught your attention, because it simply flips this "object-observer-observation" problem around. It is no longer sensible to talk in this way in a Realm where Time is "subservient" to Lila. A "succession of events" in linear fashion cannot be taken for granted. This is a point worth contemplating. Lots of windows fly open

Time as we understand it must be linear (or 1-Dimensional, which includes cyclical time). If the so called time is not linear (or 1-D) then may be we should call it something else. For example if time were to be N- dimensional, then why not call the whole contraption a 1-D time+(N-1)-D space.

Lila or 'play' in timelessness is a contradiction. A play is a sequence of events. And time is nothing but a way to arrange a sequence of events. I don't understand what you mean by time being "subservient' to 'Lila'. I hope it is not like Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice in Wonderland, where due to claimed friendship with Mr. Time, the watch had stopped at tea-time and it was tea-time forever at the Mad-Hatter's.

But I suspect I have misuderstood you, please do clarify.

QUOTEJust in case you think all this Vedic stuff is too "far out", I would like to draw your attention to the latest theories in Physics, viz. superstring theory, which I mentioned in a previous post. They are already saying that Time is actually capable of being an "Independent Actor", participating at will in, well, Reality...and that "parallel and intersecting(!) universes" exist in which Time behaves differently. I recommend you read "The Elegant Universe" by Nobel laureate Brian Greene, or at least watch the documentary on PBS. Modern scientific validation of certain ideas may make this Vedic Vaishnava stuff more digestible to our conditioned minds. It certain helped dampen my skepticism!

I have been a physicist for a big part of my life. Gone through whole of relativity, general relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory including quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, electro-weak unification, supersymmetry etc. Got introduced to string-theory more than a decade ago and worked through the strings, bosonic strings, superstrings etc. My considered opnion is that string-theory is pure mathematics, with pretentions of becoming physics someday. Watching its progress over decades, it is clear that String theory hasn't managed to produce any verifiable phenomenology. It miserably fails Popper's Falsifiability criterion as of now. And even the most ardent supporters don't foresee it predicting anything verifiable in near future. About only thing that has been promising about the string theories is the existence of spin-2 particle which could explain the graviton and perhaps lead to a renormalizable theory of quantum gravity and possibly a grand unified theory of interactions; and the modes of oscillations of string accounting for the mass spectra of particles. But the said promises have so far remained promises only, and haven't delivered.

Regarding "parallel" universes, this "explanation" was invented by Everett to explain the so called quantum-measurement paradox. This is not the only pssible explanation. And most physicists take the parallel universes idea with a generous pinch of salt. It is treated more as a theoretical curiosity rather than a statement about the universe per se.

I don't know what to make of "time being an independent actor" in physics. Could you further explain how "time" can be an actor. Take for example any of the main equations, Newton's, Schrodinger's, Dirac's, Maxwell's or Einstein's.

Regarding "intersecting" universes, if that were true then the principle of causality will have to bite the dust. That may be so, but again at present a sci-fi curiosity instead of "real" physics.

As of now, I choose to be a hard headed physicist regarding these matters, although there was a time when I was as flared up and excited about all the fancy stuff. This is my theory of "broken promises" instead of the usual theories of "broken symmetries".

QUOTE1) That you are making associations under very material assumptions, i.e. assumptios of rigid Time-bondage, etc. Please try to think more about this. All your theories involve Time-dependent event series. Try thinking outside this box for a moment.
2) Make a note that the Vedas are quite explicit that there are many different kinds of "liberation". Liberation means "liberation from the Time-bound material universe". "Truth" (sat) is defined as "eternal", and Untruth (asat, mithya) is defined as "transience". Therefore, as I've pointed out so many times in the last 2 posts, Time-bondage is the crucial factor here. Now all types of "liberation" are "eternal" in the sense that the Soul breaks free from Time-bondage, and free from all those constructs that depend on past-future for their existence (such as False Ego).

Yet, the Vedic literature is full of ordinal comparisons between the different types of "liberation". The significant point here is that there are virtually limitless possibilities in Universe, and it is at all times our spiritual aspirations that directly determine our destiny. Moreover, Universe is non-linear and cyclical in its workings, and what superficially might seem to be a development along a predetermined line, is in fact part of a much larger cycle that is invisible for our daily senses by virtue of its nonthinkable enormousness. Cyclic development, operative in a multitudinous array of Universes, is characterized by a limitless possibility of creation and manifestation. Thus, there is no line of development that is separated from or uninfluenced by our spiritual aims. It is of paramount importance to realize that it is up to us to create our destiny.

It is our Spirit that is the continuous Creator of our Path. This is our Marginal Free Will. And, as the Vedic literature clearly describes various paths, various loci of spiritual development, it means that each jiva has its own Marginal Free Will. Please take the magnificence of this fact into account. And note that "will" corresponds to Soul, not False Ego.

I agree that liberations can be of many types. But why do they all have to be of timeless kind? There are many types of bondages and many types of liberations. Most of the liberations can surely be in time. And a timeless liberation must be unique.

I can't comprehend 'events' beyond time. It just doesn't compute for me. On philosophical grounds I am willing to argue that in timelessness, multiplicity can't exist. Unity or multiplicty are certain observables for an observer where he counts instances of an occurence. In timelessness, observation has to be steady unperturbed one. A timeless observer can make only "one" observation. I would argue that an observation in timelessness must be unitary as there is no way to "count" instances of something by making one's consciousness jump from one object to another.

QUOTETell me where it says that the Soul is another material kosha. A "kosha" is, by convention, material, i.e., made from the subtle elements from prakriti and pradhAna.

Anandamaya-kosha is often called the jiva too. As I mentioned earlier, divisions between material and spiritual can be arbitrary.. If a 'jiva' can have 'finiteness', can have 'motion' in space and can have 'transformations' in time, then it is quite material for me.

QUOTESat is eternality, asat is transience. "Eternal" means "beyond the dominance of Time". It doesn't mean something that goes on and on in a linear time-scale.
Agree with the first statement, but am not sure whet to make of the second one in conjunction with the first one. If something is "eternal" for an observer within time, it must "go on and on in linear time". And if something has a beginning or end in time for an observer within time, then that object is within the dominance of time. What other definition of "dominance of time" there is? Are you saying that there are some objects that exist only for timeless observers and not for observers in time? It may well be. But as I already argued, observation of a timeless observer is unitary. A timeless observer can make only "one" observation.

QUOTEWithout being one with the Supreme, the Absolute, one cannot render service unto Him. In the absolute conception, there is no difference between the served and the servitor; yet the distinction is there, in a higher spiritual sense..."
Same can be said about the observer-object pair. But only in the context of Self. Only the Atman or Self is self conscious. But as long as the observer-object "distiction" remains, the level is still a "saguna" one. It is possible to have a deeper "nirguna" level where the "distinctions" vanish.

QUOTEThe only differencce between a mayavadi and an ass is the numbber of legs. Carl, what is the use of such phrases? Did Shri Chaitanya have nothing better to do than to spent so much of his efforts on merely refuting some two-legged asses? A fair debate will be where both sides recognize that other party may have some substance. The so called "Mayavadis" are not inconsequential just as the "Shunyavadis".

06-21-2005, 05:37 AM

Ashok Kumar,
Thanks for taking the time to expand on your ideas. I'll first point out where we agree, and then where I think you may be constricting yourself. I will introduce another angle towards the end.

Also, since you frequently refer to "Sankhya" philosophy in your comparative approach, I thought I'd mention that there is some controversy about what the 'real' Sankhya is. Kapila, son of Devahuti, propounded a Sankhya which falls in line with Vedanta, albeit at a lower level of discussion (in the Noetic model I outlined previously at some length). There is the other, non-theistic Sankhya interpretation given by another 'Kapila', and you are speaking in reference to that. Just thought I'd mention it, because many people seem to be unaware of this. It was the former that Krishna references in the Bhagavad Gita, and it is the former that is referenced in the Bhagavatam, etc.

QUOTETwo things that can interact can't be two mutually exclusive realities.
...
I consider the more pertinent classification 'real' versus 'unreal' (sat -asat).
...
There is no need to break it up arbitrarily into material or spiritual.That was EXACTLY my point. By material I meant asat, and by spiritual I meant sat. And I defined the difference in terms of eternality versus transience. And further, in terms of projections of consciousness.

QUOTEThis dichotomy in Samkhya is resolved in advaita through the questions of 'sat' (being) and 'asat' (non being), rather than 'material' and 'spiritual'. This is where the confusion arises. "Being" and "non-being" are misleading terms, and therefore need qualification, which Vedanta provides (but Sankhya doesn't). Sat and asat are clearly differentiated in terms of eternality and transience as per Vedanta (including Shankara's commentary on it). So let's be quite clear about this. The time-dimension is crucial to distinguishing the Sat from the Asat, i.e., the material from the spiritual. In oscillating back and forth between Vedanta and the particular commentary of Sankhya that you are referencing, you may be confusing semantics.

Now only if this were clear could we can begin to tackle the idea of "material attributes" versus "spiritual attributes". But then again, your definition of maya does not sit well with the Vedantic definitions of sat and asat as outlined above:

QUOTEBy 'illusion' in advaitic context I meant the usual definition of illusion, as taking something for something else.
...
Note that Maya is defined indirectly throgh the need to rconcile the existence of experiences that an observer can have (as claimed in Upanishads) that include a range from the ordinary world of multiplicity all the way to unity.I don't know what you mean by the "usual" definitions of illusion, but I hope you are aware of some historical legerdemain in this regard:

satattvato'nyatha buddhir vikara ity udiratah
atattvato'nyatha buddhir vivarta ity udahrtah

"The perception of a different object when a real object takes another form is called parinama (or vikara). Perception of a different object when there is actually no different object is called vivarta."

This is the original definition of concepts fundamentally related to maya. But, much after Shankara passed away, in debate with Ramanuja and later acharyas, the mayavadis actually rejected this Vedantic definition, and re-defined the terms vivarta, etc in order to make different sense of Shankara's commentaries. As I pointed out in a previous post, the mayavadis clung to Shankara's comentaries (which remained ambiguous on so many concepts and focussed mostly on superconscious Brahman versus Voidism). Instead, they would re-define or reject Vedanta definitions so that they fell in line with the ambiguities of Shankara's commentaries, rather than the other way around. The Vaishnava acharyas referrred directly to Vedanta...and still explained Shankara's intentional ambiguities in terms of the "time, place and recipient" of his teaching. So my point is that I hope you're aware of this in what you consider the "usual" definitions of maya.

Maya is the result of perverted projections of consciousness. You yourself made a very strong case in favour of this viewpoint when you said, "Two things that can interact can't be two mutually exclusive realities." In one (partial) sense, realized consciousness means seeing everything in relation to the Fountainhead, i.e. Godhead. I touched upon this in previous posts, and for much more in-depth discussions, you may delve into Vaishnava commentaries, which is the whole point of my making these posts -- to induce the reader to investigate bona fide literature.

QUOTENote also that defined this way, action of Maya is specific to the observer in world of appearances. If that specific observer attains 'mukti' and sees the unity of brahman, that doesn't imply that the same thing happens simultaneously for all the observers as seen from the world of apparent realities. Mukti is an individual experience, as seen from the world of appearances. As seen from the unitary level of brahman, there is just one universal observer anyway.That's a very unconvincing jugglery of concepts, without answering to the fundamental question of what is the unit of conscious experience. According to Vedanta, Atman is atomic, i.e., indivisible, and is also the unit of conscious experience. Also, maya springs from Godhead (the Supreme Soul) itself, therefore it cannot operate on fragmental parts of this Supreme Soul unless there is some sense of "spiritual separateness", or otherwise you end up with other contradictions. In fact, if Absolute Oneness is your theory, then what is maya itself? Where does it spring from, and why? In answering these questions, the mayavadis practically admitted defeat.

Let's take 4 of the many assertions Vedanta makes about the Supreme:
1,2,3) There can be no svajatiya or vijatiya bheda, nor svagata bheda in Absolute Truth. So how will you explain your understanding of maya, and discrete consciousness within maya existing in parallel with this "Lonely Oneness"? You cannot explain this without taking the time-factor aspect of the proper definition of sat and asat into consideration, which you are reluctat to do. OTOH, Impersonalism posits some sort of material dissolution or illusions of perception, "self-hypnosis", etc, which have been debunked. I have pointed out that maya is constant, even in liberation. Only it is a transformation from avidya-maya to vidya-maya.

4) The Supreme Soul can never be the object of anything.

The fact that the Vaishnavism takes this and the above into consideration should make you re-evaluate your hackneyed complaint of "observer-observation-observed", etc, and find out how Vaishnavism (i.e. the Vedas) understands this. To quote a tiny passage from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati:

"Krishna as Object of worship is one-Half, and, as the Support of His worshipper, He Himself is the other Half of the Whole. The variety of reciprocal activity of these Two Moieties constitutes the Fullness of the Divinity. Krishna is the complete realization of the Support of His worship. The transcendental reflections which are also of the nature of supporters are the worship of the Divinity, which appear in the different planes of cognitive existences..."

The Supreme is the impetus and reservoir of all rasa. Which then leads to a closer examination of the position of jiva, etc. (note the use of the term "transcendental reflections"). There is much to explore.

And these above 4 assertions are only in the "abheda" section of Vedanta, which Chaitanya Vaishnavism is quite comfortable explaining along with the other Upanishads. The great Rishis have defined Complete Knowledge as "seeing each thing in relation to the Whole". But step outside into the "bheda" and "ghataka" Upanishads, and any brand of mayavada has no way of reconciling...

QUOTELila or 'play' in timelessness is an oxymoron. A play is a sequence of events. And time is nothing but a way to arrange a sequence of events. I don't understand what you mean by time being "subservient' to 'Lila'.It is anirvachaniya no doubt, but not an oxymoron. It is an oxymoron only for lack of understanding and imagination. You may be familiar with concepts of "infinite nowness", etc, even found in Zen and other literatures. Let's just say that this is one part of understanding this. The only thing I can say now is that it requires some degree of immersion in the literature -- and sadhana -- to be able to expand one's intellect and imagination to draw closer to these esoteric concepts. I mentioned earlier how practice of certain kinds of sadhana can reveal the link between Time and Mind, and its effect on consciousness.

"The moment a fool gives up concentration
And his other spiritual practices,
He falls prey to fancies (intellectual & sensual) and desires.

Even after hearing the truth,
The fool clings to his folly..."

-Ashtavakra Gita 18:75-76

Actually your Alice in Wonderland example, though given in jest, was quite an interesting one. There are many rabbit-holes that are to be explored, if only people would learn to use both sides of the brain in spiritual quest. The yoga that employs all the faculties at our disposal is the best yoga, or the only complete yoga.

As regards my reference to String theory:
QUOTEIt miserably fails Popper's Falsifiability criterion as of now.
...
I can't comprehend 'events' beyond time. It just doesn't compute for me.I am quite aware of the multiple difficulties this fascinating theory has in terms of conventional proof, and that it is currently considered more metaphysics than physics. That will probably be the ultimate destiny of all material science anyway. With all due respect, I find it amazing that you consider it a proud characteristic of a "hard-headed" physicist to not be able to think beyond "linear time". And also that you are measuring such ambitious universal theories of "unification" by lame criteria such as Popperian falsifiability. Surely you have also heard of Godel's Incompleteness theorem? Within any given branch of mathematics or science, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that system itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical systems of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules...

Therefore, with all sincere respect, I would assert that the quest for the Absolute Truth requires a little more than what an average career in Physics demands. As we have seen, even the most ambitious theories in material Physics itself are stepping into the metaphysical. Therefore I pointed to string theory to give an idea of how respectable physicists are trying to wrestle with certain concepts, and not as some proven theory. Don't you agree that your desire to be able to "compute" everything seems a little naive in the face of the subject matter we are discussing here (Absolute Truth), as is your admission of not being able to (or not wanting to) think beyond the rigid confines of Time.

QUOTEI am willing to argue that in timelessness, multiplicity can't exist.
...
observation of a timeless observer is unitary. A timeless observer can make only "one" observation.I agree with the first statement, but only if you qualify "multiplicity" in the material sense of the term -- which takes us back to definitions of sat, asat, and avidya-maya. As for your second statement, and statements that sunder makes in his posts -- to speak of "one", or "alone", etc is as ludicrous as speaking of "two", "three" or "four" in the material sense. Nirguna is beyond number, in the discrete sense of countability. Therefore, saying "one", or "alone" (in a purely material conception) as a denial of spiritual variegatedness is also logically ludicrous.

QUOTECarl, what is the use of such phrases? Did Shri Chaitanya have nothing better to do than to spent so much of his efforts on merely refute some two-legged asses?Ashok, just ignore some caustic comments I may make about mayavadis, which are meant for the exclusive consumption of some others here, who set the tone for debate, much to my own chagrin. As for Lord Chaitanya, he, like all acharyas, spent some time and effort to counter mayavada so as to delineate truth from untruth as far as the innocent masses were concerned. Mayavada is a blanket term, covering various grades of false interpretation of the Vedas, and includes: agnostics, apotheosists, anthropomosphists (this is material saguna conception), impersonalists, henotheists, pantheists, and absolute monists.

Aside from trying to induce you to delve unreservedly into real Vedic literature as commented upon by bona fide acharyas, I would also like to suggest that you take a psychological approach to understanding theology. In fact, that was one of the primary motivations for all the Vaishnava acharyas to counter mayavada, because bhakti-yoga cannot be executed effectively if even a trace of Impersonalism remains in the psychology of the disciple.

So far we have been discussing only one side of a philosophy that is necessarily "multi-disciplinary." Why not expand the discussion to psychology also, exploring the role of Imagination and Emotion -- which influence Will at least as much as Intellect, and must also surely be part of Brahman/Maya?

It is a strong theory in psychology that the idea of Impersonal Absolute is attractive to neuroses arising from what we would call False Ego. It is an expression of denial of Personality and Relationship. Denial of relationship is tied to a whole bunch of neuroses arising from False Ego. Therefore, the Personalists have spoken of sAyujya mukti as "spiritual suicide". Why not explore some standard books on existential psychology, etc on this subject. To quote William Blake:

"God appears, and God is Light
To those poor souls who dwell in Night,
But does a Human Form display
To those who dwell in realms of Day."

Of course, don't nit-pick this bit of poetry, but take the essence of the point I'm making. The tri-guna division of Hindu scripture (scriptures divided into sets in the mode of tamas, rajas and sattva) is related to this psychological understanding of spiritual growth. In fastening the "sambandha-jnana" before the practice of yoga, the psychological orientation of the disciple is very important, because that shapes the Will of the disciple, and Will shapes the spiritual trajectory of his Soul. I spoke about this earlier.

sunder,
Yes I have a good knowledge of Sanskrit. Several sections in previous posts should have made it clear, as I spoke of nuances of meaning, and ambiguity of grammar. So yes, I'm comfortable with Sanskrit, though I don't make as big a deal of it as you seem to do.

06-24-2005, 03:21 AM

Carl, Thanks for the detailed response. There is much to discuss, but for now a couple of points:

QUOTEKapila, son of Devahuti, propounded a Sankhya which falls in line with Vedanta, albeit at a lower level of discussion (in the Noetic model I outlined previously at some length). There is the other, non-theistic Sankhya interpretation given by another 'Kapila', and you are speaking in reference to that. Just thought I'd mention it, because many people seem to be unaware of this. It was the former that Krishna references in the Bhagavad Gita, and it is the former that is referenced in the Bhagavatam, etc.
Well, Probably they are the same vedic sage Kapila. Texts like Sankhya-Sutra and Sankhya-Karika were composed much later than vedic times. What part of original wisdom of sage Kapila is present in these relatively modern texts we don't know. But taking all the Sankhya like statements in Veda ( e.g. 3 coloured goat ( ajaa hyekaa lohit-shukla-krishna varnaa), and two birds living on a tree (dvaa suparnaa sayujaa sakhayaa), and in Gita and puranas, there seems to be fair agreement on the basics of Sankhya. Your objection seems to be against the "Ishvara-asiddheh" (Since God is unproven) sutra. Traditional Sankhya doesn't make any claims one way or another about Ishvara. It doesn't reject or affirm Ishvara. On the other hand, associated darshana of Yoga has a "purusha vishesha" called Ishavra. When Buddhists borrow Sankhya they are happy with the atheistic interpretations. But for most hindus, atheistic or non-theistic part of Sankhya is not critically important. Main point of Sankhya was to theoretically explain meditation, something which lets a practitioner to go deeper within oneself and see one's own self separate and deeper than various inner constructs such as mind, intellect and ego.

This non-theistic (or even atheistic by some accounts) streak in Sankhya is problematic to systems that are theistic. But that doesn't necessarily mean original sage Kapila himself had proposed a theistic system. I am neutral even if sage Kapila wer a hardcore atheist. Doesn't lessen his contribution in any way. Albeit in Gita the Sankhya sections are clearly theistic.
QUOTEThis is where the confusion arises. "Being" and "non-being" are misleading terms, and therefore need qualification, which Vedanta provides (but Sankhya doesn't). Sat and asat are clearly differentiated in terms of eternality and transience as per Vedanta (including Shankara's commentary on it). So let's be quite clear about this. The time-dimension is crucial to distinguishing the Sat from the Asat, i.e., the material from the spiritual. In oscillating back and forth between Vedanta and the particular commentary of Sankhya that you are referencing, you may be confusing semantics.
I agree that while using 'sat' and 'asat' there is indeed a risk of mixing up semantics.

The simplest meaning of 'sat' is simplely 'being'. A 'sat' object is something which 'is'. In that sense there is no temporal permanence implied. Only the state of being at the present time. But then one may doubt if something is 'really existent' if it vanishes next moment. In that sense a truly 'sat' object could be expected to have permanence in time.

But in Advaita Vedanta it is not the temporal permanence that is taken as a characteristic of 'sat'. For example I can remain in 'illusion' forever and think that a particular rope lying in a dark room is a snake. If I never turn on the lights, then that 'snake' will have a temporal permanence for me. But that 'snake' wouldn't be called 'sat' in Advaita. In advaita 'sat' is determined by permanency under increasing illumination (Jnana). Only if a person's state of illumination (or knowledge, Jnana) is increasing with time, would 'sat' then also correspond with permanence in time. But if a person's illumination is not increasing with time, then for him things can have temporal permanence, but which would not be classified as 'sat'.

Although in the timeless state of Brahman, all these different meanings of 'sat' merge. Because Brahman is not only timeless, but is also the state of highest illumination and also existing or 'being' in the simplest sense of the word.
QUOTE"The perception of a different object when a real object takes another form is called parinama (or vikara). Perception of a different object when there is actually no different object is called vivarta."

This is the original definition of concepts fundamentally related to maya.This is indeed a big debate. In Vedic literature one can find instances where God became the universe, or God created the universe and then entered it, or Brahman has 'become' everything.. Many such statements seem to support 'parinaama' type transformation.

But in advaita, as you also mentioned, 'vivarta' is assumed. The famous rope-snake example is clearly a 'vivarta' example. Let me just mention here that advaita is a very 'careful' philosophy and 'vivarta' helps in securing many ends.

If you consider 'parinaama' then there are many other kinds of problems. If God (or Brahman) has indeed now become everything, how can he still be one? Does that mean creation of universe by God is like a self-sacrifice on his part? Then God and universe wouldn't be existing simultaneously.

A way out for 'parinaama' type of theories could be the 'achintya-bheda-abheda' which you prefer. God becomes the multiplicity and yet remains one. But as we have argued in the past, the apparent contradiction in the concept can be philosophically controversial.

Another example is like that of a spider creating a web from its own silk (yathorna-nabhih srijate-grihnate cha). In that case universe although materially derived from God, will have a separte reality from him. But here creation will then 'limit' the creator. Any distinguishing attribute is a limiting attribute too. And if universe and God are distinguished, they also limit each other.

Another theory is that God creates the universe out of nothing and rules over it as a separate entity. This theory has many holes. Creation of something out of nothing is philosophically very problematic. Although we have statements like 'asad-eve idam agre aaseet'. But this 'asat' usually is not translated as 'nothing', but as an absence of forms, not an absence of essence.

Out of all 'parinaama' type of theories, 'achintya bheda-abheda' is the strongest, although the implied contradiction in the concept pulls it more towards mysticism than philosophy.
QUOTEAlso, maya springs from Godhead (the Supreme Soul) itself, therefore it cannot operate on fragmental parts of this Supreme Soul unless there is some sense of "spiritual separateness", or otherwise you end up with other contradictions. In fact, if Absolute Oneness is your theory, then what is maya itself? Where does it spring from, and why? In answering these questions, the mayavadis practically admitted defeat.It superfiacially appears that there is a big difference between 'parinaama' type of transformation and 'vivarta'. Vivarta type of transformation allows advaita to confine the action of Maya at the level of individual observer. But if God's universal Maya (Yogamaya), caused a 'parinaama' type of transformation of God himself, then any individual's 'mukti' can not bring that individual to a state of undifferentiated oneness. Not until the pralaya when God decides to withdraw the multiplicity into himself.

But I think this is indeed a superficial difference. When an individual attains mukti, then he also attains a timeless state. Creation, sustenance and pralaya of the universe by God all are within time. If individual 'mukti' is timeless, then there is no need for the individual to be waiting till 'pralaya' for the multiplicity to submerge back into God. He is already there. Bounds of time do not apply to him when he has transcended to a timeless state.
QUOTESo how will you explain your understanding of maya, and discrete consciousness within maya existing in parallel with this "Lonely Oneness"?
Advaita doesn't talk about things as they 'are'. But rather things as seen by a certain observer. More of epistemology than ontology.

An observer's observation span a range from multiplicity of phenomenal and temporal world all the way to timeless unity of Brahman. These observations are not made 'simultaneously'. So there is no need to explain Maya, and jivas existing simultaneously with the "Lonely Oneness". In one state of illumination (Jnana), the observer is in multiplicity and under the influenece of Maya. But when in unity, there is no multiplicity and no need for Maya there. Remember the 'rope' doesn't become real (for a certain observer) till the lights are turned on. But then the 'snake' vanishes.

The theory is careful. But nagging questions about the 'origins' of Maya do remain. Advaita calls the origin of Maya 'anivachaniya' or not explainable wihin the theory. This is perhaps the weakest part of the theory, as you have also mentioned repeatedly. But it doesn't break the theory. The action of Maya is indirectly inferred from the need to reconcile the range of experiences that an observer can have, from multiplicity to unity. So need for Maya is justifiable. Its two fold action of covering and projecting is explained. But origin of Maya is left unsatisfactorily explained.

This is not a fatal flaw in the theory. But rather an incompleteness. Other theories may be able to delve on nature of Maya or Shakti more adequately. Somewhat like Mechanics, Thermodynamics, electromagnetism etc being separate theories explaining the same old material world, but with different emphases. What Advaita does best is the enunciation of Self, Consciousness and Being. There may be other theories that do better in other things.

07-09-2005, 10:15 AM

Ashok Kumar,
Sorry for the delayed reply, but I was waiting for a more complete response to the many points I've been raising. Anyway, here's a brief response to some of the things you said in your last post, followed by a good article that deals with what appears to be the approach you are wittingly or unwittingly taking.

QUOTEIn advaita 'sat' is determined by permanency under increasing illumination (Jnana). Only if a person's state of illumination (or knowledge, Jnana) is increasing with time, would 'sat' then also correspond with permanence in time.Where is "sat" defined like this in authentic Vedantic texts? I don't know what you mean by "Advaita defines...". We are interested in how Vedanta defines things. AFAIK, "sat" is an ontological concept, not a relative phenomenological hermeneutic.

IMHO, your comments about the Vaishnava (Vedic) position on vivarta/parinama, etc are misinformed. This is because you are again subconsciously clinging to a preconceived notion of eventual "complete merger" with "Brahman". Perhaps we will come back to this later.

QUOTEAdvaita doesn't talk about things as they 'are'. But rather things as seen by a certain observer. More of epistemology than ontology.I think even a diehard true Advaitin will be offended by this statement of yours. It is a drastic retreat from several positions taken by various brands of "Advaitins"...

The relativistic "viewpoint" kind of ideas you are repeating have nothing to do with classical Advaita as propounded by Sripada Sankara. Instead, they are actually the recent "neo-Vedanta" theories floated by some people, whose main motivation has been to somehow "unite" the different schools of thought within "Hindu" society, along with some late 19th and 20th century half-baked European philosophies. Their theories often appeal to traditional historical authorities like Shankara and even Sri Chaitanya, but actually have ZERO FIDELITY to either. Please read the article that I am posting here. It is a review of a book criticizing the Vaishnava viewpoint put forward by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, one of its most prodigious exponents in modern times. The critique is by a neo-Vedantist (the mish-mash theory that you have been speaking from). My comments are inserted in italics.

Note: The article does not deal with explanations of the Vaishnava or Shankara's viewpoints. It only points out the bogus philosophical basis of the neo-Vedanta milieu that started defining "Hinduism" about 100 years ago. Like all other "New Age" type philosophies, this is also a hodgepodge that does a grave injustice to ALL the great historical personalities (including shankara) that it tries to base itself on.

Article Link
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book Review
A Critique of A. C. Bhaktivedanta
Author: K. P. Sinha
Publisher: Punthi-Pustak, Calcutta, 1997
ISBN: 81-86791-09-4

The aim of this book is to discredit Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's presentation of the Vedic literature, and indirectly the Gaudiya-Vedanta viewpoint. In its place, the author Dr K.P. Sinha, professor of Sanskrit at Assam University, presents Neo-Vedanta as the complete and authoritative solution to all philosophical and hermeneutic problems in Indian philosophy. The term 'Neo-Vedanta' refers to the loosely organised, relativistic system that attempts to reconcile the views of all the Indian philosophical schools into a single, coherent system. This system emerged primarily from the teachings of the 19[th] century Hindu teacher Ramakrishna and others like Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan who popularised this trend of thought in modern Hinduism.[1] Although Sinha never uses the term 'Neo-Vedanta' it is unmistakably his approach.

Sinha's book quotes two-hundred and fifty passages from Srila Prabhupada's books, taken primarily from his commentaries on the Bhagavad-gita and Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. In 16 chapters organised by topic, they are subsequently addressed point by point from a Neo-Vedantic perspective. Prabhupada's positions on Brahman, monism (advaita), knowledge (jnana), devotion (bhakti), illusion (vivarta-vada) and various heterodox schools are challenged with an abundance of references to a wide range of Vedic literature, secondary literature and their commentaries.

The central argument of the book is that Prabhupada has not really understood the catholic viewpoint of the Vedic literature and has consequently made many needless 'misinterpretations and unkind remarks' against non-Vaisnava systems, particularly 'the Mayavadis' â teachers of Advaita and Neo-Vedanta. The book's stated purpose is therefore 'to undertake the task of pointing out those misinterpretations and giving the correct views of the relevant concepts of the systems concerned ... to remove the evil effects these misinterpretations and unkind remarks tend to create in the hearts of readers of Bhaktivedanta's discourses.'[2] His underlying thesis is that Srila Prabhupada's books represent Vaisnava sectarianism which needs to be re-evaluated in the light of an all-inclusive framework. {As you can see, they are more bothered about social harmony rather than fidelity to Vedic literature}

[...]
In response to this rich polemical tradition {between various schools of Vedanta}, the proponents of Neo-Vedanta attempted to incorporate the advantages of both by artificially combining the opposing conceptions into a single dual-natured Brahman {with an untenable two-tiered explanation of Reality}. Neo-Vedanta, they said, is the ultimate resolution to the advaita-versus-Vaisnava controversy with the potential of becoming a universal philosophy. Neo-Vedanta was then hailed as 'a grand ideal' of religious harmony and the 'death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecution with the sword or with the pen'.[3] In his preface, Sinha announces his intention to demonstrate the same ideal in the course of his analysis of Prabhupada's writings.

Specifically, Sinha's Neo-Vedanta accepts both the personal and the non-personal aspects on equal footing in what has been described as 'a many-faceted Personal-Impersonal Absolute Being'. Both principles are said to coexist harmoniously like 'two sides of a coin'.[4] Using Ramakrishna's example, he says, 'Just as the same substance may manifest itself as water or ice depending on the degree of temperature.'[5] Both exist with the same reality and validity with respect to two different frames of reference. When one aspect (the personal natures of God and the souls) is experienced, the other (the monistic aspect) is not, and vice-versa.[6] This system is promoted by Neo-Vedantists as the real philosophy of the Veda, and in its support Sinha cites both monistic and personalistic sources profusely.

Since all of Prabhupada's writings are critiqued consistently from Sinha's perspective, it is useful to examine his Neo-Vedanta. The most obvious problem with Sinha's presentation {i.e., the "neo-Vedanta" viewpoint} is its mishandling of both monistic and Vaisnava texts.

Sri Caitanya (1486-1534) of the Vaisnava tradition has been blatantly misrepresented. Although He accepted the existence of the monistic aspect, He clearly rejected it as an object of meditation, or a goal of spiritual life. Over-emphasis of the non-personal aspect covers the spiritual opulences (cid-vibhuti) of the Lord in the name of impersonalism (nirakara).[7] In that tradition Srila Prabhupada has faithfully rejected monism as the goal of spiritual life. In his critique, however, Sinha in effect pits Srila Prabhupada's views against those of Sri Caitanya, whom he portrays as a Neo-Vedantist:

...the differences between Sankara and Sri Caitanya are very little and negligible. Hence, Sri Caitanya's ruthless criticism of Sankara should be explained as an extravagance guided by his strong desire to redirect men pursuing the philosophical path of knowledge to the emotional path of bhakti.[8]

Sinha proceeds to misinterpret esoteric dualistic states of devotional ecstasy in Gaudiya-Vaisnava literature like mahabhava and prema-vilasa-vivarta as essentially non-personalistic experiences[9]. This attempt to support his dual-Brahman theory is unconvincing, because the Gaudiya Vedanta commentary does not even refer to an independent non-personal Brahman as envisaged in Neo-Vedanta. The Gaudiya school does, however, acknowledge a non-personal effulgence (called tejas or jyoti) resting entirely on the foundation (pratistha) of God's personality.[10] The personal feature, however, is exalted as the highly concentrated source of the non-personal Brahman.[11] Jiva Goswami, a contemporary follower of Sri Caitanya, however, clarifies the personalism of Gaudiya philosophy: 'Bhagavan is, however, the original feature of the Supreme, and Brahman is manifested at a later time from the form of Bhagavan.'[12] Gaudiya Vaisnavas also cite the Bhagavata Purana, which relates to us how Arjuna became aware of the non-personal effulgence (param jyoti) as it emanated from the personal Brahman, clarifying the actual relationship of these two aspects of Brahman.[13] Therefore, Sinha's presentation of Sri Caitanya and His followers as Neo-Vedantists is misleading.

Sankara (788 ce), founder of the monistic (advaita) school, has also been utterly misrepresented by Sinha, He states, 'The philosophy of Sankara has two currents: When he speaks strictly as a philosopher, he points his attention to the formless and qualityless Brahman ... when he speaks as a devotee, he directs his attention to the divine beauty of ... the emotional Absolute. All this clearly shows that Sankara accepts the existence of Purusottam Krsna, the Personal Absolute'.[14] This sort of mispresentation of the monism of Sankara by other Neo-Vedantists has drawn severe criticism from the Dvaita scholar B.N.K. Sharma, whose comments are equally applicable to Sinha's presentation:

This picture is however far from being correct or true to Sankara's own clear pronouncements in his Brahma-sutra-bhasya, or even logically consistent. Sankara's pronouncements on the status of Saguna and Nirguna Brahmans and the factual existence of the world ... give no support to any of the articles of faith of 'Neo-Vedanta' [in which] the Saguna and Nirguna Brahmans have been placed on the same par as the two sides of the same coin having the same reality and validity. After crying down [Sankara's] two-tier theory of truth, it is a surreptitious way of introducing it again by way of 'different frames of reference'.[15]

The idea of the Savisesa [personal] and Nirvisesa [non-personal] Brahman both having the same reality and validity as the two sides of the same coin or the vast liquidity of the Ocean and the solid icebergs in another part has been severely criticised by Sankara under his Vedanta commentary 2.1.14 (na canekatmakam). He argues that the Supreme Brahman can never be anekatmakam (double-sided) like the coin with two sides (as Neo-Vedanta wants us to believe). Sankara thunders, 'Nonduality will have nothing to do with accommodating difference of states of experience of Saguna and Nirguna from different frames of reference at any time in its being'(2.1.14). 'Brahman cannot be intrinsically double-natured (na svata eva anekatmakam) as the two natures are diametrically opposed to each other (virodha)...' Lastly, the Upanisadic thesis of ekavijnanena satvavijnanam (knowing the many by knowing the One) will be disproved and falsified, if it were true that when the one [aspect of Brahman] is known the other is not.[16]

Indeed, Sankara unambiguously denies a dual-natured Brahman and condemns the devotional relation:

Brahman must be held to be altogether without form, not at the same time of an opposite nature ... Brahman does not possess double characteristics although it is connected with limiting adjuncts. Nor is it possible that Brahman should possess double characteristics 'on account of place'. ... If the conception of duality is once uprooted by the conception of absolute unity, it cannot arise again, and so [it can] no longer be the cause of Brahman being looked upon as the complementary object of injunctions of devotion.[17]

It should also be noted that Sankara and the monists teach the unique doctrine of illusionism (mithyatva) that, strictly speaking, regards the world and individuality as completely illusory, or non-existent. Neo-Vedanta, however, while liberally using the language of the monists, sees them as merely temporary.[18] This dilution of illusionism from indicating unreality to a transient reality clearly signals a departure from classical monistic metaphysics of Advaita.

Also common in the book is his frequent appeal to Sankara's discussion in Vedanta-sutra 4.4.12 about how a liberated soul can animate several bodies at once or live without a body. Using this, Sinha tries to prove that Advaita philosophy accommodates his dual-natured liberation and Brahman theory.[19] However, it is clear from context that those 'bodies' exist not in spiritual perfection but only in the lower illusory (vyavaharika) state of monistic philosophy.[20]

Sinha's critique also fails to recognise the partial Vaisnava character of even Sankara's major commentaries by proposing that the deities Kali and Siva are also complete aspects of Brahman, in addition to Visnu. However, in his unquestionably authentic works, Sankara only identifies God (isvara) as Visnu, rather than as any other deity. In his Gita commentary (13.2), isvara is identified with Visnu: isvarasya visnoh. Another identification occurs in Vedanta-sutra 2.2.42, where he accepts the Pancaratra teaching that Narayana is 'higher than the undeveloped, the highest Self and the Self of all' and is the source of innumerable expansions. (See also similar acknowledgements in his comments to Vedanta-sutra 1.4.1, 1.4.3 and Gita 15.6.) The same idea is repeatedly expressed in his exaltation of Visnu's abode as the pure highest place (paramam padam) and as the end of the spiritual journey.[21] Even his commentary to the Svetasvatara Upanisad, with its usage of the names 'Siva' and 'Hara', does not make any identification of Isvara with the deity Siva. Furthermore, in his Vedanta commentary, Sankara refutes certain concepts of ancient Pasupata (Saiva) schools. Therefore, Sinha's presentation of Sankara acknowledging an equality of various deities is misleading.

In summary, Sinha's approach is wrong and disingenuous, as it puts Adi Sankara and his followers against each other on many fundamental issues. The integrity of Sinha's approach to Sankara, therefore, collapses in light of the foregoing evidences of his clearly monistic position.

Not only is Sinha's presentation of other acaryas inaccurate, but his Neo-Vedanta philosophy itself has certain problems. He frequently states that upon liberation, the soul 'may merge into the body of the Absolute.'[22] Specifically, this concept of 'merging' or the literal dissolution of one's identity into the non-personal Brahman closely resembles, as noted insightfully by B.N.K. Sharma, that of ancient philosophy of bhedabheda {this is DIFFERENT from the acintya bheda-abheda of Sri Chaitanya}. This doctrine of 'difference â non-difference' was rejected by all the Vedanta schools.[23] While Vaisnava schools accept difference (bheda) and only a relative oneness (abheda) or similarity between the soul and God, this bhedabheda doctrine calls for an absolute oneness and difference, as does Neo-Vedanta.

Specifically, the classical bhedabheda of Bhaskara holds that bheda and abheda are sequential: the initially distinct (bheda) infinitesimal soul can, upon liberation, become identical to the unlimited Brahman (abheda). This concept of spiritual mutability is fundamentally at odds with Vedic philosophy since it indirectly challenges the infallibility of Brahman by allowing for change, thereby dragging the pure Brahman conception down into the gutter of imperfection.[24] This has been the perennial charge against bhedabheda, and as a variant, Neo-Vedanta is also subject to the same criticism.

In addition to this sequential view, Sinha and other Neo-Vedantists also accept both bheda and abheda in a different sense. Sinha states the soul 'may merge into the body of the Absolute or may retain its individuality, according to the self's choice or liking'. Whichever 'choice' the soul makes, both bheda and abheda are supposedly simultaneously operative in liberation, the terms merely reflecting differences in perspective.[25] However, this attempt to project such a dual-natured liberation theory into any Vaisnava-Vedanta is unacceptable, because the devotional relation (bhakti) in such a system is compromised as insubstantial and unreal in the monistic 'frame of reference'. This flaw is pointed out by the Dvaita-Vaisnava-Vedantist Raghunatha Tirtha (1695-1742): the bheda component of this bhedabheda-vada 'offers no impediment to the jiva's intuiting the blessedness of Brahman as his own, as [the difference] exists only in a rarefied form in the state of liberation and is as good as non-existent.'[26] Thus, bhedabheda in both variants essentially rejects bheda and the proper understanding of abheda, and, consequently, the bhakti relation. Therefore, Neo-Vedanta, as a modern form of bhedabheda is fundamentally hostile to pure devotion (bhakti) and can never be consistent with any Vaisnava-Vedanta framework.

After refuting some salient points of variants of bhedabheda philosophy, the Sri Vaisnava acarya Ramanuja (1017-1137) concludes:

Brahman becomes, on this theory, subject to the evil of conjunction with an infinite number of limiting conditions without any determinate localisation of effects. There is no way of escaping this consequence. The theory is only for the consumption of believers and can withstand no open-minded inquiry. The wise, learned in the philosophical sciences, do not have any esteem for it.[27]

He goes so far as to indicate that bhedabheda and its variations are more sinful than classical Advaita.[28] However that may be, Neo-Vedanta suffers from the same philosophical problems.

Interestingly, Sinha's critique promotes Ramakrishna as a Vedantin, even referring to him rather uncritically as an incarnation (avatara) of God.[29] Jeffrey J. Kripal's intriguing work Kali's Child: The Mystical and The Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna deconstructs the Ramakrishna myth revealing little more than an unorthodox tantric sexuality at the basis of his life, sayings, practices, and even literary styles of his biographers.[30] In both the Tantra traditions and Neo-Vedanta, the Brahman conception suffers from spiritual mutability since both traditions maintain real individual can literally dissolve its identity into a monistic perfection, as in the bhedabheda doctrine. For whatever reason, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and modern proponents like Sinha have never bothered to address standing objections as they re-introduced the concept of spiritual mutability. 

Using his Neo-Vedantic prism {Ashok ji, I think you are also culpable on this count, wittingly or unwittingly}, Sinha quotes and interprets passages of Pancaratra literature to support his concept of dual-Brahman. However, not only does Vaisnava personalism candidly dominate the Pancaratra literature, but even terms like nirguna and sayujya, commonly understood monistically, are defined in the Vaisnava sense: 'Because [Brahman] has no contact with any ordinary qualities, it is called nirguna. Listen, Narada, to the six [transcendental] qualities.'[31] 'He who has become attached to the jewel of gems (maniratna, the kaustubha) is said to have attained identity with the Lord' (Visnu-tilaka 2.45).[32] 'Just as gold in the midst of fire shines separately as though it were not in contact (with the fire), even so he who is clinging to Brahman (Brahman-lagna) is seen to exist in the form of a gem (mani)' (Visnu-tilaka 2.30). In the Padma-tantra (1.4.14-15), this very issue is addressed: 'What is the difference, O Highest Spirit, between Thee and the liberated soul?' The answer, starting off with a monistic flavour, says, 'They (the liberated) become "I". There is no difference whatsoever,' but ends by affirming plurality in perfection: 'As I live (viharami), just so live the liberated souls.'[33] Such passages affirm the Vaisnava character of even the apparently monistic statements of the Pancaratra.

In section thirteen, Sinha criticises Srila Prabhupada's explanation of the spiritual nature of Lord Krsna's body. Specifically, Sinha {and the neo-Vedanta types} suggests that at the time of descent into this world, the transcendental body of the Lord becomes embodied in a visually similar body of flesh and blood. This interpretation is specifically rejected by Vaisnava Vedantists, because it relies on an inapplicable and mundane interpretation of 'sambhavami' (literally, 'I take birth') of Bhagavad-gita 4.6. Even Sankaracarya, who ultimately rejects all material and spiritual form as illusory, explains the word in the proper way: 'I appear to become embodied (dehavan iva), as though born (jata iva); ... but not in reality (na paramarthato) like an ordinary man (lokavat).'[34] Similarly, another famous Advaitin, Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati, explicitly states that Lord Krsna's body is made of eternity, knowledge and bliss (sac-cid-ananda-ghana) and is manifested (avirbhavah) even at the time of His birth (janmakale) (4.6, 7.24).[35] Interestingly, S. Radhakrishnan, another Neo-Vedantist, recognizing this classical interpretation, rejected it as 'unsatisfactory', offering the same mundane explanation of Krsna's which is repeated by Sinha.

Throughout his book, Sinha claims to champion the cause of pure non-sectarian Vedanta, but even this claim is thrown into question in his concluding sections (chapters 14-16) which attempt to harmonise non-Vedic doctrines with Vedanta. For example, the materialistic philosophy of Carvaka is presented as respectable and conducive to morality and social harmony, despite clear pronouncements by Lord Krsna to the contrary in Bhagavad-gita (16.8).[36] Then he presents and accedes to Buddhist arguments against Vedanta. One such concession is the denial of the eternality of the Veda in its linguistic format.[37] The universally accepted Vedanta viewpoint, however, is expressed in the Brahmanda Purana: 'The Vedas are eternal, in their entirety; are enduring, and present in the mind of Visnu; at creation after creation, they are brought up as they are; with the same order, same characters, and the same notes, never otherwise.'[38] Sinha also defends the Buddhist contention that their state of perfection (sunya) is not merely an absolute void, but a state of positive bliss. However, this overlooks the fact that the Buddhist definition of sunya and Vedantic definition of asat (non-existence) are, in fact, similar.[39] Sinha also accepts their view that the absolute truth lies midway between nihilism (sunyavada) and eternalism (sasvatavada) and, inaccurately, concludes that this final state is consistent with Brahman realisation of Advaita. Thus, the philosophy of Sinha, like those of Ramakrishna and other Neo-Vedantists before him, ultimately accomodates materialism, impersonality, personality, nihilistic void, and anything and everything else â all in one relativistic system.

Ravindra-svarupa Dasa sums up the substance of Neo-Vedanta:

Those who have adopted traditional Advaita Vedanta to modern sorts of relativism have introduced a change that we should note carefully. ... The thinkers who have 'deepened' Sankaracarya's relativism have done away with an established illusion. No specific revelation carries universal authority, even provisionally. As I once heard a college girl say, expressing the popular rendition of this 'deepening': 'If you believe it's true, it's true for you.' Thus the modern, deracinated individual becomes the author of reality, of creation. He is now set free to believe in everything whatsoever precisely because he believes in nothing at all.[40]

Sinha's major criticism of Prabhupada's supposed misrepresentation of others has several other bases. One possible source is that Srila Prabhupada uses the term 'Mayavada' broadly to refer to both classical monism of Sankara as well as Neo-Vedanta, since both see illusion (maya) as a relatively independent principle. Therefore, each of his criticisms of 'Mayavada' do not necessarily apply to both types. Another possible source is how Srila Prabhupada not only criticises the face-value of monism but also for what is, in his view, its logical extensions and indirect results like materialism.[41] In fact, the Bhagavad-gita (12.5) affirms the relative difficulty of meditation on the non-personal aura of Brahman, and the failure in this path naturally results in materialism. Another cause of misgivings is Srila Prabhupada's writing style, which is spiced with humour, sarcasm, and contemporary socio-religious criticism. In particular, his sharp remarks against very reputable philosophical opponents like Sankara, Vivekananda, and Radhakrishnan are criticised by Sinha as 'unparliamentary'.[42] However, when seen in context, these remarks shatter the sentimentalism of secular religion and provoke analytical thought in his readers. It should be noted that Srila Prabhupada was personally very respectful to all his opponents including Radhakrishnan. {I guess this is what rats like sunder and gang were whining about before they ran off to start a stinker of a thread to malign and mud-sling}

[...]
In summary, Sinha's critique of Srila Prabhupada's works amounts to a presentation of the relativistic Neo-Vedanta outlook with its underlying hostility towards the fundamental truth of bhakti as well as Vedanta. Although he ambitiously cites an impressive array of Vedic and Saivite texts, he disingenuously invokes the names of Sankaracarya and Sri Caitanya to support his philosophy and, like others before him, fails to address the universal objections to spiritual mutability. Nevertheless, this Neo-Vedantic challenge to Vaisnavism will be of interest to ISKCON devotees currently involved in dialogue with adherents of modern Hindu philosophy.

Gerald Surya
Gerald Surya has been a congregational member of the Brooklyn (New York) Temple for ten years. He has an interest in Vaisnava philosophy and has done interviews for the Journal of Vaishnava Studies. He is a graduate of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, (M.D. in 1995) and is currently practising internal medicine in the New York City area.

References:

[1] Swami Tapasyananda, Bhakti Schools of Vedanta (Madras, Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1990), xxiii.
Back

[2] Sinha, P., Critique of A.C. Bhaktivedanta, (Calcutta: Punthi-pustak, 1995), p. vii.
Back

[3] Vivekananda quoted in Tapasyananda, p. 356.
Back

[4] Tapasyananda, p. xxxiii.
Back

[5] Sinha, p. 36. Ramakrishna uses the example in the same way (Tapasyananda, p. 364).
Back

[6] Sinha, p. 35.
Back

[7] Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 7.122.
Back

[8] Sinha, p. 138.
Back

[9] Sinha, p. 94.
Back

[10] Bhagavad-gita 14.27, Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.11, Harivamsa cited in Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.89.51p.
Back

[11] Vireswarananda Swami. Srimad Bhagavad-gita with the gloss of Sridhara Swami (Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1991), 14.27
Back

[12] Kusakratha Dasa, Jiva Goswami's Bhagavata-sandarbha (Alachua: Krsna Institute, 1995), Anuccheda 7.
Back

[13] Harivamsa cited in Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.89.51p.
Back

[14] Sinha, p. 34.
Back

[15] Sharma, B.N.K., (a) Advaitasiddhi vs. Nyayamrta: an up-to-date critical reappraisal, Part 1 (Bangalore: Anandatirtha Pratisthana of the Akhila Bharata Madhva Mahamandal, 1994), p. xxiii.
Back

[16] Sharma (a), pp. xxiv-xxv
Back

[17] Thibaut, G. Vedanta-sutras with the commentary by Sankaracarya (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1998) 3.2.11; 1.1.4.
Back

[18] Sinha criticises Prabhupada's understanding of both the monistic and Vaisnava understandings of vivarta-vada and instead offers his own Neo-Vedantic view (See pp. 181, 200).
Back

[19]Sinha, p. 95.
Back

[20] Ghate, V.S. The Vedanta: A study of the Brahma-sutras with the bhasyas of Sankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, and Vallabha (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1926), 162-165.
Back

[21] In Vedanta-sutra 4.3.10, Sankaracarya refers to Visnu's abode as the highest â 'the souls proceed to what is higher than [the world of Brahma], i.e. to the pure highest place of Visnu' (param parisuddham visnoh paramam padam pratipadyante). See also the similar references in his comments to 1.4.1-4, 3.3.15.
Back

[22]Sinha, p. 82.
Back

[23] All Vedantists criticise an aspect of bhedabheda in their comments to Vedanta-sutra 2.3.41. See Nimbarka's Vedanta-parijata-saurabha, Madhva's Sutra-bhasya, Ramanuja's Sri-bhasya, and Baladeva's Govinda-bhasya.
Back

[24] Raghavachar, S.S., Vedartha-sangraha of Ramanujacarya (Mysore: Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama, 1978), verse 74.
Back

[25] Sinha, p. 34.
Back

[26] trtiye muktau bhedasadbhave'pi nanusandhanapratibandhah, tadanim bhedasya dagdhapatayamanatvena jivanmuktavantah karanasyevasatkalpatvata â Raghunatha Tirtha's Vedanta-sutra 3.2.18 from Sharma, B.N.K. (b) The Brahma-sutras and Their Principal Commentaries 2[nd] ed. (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1986) Volume 3, p. 99.
Back

[27] Vedartha-sangraha, verse 73.
Back

[28] brahmajnanavadad api papiyan ayam bhedabhedapaksakâVedartha-sangraha cited in Sharma (a), p. xxv.
Back

[29] Sinha, p. 220.
Back

[30] Kripal, J., Kali's Child: the mystical and the erotic in the life and teachings of Ramakrishna, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1995.
Back

[31] Matsubara, M. The Early Pancaratra-samhitas and the Ahirbudhnya-samhita (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994), 177. aprakrtagunasparsam nirgunam parigiyate srnu narada sadgunyamâ Ahirbudhnya samhita 2.55
Back

[32] mani ratne vilagnasya sayujya gatirucyate (cited in Schrader, F. O., Introduction to the Pancaratra and the Ahirbudhnya-samhita, (Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1973), p. 105.
Back

[33] Schrader, pp. 104-5.
Back

[34] Radhakrishnan, S. The Bhagavad-gita (New Delhi: Indus, 1993); and Gambhirananda, Swami, Bhagavad-gita with the commentary of Sankaracarya (Calcutta, Advaita Ashrama, 1991).
Back

[35] Srimad Bhagavad-gita with Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati's Gudartha-dipika and Sridhara Swami's Subodhini (Poona: Anandasrama Sanskrit Series, volume 45, 1901).
Back

[36] See Sinha, 240. Sridhara Swami identifies the demonic outlook of Gita 16.8 with Carvaka philosophy (Subodhini 16.8).
Back

[37] Sinha, p. 288.
Back

[38] nitya vedah samastasca sasvatah visnu-buddhigah | sarge sarge amunaiveta udgiryante tathaiva ca | tatkramenaiva tairvarnaih taih svaraireva na chanyatha | Brahmanda Purana, cited by Madhvacarya in his Visnu-tattva-vinirnaya.
Back

[39] Sharma (b), volume 2, p. 71.
Back

[40] Ravindra-svarupa Dasa, 'A Response to Hinduism in Interreligious Dialogue', in ISKCON Communications Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2 (December 1996).
Back

[41] Sinha, pp. 132-3.
Back

[42] Sinha, p. 221; Srila Prabhupada refers to Sankaracarya as 'a pseudo-gentle man' (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 6.172), Vivekananda 'a so-called svami who did not know anything about Vedanta' (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 7.103), and Radhakrishnan 'the so-called greatest philosopher' (Prabhupada, Sword of Knowledge, (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust: 1988), 170) which elicits Sinha's disapproval (See pp. 201, 81, 221.)
Back

[43] Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 5.41p.
Back

[44] Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 7.121p-122p. The Advaitin Sadananda Yogindra cites the same definitions, without reference, in his Vedanta-sara (138). Nikhilananda, S., (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1968).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

07-10-2005, 04:30 PM

QUOTE atha yo anyam devatam upaste, anyo' sau anyo' ham asmiti, na sa veda; yatha pasur, evam sa devanam; yatha ha vai bahavah pasavo manusyam bhunjyuh, evam ekaikah puruso devan bhunakti;
The above statement EXPLICITLY states that a person who worships a deva (any deva is a name-form combination) as "I am different and He is different" that person does not know. He is an animal. 

I don't have the time to go throught the thread although I stumbled upon here, but would make a quick comment.

'Deva' is NOT BHAGAVAN.
'Deva' is Demigod.

Any Human who thinks Demigods to be different from himself is verily an animal.

Demigods are also conditioned souls. This is vedic truth. Ditto for every being in this universe starting from Brahma to the lowest germ.

Thus who ever thinks that he himself is different and the devas to be beyond conditioning of material modes of nature, karma and kala is an animal for praying to them for Moskha.

This is elaborated in by Sri Vedanta Desikar who also says that those who consider the Devas of being independent or capable of bestowing boons on their own is under illusion.

That is the meaning.

DO NOT TWIST THE WORD 'DEVA' TO MEAN BHAGAVAN Please O great Sanskrit Scholars!

07-25-2005, 05:25 AM

Can any Admin restore the posts that were made after the last posts? I seem to remember some posts after the above one.

07-25-2005, 08:53 AM

Gus,
We lost 3 days of post due to system provider system crash. We are trying to restore.

07-25-2005, 11:12 PM

Going back to the original topic.

My definition of "Who is a Hindu" is very simple. Whoever calls himself a Hindu is a Hindu.

This is the best definition.

07-26-2005, 01:04 AM

QUOTE(Gus @ Jul 25 2005, 05:25 AM) Can any Admin restore the posts that were made after the last posts? I seem to remember some posts after the above one. 
Gus,
I remember making a post, and was wondering why it was deleted. Basically I supported Hayagriva's last post. Member "sunder" and others did not recognize from the verse they quoted that it is the karma-kanda kind of ritualistic worship that is being condemned. That sort of worship is condemned by all great Vaishnavas also, because it has nothing to do with Godhead, whose worship is transcendental to all the 4 purusha-arthas (dharma, artha, kama, moksha).

They also mis-translated the word "deva" to mean the Supreme Purusha. Further, they did not recognize that the same verses clearly imply the true existence of devas as elemental beings (which the "neo-Advaitists" do not believe in). All in all, it was a typical case of mis-quote, mis-interpretation, and tendentious purport by the "neo-Vedantist" brigade. It also exposes their fundamental hostility to the idea of Godhead, and of "worship" of ANY kind. Therefore, such "I am God" philosophies have been dubbed as the "triumph of false-ego" by great commentators.

I had also quoted an apt verse from the kaTha Upanishad. It summarized the various stages of self-realization, clearly indicating that the realization of the Supreme Personality (Purusha) is higher than the Unmanifest Impersonal Void or the Brahmajyoti, and also higher than Paramatma-realization. It other words, it provides support to the Gaudiya-Vaishnava position on the subject of various levels of realization of the Absolute. It also identifies Purusha with Vishnu-tattva.

"A man who has discrimination for his charioteer and holds the reins of the mind firmly, reaches the end of the road; and that is the supreme position of Vishnu.

Beyond the senses are the objects; beyond the objects is the mind; beyond the mind, the intellect; beyond the intellect, the Great Atman; beyond the Great Atman, the Unmanifest; beyond the Unmanifest, the Purusha. Beyond the Purusha there is nothing: this is the end, the Supreme Goal.

-- KaTha Upanishad, 3:9-11

07-26-2005, 03:09 AM

Admin note:

All:
No posts were deleted. 
We did loose about 3 days worth of posts with an outage. This was at the forum level and included posts on Salman phone episode, a thread by new Araywan(?) etc..

Members are required to re-post if possible.

07-27-2005, 04:39 AM

A picture is worth a 1000 words.

Pictures of Hindu unity:

http://www.swaminarayan.org/news/2003/12/acharyasabha/

Heads of over 70 different Hindu organizations gathered to affirm loyalty to Hinduism.

08-13-2005, 03:40 PM

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action...s&id=13282

QUOTE Sikhs, Jains components of broader Hindu religion, says Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today directed that the Constitution of India does not view Sikhs and Jains as separate national minorities beyond the periphery of Hindu religion. A three-member Bench said that Sikhs, Jains should be looked upon in a wide spectrum which comprises many faiths.

âThe so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing of the Constitution. Sikhs and Jains , in fact, have throughout been treated as part of wider Hindu community, which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies, â said the Bench of Chief Justice R.C.Lahoti, Justice D.M.Dharmadhikari and Justice P.K.Balasubramanyan while considering an appeal made by Bal Patil and others against the Bombay High Court.

The petitioners demanded from the Union Government to notify :

âJainsâ as a minority community under Section 2Â© of the National Commission for Minortity Act, the Bench said: âWe do not find that any case is made out for grant of any relief to appellants in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court and hence, the writ jurisdiction of this (apex) court. â

Rejecting the plea the Court said : âWe should guard against making our country akin to a theocratic State based on multi-nationalism. Our concept of secularism, to put in a nutshell, is that the State will have no relgion.â

The Bench maintained, while asking the National Minorities Commission to â gear up it activitiesâ to keep all religious groups in the right direction with â constitutional perspective, principles and ideals in its viewâ.

Justice Dharmadhikari, while writing the judgement for the Bench , stated that the Constitution had clearly laid down that the State will treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without, in any manner, interfering with their individual rights or religions, faith and worship.â

The designated Apex Court informed that in various codified customary laws like the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and other laws of pre and post-Constituion period, the definition of âHinduâ comprised all sects, sub-sects of Hindu relgion, which also includes Sikhs and Jains.

It said by accepting such an argument to recognise every religious group within the broad Hindu relgion as a separate religious minority was accepted and such tendencies of such sort were encouraged , â the whole country , which is already under class and social conflicts due to various divisive forces, will further face division on the basis of religious diversitiesâ.

âSuch claims to minority status based on religion would increase in the fond hope of various section of people getting special protections, privileges and treatment as part of constitutional guarantee, â the court said.

It added â a claim by one group of citizens would lead to a similar claim by another group and conflict and strife would ensueâ.

Making things more apparent the Court further stated that the framers of the Constitution had âengraftedâ a group of Articles (25 to 30) in the Constitution recognising only Muslims, Christians, Anglo-Indians and Parsis as relgious minorities at national level by taking into consideration the historic background on how these communities had emerged over a long periods of time during the Mughal and British rule.

It further said that the Union Government , in its affidavit, had taken the stand that in accordance with the law laid down by the majority judgement in TMA Pai case by the apex court regarding the statues of minority educational institutons in the country , it had been left to State Governments to decide as to where Jain community should be treated as minority .

The Court noted that in States like Chattisgarh, Maharashtra and Uttranchal, Jains had already been notified as minority in accordance with the provision of the respective State Minority Commission Acts.

08-31-2005, 12:46 AM

The following article applies as much to the various heterodox sects within Hinduism, as to other religious traditions. IOW, the article takes a look at the "universalist" theories that were manufactured during the colonial period by certain Indian religious leaders. The article proposes to show how this trend is culturally and socially detrimental to Hinduism. Makes a few interesting points.

Note: "Radical Universalism" is a euphemism for "a hodgepodge that is not at all faithful to scripture (shruti, etc), but twists it out of shape in a self-serving manner".
QUOTEDoes Hinduism teach that all religions are the same?

A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism 

It is by no means an exaggeration to say that the ancient religion of Hinduism has been one of the least understood religious traditions in the history of world religion. The sheer number of stereotypes, misconceptions and outright false notions about what Hinduism teaches, as well as about the precise practices and behavior that it asks of its followers, outnumber those of any other religion currently known. Leaving the more obviously grotesque crypto-colonialist caricatures of cow-worshipping, caste domination and sutee aside, even many of the most fundamental theological and philosophical foundations of Hinduism often remain inexplicable mysteries to the general public and supposed scholars of Hindu Studies. More disturbing, however, is the fact that many wild misconceptions about the beliefs of Hinduism are prevalent even among the bulk of purported followers of Hinduism and, alarmingly, even to many purportedly learned spiritual teachers, gurus and swamis who claim to lead the religion in present times. 

Of the many current peculiar concepts mistakenly ascribed to Hindu theology, one of the most widely misunderstood is the idea that Hinduism somehow teaches that all religions are equalâ¦ that all religions are the same, with the same purpose, goal, experientially tangible salvific state, and object of ultimate devotion. So often has this notion been thoughtlessly repeated by so many -- from the common Hindu parent to the latest swamiji arriving on American shores yearning for a popular following -- that it has now become artificially transformed into a supposed foundation stone of modern Hindu teachings. Many Hindus are now completely convinced that this is actually what Hinduism teaches. Despite its widespread popular repetition, however, does Hinduism actually teach the idea that all religions are really the same? Even a cursory examination of the long history of Hindu philosophical thought, as well as an objective analysis of the ultimate logical implications of such a proposition, quickly makes it quite apparent that traditional Hinduism has never supported such an idea.

The doctrine of what I call 'Radical Universalism' makes the claim that âall religions are the same.â This dogmatic assertion is of very recent origin, and has become one of the most harmful misconceptions in the Hindu world in the last 150 or so years. It is a doctrine that has directly led to a self-defeating philosophical relativism that has, in turn, weakened the stature and substance of Hinduism to its very core. The doctrine of Radical Universalism has made Hindu philosophy look infantile in the eyes of non-Hindus, has led to a collective state of self-revulsion, confusion and shame in the minds of too many Hindu youth, and has opened the Hindu community to be preyed upon much more easily by the zealous missionaries of other religions. The problem of Radical Universalism is arguably the most important issue facing the global Hindu community today. In the following paragraphs, we will perform an in-depth examination of the intrinsic fallacies contained in this inherently non-Hindu idea, as well as the untold damage that Radical Universalism has wrought in modern Hinduism.

What's a Kid to Do?Â

Indian Hindu parents are to be given immense credit. The daily challenges that typical Hindu parents face in encouraging their children to maintain their commitment to Hinduism are enormous and very well-known. Hindu parents try their best to observe fidelity to the religion of their ancestors, often having little understanding of the religion themselves other than what was given to them, in turn, by their own parents. All too many Indian Hindu youth, on the other hand, find themselves unattracted to a religion that is little comprehended or respected by most of those around them â Hindu and non-Hindu alike. Today's Hindu youth seek more strenuously convincing reasons for following a religion than merely the argument that it is the family tradition. Today's Hindu youth demand, and deserve, cogent philosophical explanations about what Hinduism actually teaches, and why they should remain Hindu rather than join any of the many other religious alternatives they see around them. Temple priests are often ill equipped to give these bright Hindu youth the answers they so sincerely seekâ¦ mom and dad are usually even less knowledgeable than the temple pujaris. What is a Hindu child to do?

As I travel the nation delivering lectures on Hindu philosophy and spirituality, I frequently encounter a repeated scenario. Hindu parents will often approach me after I've finished my lecture and timidly ask if they can have some advice. The often-repeated story goes somewhat like this:

âWe raised our son/daughter to be a good Hindu. We took them to the temple for important holidays. We even sent him/her to a Hindu camp for a weekend when they were 13. Now at the age of 23, our child has left Hinduism and converted to the (fill in the blank) religion. When we ask how could they have left the religion of their family, the answer that they throw back in our face is: 'but mama/dada, you always taught us that all religions are the same, and that it doesn't really matter how a person worships God. So what does it matter if we've followed your advice and switched to another religion?'â

Many of you currently reading this article have probably been similarly approached by parents expressing this same dilemma. The truly sad thing about this scenario is that the child is, of course, quite correct in her assertion that she is only following the logical conclusion of her parents' often-repeated mantra of âall religions are the same.â If all religions are exactly the same, after all, and if we all just end up in the same place in the end anyway, then what does it really matter what religion we follow? Hindu parents complain when their children adopt other religions, but without understanding that it was precisely this highly flawed dogma of Radical Universalism, and not some inherent flaw of Hinduism itself, that has driven their children away. My contention is that parents themselves are not to be blamed for espousing this non-Hindu idea to their children. Rather, much of the blame is to be placed at the feet of today's ill equipped Hindu teachers and leaders, the supposed guardians of authentic Dharma teachings. 

In modern Hinduism, we hear from a variety of sources this claim that all religions are equal. Unfortunately, the most damaging source of this fallacy is none other than the many un-informed spiritual leaders of the Hindu community itself. I have been to innumerable pravachanas, for example, where a benignly grinning guruji will provide his audience with the following tediously parroted metaphor, what I call the Mountain Metaphor.

The Mountain Metaphor:
âTruth (or God or Brahman) lies at the summit of a very high mountain. There are many diverse paths to reach the top of the mountain, and thus attain the one supreme goal. Some paths are shorter, some longer. The path itself, however, is unimportant. The only truly important thing is that seekers all reach the top of the mountain.â

While this simplistic metaphor might seem compelling at a cursory glance, it leaves out a very important elemental supposition: it makes the unfounded assumption that everyone wants to get to the top of the same mountain! As we will soon see, not every religion shares the same goal, the same conception of the Absolute (indeed, even the belief that there is an Absolute), or the same means to their respective goals. Rather, there are many different philosophical 'mountains', each with their own very unique claim to be the supreme goal of all human spiritual striving. As I will show, Radical Universalism is not only an idea that is riddled with self-contradictory implications, but it is a doctrine that never originated from traditional Hinduism at all. 

A Tradition of Tolerance, Not Capitulation

Historically, pre-colonial classical Hinduism never taught that all religions are the same. This is not to say, however, that Hinduism has not believed in tolerance or freedom of religious thought and expression. It has very clearly always been a religion that has taught tolerance of other valid religious traditions. However, the assertion that a) we should have tolerance for the beliefs of other religions is a radically different claim from the overreaching declaration that, b) all religions are the same. And this confusion between two thoroughly separate assertions may be one reason why so many modern Hindus believe that Hindu tolerance is synonymous with Radical Universalism. To maintain a healthy tolerance of another person's religion does not mean that we have to then adopt that person's religion!

Traditional Hinduism has always been the most tolerant, patient and welcoming of all religions. Hinduism is not a religion that persecutes others merely for having a difference in theological belief. Hindu India, for example, has been the sole nation on earth where the Jewish community was never persecuted. This is the case despite the presence of Jews in India for over 2000 years. Similarly, Zoroastrian refugees escaping the destruction of the Persian civilization at the hands of Islamic conquerors were greeted with welcome refuge in India over 1000 years ago. The Zoroastrian community (now known as the Parsee community) in India has thrived in all these many centuries, living together with their Hindu neighbors in peace and mutual respect. Hinduism has been a religion that has always sought to live side-by-side peacefully with the followers of other, non-Hindu, religions, whether they were the indigenous Indian religions of Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism or the foreign religions of Christianity and Islam.

In keeping with the Vedic adage that the guest in one's home is to be treated with as much hospitality as one would treat a visiting divinity, Hinduism has always been gracious to the followers of non-Hindu religions, and respectful of the gods, scriptures and customs of others. The tolerance and openness of Hinduism has been historically unprecedented among the wider community of world religions, universally acclaimed, and very well attested.

The common mistake that is often made, however, is to mistake the long-held Hindu tradition of tolerating other religions with the mistaken notion that Hinduism consequently encourages us to believe that all religions are exactly the same. We have mistaken Hindu tolerance with Radical Universalism. The leap from tolerance of other faiths to a belief that all religions are equal is not a leap that is grounded in logic. Nor is it grounded in the history, literature or philosophy of the Hindu tradition itself.

Uniquely Hindu: The Crisis of the Hindu Lack of Self-Worth

In general, many of the world's religions have been periodically guilty of fomenting rigid sectarianism and intolerance among their followers. We have witnessed, especially in the record of the more historically recent Western religions, that religion has sometimes been used as a destructive mechanism misused to divide people, to conquer others in the name of one's god, and to make artificial and oppressive distinctions between 'believers' and 'non-believers'. Being an inherently non-fundamentalist world-view, Hinduism has naturally always been keen to distinguish its own tolerant approach to spirituality vis-Ã -vis more sectarian and conflict oriented notions of religion. Modern Hindus are infamous for bending over backwards to show the world just how non-fanatical and open-minded we are, even to the point of denying ourselves the very right to unapologetically celebrate our own Hindu tradition.

Unfortunately, in our headlong rush to devolve Hinduism of anything that might seem to even remotely resemble the closed-minded sectarianism sometimes found in other religions, we often forget the obvious truth that Hinduism is itself a systematic and self-contained religious tradition in its own right. {e.g.: the strange revulsion of certain Hindus to associate the word "monotheism" with the Vedas} In the same manner that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, or Jainism have their own unique and specific beliefs, doctrines and claims to spiritual authority, all of which fall within the firmly demarcated theological bounds of their own unique traditions, Hinduism too has just such Hindu-centric theological and institutional bounds. Like every other religion, Hinduism is a distinct and unique tradition, with its own in-built beliefs, world-view, traditions, rituals, concept of the Absolute, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, cosmology, cosmogony, and theology. The grand, systematic philosophical construct that we call Hinduism today is the result of the extraordinary efforts and spiritual insights of the great rishis, yogis, acharyas and gurus of our religion, guided by the transcendent light of the Vedic revelation, that has stood the test of time. It is a tradition that is worthy of healthy celebration by Hindus and respectful admiration by non-Hindus.

Hindus have no more reason to be uncomfortable with the singular uniqueness of our own spiritual tradition, or less of a reason to boldly assert our own exceptional contributions to the development of global religious thought, than do the followers of any other venerable faith. This is an obvious, yet all too often forgotten fact, the importance of which cannot be overstated: Hinduism is its own uniquely independent religious tradition, different and distinct from any other religion on earth. There is a Hindu philosophy, a Hindu world-view, a Hindu set of ethics, a Hindu theology, a Hindu spiritual culture, a Hindu view on the nature of God (Ishvara), personhood (jiva) and material reality (jagat). In short, there is a distinctly Hindu tradition.

Such a recognition of Hinduism's unique features is not to deny that there will always be several important similarities between many of the religions of the world. Indeed, the human impetus to know Truth being a universally experienced phenomenon, it would be quite surprising indeed if there were not some common features discernable in all the diverse religions of our common earth. While interesting commonalities and similarities can always be seen and appreciated, however, it would be misleading to consequently deny that Hinduism, like every other separate religious tradition, is also to be plainly contrasted in myriad ways from any other religion. Such a realization and acceptance of Hinduism's unique place in the world does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have to lead automatically to sectarianism, strife, conflict or religious chauvinism. Indeed, such a recognition of Hinduism's distinctiveness is crucial if Hindus are to possess even a modicum of healthy self-understanding, self-respect and pride in their own tradition. Self-respect and the ability to celebrate one's unique spiritual tradition are basic psychological needs, and a cherished civil right of any human being, Hindu and non-Hindu alike.

Letting the Tradition Speak for Itself

When we look at the philosophical, literary and historical sources of the pre-colonial Hindu tradition, we find that the notion of Radical Universalism is overwhelmingly absent. The idea that 'all religions are the same' is not found in the sacred literature of Hinduism, among the utterances of the great philosopher-acharyas of Hinduism, or in any of Hinduism's six main schools of philosophical thought (the Shad-darshanas). Throughout the history of the tradition, such great Hindu philosophers as Vyasa, Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Vijnana Bhikshu, Swami Narayana (Sahajananda Swami), and others made very unambiguous and unapologetic distinctions between the religion of Hinduism and non-Hindu religions. The sages of pre-modern Hinduism had no difficulty in boldly asserting what was, and what was not, to be considered Hindu. And they did so often! This lucid sense of religious community and philosophical clarity is seen first and foremost in the very question of what, precisely, constitutes a 'Hindu'. Without knowing the answer to this most foundational of questions, it is impossible to fully assess the damaging inadequacies of Radical Universalist dogma.

Who is a Hindu?

Remarkably, when the question of who is a Hindu is discussed today, we get a multitude of confused and contradictory answers from both Hindu laypersons and from Hindu leaders. That we have such a difficult time understanding the answer to even so fundamental a question as 'who is a Hindu?' is a starkly sad indicator of the lack of knowledge in the Hindu community today. Some of the more simplistic answers to this question include: Anyone born in India is automatically a Hindu (the ethnicity fallacy); if your parents are Hindu, then you are Hindu (the familial argument); if you are born into a certain caste, then you are Hindu (the genetic inheritance model); if you believe in reincarnation, then you are Hindu (forgetting that many non-Hindu religions share at least some of the beliefs of Hinduism); if you practice any religion originating from India, then you are a Hindu (the national origin fallacy). The real answer to this question has already been conclusively answered by the ancient sages of Hinduism, and is actually much simpler to ascertain than we would guess. 

The two primary factors that distinguish the individual uniqueness of the great world religious traditions are: a) the scriptural authority upon which the tradition is based, and b) the fundamental religious tenet(s) that it espouses. If we ask the question 'what is a Jew?' for example, the answer is: someone who accepts the Torah as their scriptural guide and believes in the monotheistic concept of God espoused in these scriptures. What is a Christian? A person who accepts the Gospels as their scriptural guide and believes that Jesus is the incarnate God who died for their sins. What is a Muslim? Someone who accepts the Qur'an as their scriptural guide, and believes that there is no God but Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet. In general, what determines whether a person is a follower of any particular religion is whether or not they accept, and attempt to live by, the scriptural authority of that religion. This is no less true of Hinduism than it is of any other religion on earth. Thus, the question of what is a Hindu is similarly very easily answered. By definition, a Hindu is an individual who accepts as authoritative the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures, and who strives to live in accordance with Dharma, God's divine laws as revealed in the Vedic scriptures. In keeping with this standard definition, all the Hindu thinkers of the six traditional schools of Hindu philosophy (Shad-darshanas) insisted on the acceptance of the scriptural authority (shabda-pramana) of the Vedas as the primary criterion for distinguishing a Hindu from a non-Hindu, as well as distinguishing overtly Hindu philosophical positions from non-Hindu ones. It has been the historically accepted standard that, if you accept the Vedas (meaning the complete shruti and smrti canon of the Vedic scriptures, such as the four Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, etc.) as your scriptural authority, and lived your life in accordance with the Dharmic principles of the Vedas, you are then a Hindu. Thus, any Indian who rejects the authority of the Veda is obviously not a Hindu â regardless of their birth. While an American, Canadian, Russian, Brazilian, Indonesian or Indian who does accept the authority of the Veda obviously is a Hindu. One is Hindu, not by race, but by practice.

Clearly Defining Hinduism

Traditional Hindu philosophers continually emphasized the crucial importance of clearly understanding what was Hinduism proper and what were non-Hindu religious paths. You cannot claim to be a Hindu, after all, if you do not understand what it is that you claim to believe, and what it is that others believe. One set of antonymous Sanskrit terms repeatedly employed by many traditional Hindu philosophers were the words vaidika and avaidika. The word vaidika (or 'Vedic' in English) means one who accepts the teachings of the Veda. It refers specifically to the unique epistemological stance taken by the traditional schools of Hindu philosophy, known as shabda-pramana, or employing the divine sound current of Veda as a means of acquiring valid knowledge. In this sense the word 'vaidika' is employed to differentiate those schools of Indian philosophy that accept the epistemological validity of the Veda as apaurusheya, or a perfect authoritative spiritual source, eternal and untouched by the speculations of humanity, juxtaposed with the avaidika schools that do not ascribe such validity to the Veda. In pre-Christian times, avaidika schools were clearly identified by Hindu authors as being specifically Buddhism, Jainism and the atheistic Charvaka school, all of whom did not accept the Veda. These three schools were unanimously considered non-Vedic, and thus non-Hindu (they certainly are geographically Indian religions, but they are not theologically/ philosophically Hindu religions). Manu, one of the great ancient lawgivers of the Hindu tradition, states the following in his Manava-dharma-shastra:

All those traditions and all those disreputable systems of philosophy that are not based on the Veda produce no positive result after death; for they are declared to be founded on darkness. All those doctrines differing from the Veda that spring up and soon perish are ineffectual and misleading, because they are of modern date.

(XII, 95)

Stated in simpler terms, 'vaidika' specifically refers to those persons who accept the Veda as their sacred scripture, and thus as their source of valid knowledge about spiritual matters.

In his famous compendium of all the known Indian schools of philosophy, the Sarva-darshana-samgraha, Madhava Acharya (a 14th century philosopher) unambiguously states that Charvakins (atheist empiricists), 'Bauddhas' (Buddhists) and 'Arhatas' (Jains) are among the non-Vedic, and thus non-Hindu, schools. Conversely, he lists Paniniya, Vaishnava, Shaiva and others among the Vedic, or Hindu, traditions. Likewise, in his Prasthanabheda, the well-known Madhusudana Sarasvati (fl. 17th century C.E.) contrasts all the mleccha (or 'barbaric') viewpoints with Hindu views and says that the former are not even worthy of consideration, whereas the Buddhist views must at least be considered and debated. The differentiation between 'orthodox' and 'heterodox', from a classical Hindu perspective, rests upon acceptance of the Vedic revelation, with the latter rejecting the sanctity of the Veda. As a further attempt to clearly distinguish between Hindu and non-Hindu, Hindu philosophers regularly used the Sanskrit terms astika and nastika. The two terms are synonymous with vaidika and avaidika, respectively. Astika refers to those who believe in the Vedas, nastika to those who reject the Vedas. Under the astika category Hinduism would include any Hindu path that accepts the Veda, such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Advaita, Yoga, Nyaya, Mimamsa, among others. The nastika religions would include any religious tradition that does not accept the Veda: Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, etc. Thus when it came to the importance of unambiguously differentiating between the teachings of Hinduism and the teachings of non-Hindu religions, the most historically important sages of Hindu philosophical and theological thought were clearly advocates of Vaidika Dharma â Hinduism -- as a systematic, unitive tradition of spiritual expression.

Dharma Rakshaka: The Defenders of Dharma

With the stark exception of very recent times, Hinduism has historically always been recognized as a separate and distinct religious phenomenon, as a tradition unto itself. It was recognized as such by both outside observers of Hinduism, as well as from within, by Hinduism's greatest spiritual teachers. The saints and sages of Hinduism continuously strived to uphold the sanctity and gift of the Hindu world-view, often under the barrages of direct polemic opposition by non-Hindu traditions. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Charvakins (atheists), the four main philosophical schools found in Indian history, would frequently engage each other in painstakingly precise debates, arguing compellingly over even the smallest conceptual minutia of philosophical subject matter. The sages of Hinduism met such philosophical challenges with cogent argument, rigid logic and sustained pride in their tradition, usually soundly defeating their philosophical opponents in open debate. Shankara Acharya, as only one of many examples of Hindu acharyas defending their religion, earned the title 'Digvijaya', or 'Conqueror of all Directions'. This indomitable title was awarded Shankara due solely to his formidable ability to defend the Hindu tradition from the philosophical incursions of opposing (purva-paksha), non-Hindu schools of thought. Indeed, Shankara is universally attributed by both scholars, as well as later, post-Shankara Hindu leaders, with being partially responsible for the historical decline of Buddhism in India due to his intensely polemic missionary activities. No Radical Universalist was he! The great teacher Madhva is similarly seen as being responsible for the sharp decline of Jainism in South India due to his immense debating skills in defense of Vaidika Dharma. All pre-modern Hindu sages and philosophers recognized and celebrated the singularly unique vision that Hinduism had to offer the world, clearly distinguished between Hindu and non-Hindu religions, and defended Hinduism to the utmost of their formidable intellectual and spiritual abilities. They did so unapologetically, professionally and courageously. The Hindu world-view only makes sense, has value, and will survive if we all similarly celebrate Hinduism's uniqueness today.

Traditional Hinduism Versus Neo-Hinduism

A tragic occurrence in the very long history of Hinduism was witnessed throughout the 19th century, the destructive magnitude of which Hindu leaders and scholars today are only beginning to adequately assess and address. This development both altered and weakened Hinduism to such a tremendous degree that Hinduism has not yet even begun to recover. The classical, traditional Hinduism that had been responsible for the continuous development of thousands of years of sophisticated culture, architecture, music, philosophy, ritual and theology came under devastating assault during the 19th century British colonial rule like at no other time in India's history. For a thousand years previous to the British Raj, foreign marauders had repeatedly attempted to destroy Hinduism through overt physical genocide and the systematic destruction of Hindu temples and sacred places. Traditional Hinduism's wise sages and noble warriors had fought bravely to stem this anti-Hindu holocaust to the best of their ability, more often than not paying for their bravery with their lives. What the Hindu community experienced under British Christian domination, however, was an ominously innovative form of cultural genocide. What they experienced was not an attempt at the physical annihilation of their culture, but a deceivingly subtler program of intellectual and spiritual annihilation. It is easy for a people to understand the urgent threat posed by an enemy that seeks to literally kill them. It is much harder, though, to understand the threat of an enemy who, while remaining just as deadly, claims to seek only to serve a subjugated people's best interests.

During this short span of time in the 19th century, the ancient grandeur and beauty of a classical Hinduism that had stood the test of thousands of years came under direct ideological attack. What makes this period in Hindu history most especially tragic is that the main apparatus that the British used in their attempts to destroy traditional Hinduism were the British educated, spiritually co-opted sons and daughters of Hinduism itself. Seeing traditional Hinduism through the eyes of their British masters, a pandemic wave of 19th century Anglicized Hindu intellectuals saw it as their solemn duty to 'westernize' and 'modernize' traditional Hinduism to make it more palatable to their new European overlords. One of the phenomena that occurred during this historic period was the fabrication of a new movement known as 'neo-Hinduism'. Neo-Hinduism was an artificial religious construct used as a paradigmatic juxtaposition to the legitimate traditional Hinduism that had been the religion and culture of the people for thousands of years. Neo-Hinduism was used as an effective weapon to replace authentic Hinduism with a British invented version designed to make a subjugated people easier to manage and control.

The Christian and British inspired neo-Hinduism movement attempted to execute several overlapping goals, and did so with great success:

a) The subtle Christianization of Hindu theology, which included concerted attacks on iconic imagery (archana, or murti), panentheism, and continued belief in the beloved gods and goddesses of traditional Hinduism.
b) The imposition of the Western scientific method, rationalism and skepticism on the study of Hinduism in order to show Hinduism's supposedly inferior grasp of reality.
c) Ongoing attacks against the ancient Hindu science of ritual in the name of simplification and democratization of worship.
d) The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian/ Universalist Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu philosophy.

The dignity, strength and beauty of traditional Hinduism was recognized as the foremost threat to Christian European rule in India. The invention of neo-Hinduism was the response. Had this colonialist program been carried out with a British face, it would not have met with as much success as it did. Therefore, an Indian face was used to impose neo-Hinduism upon the Hindu people. The resultant effects of the activities of Indian neo-Hindus were ruinous for traditional Hinduism.

The primary dilemma with Hinduism as we find it today, in a nutshell, is precisely this problem of a) not recognizing that there are really two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today, Neo-Hindu and Traditionalist Hindu; and 2) with Traditionalists being the guardians of authentic Dharma philosophically and attitudinally, but not yet coming to full grips with the modern world...i.e., not yet having found a way of negotiating authentic Hindu Dharma with an ability to interface with modernity and communicate this unadulterated Hindu Dharma in a way that the modern mind can most appreciate it. Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value until traditionalist Hindus can assertively, professionally and intelligently communicate the reality of genuine Hinduism to the world. Until it learns how to do this, neo-Hinduism will continue its destructive campaign.

The non-Hindu Origins of Radical Universalism

Radical Universalism is neither traditional nor classical in its origin. The origins of the distinctly non-Hindu idea of Radical Universalism, and the direct paralyzing impact it has had on modern Hindu philosophy, can only be traced back to the early 19th century. It is an idea not older than two centuries, yet the results of which have been devastating for both the progress of serious Hindu philosophical development since the 19th century, as well as in its practical effect of severely undermining Hindu self-esteem. Its intellectual roots are not even to be found in Hinduism itself, but rather are clearly traced back to Christian missionary attempts to alter the genuine teachings of authentic Hinduism. Radical Universalism was the vogue among 19th century British educated Indians, most of who had little authentic information about their own Hindu intellectual and spiritual heritage. These westernized Indians were often overly eager to gain acceptance and respectability for Indian culture from a Christian European audience who saw in Hinduism nothing more than the childish prattle of a brutish colonized people. Many exaggerated stereotypes about Hinduism had been unsettling impressionable European minds for a century previous to their era. Rather than attempting to refute these many stereotypes about Hinduism by presenting Hinduism in its authentic and pristine form, however, many of these 19th century Christianized Indians felt it was necessary to instead gut Hinduism of anything that might seem offensively exotic to the European mind. Radical Universalism seemed to be the perfect base-notion upon which to artificially construct a 'new' Hinduism that would give the Anglicized 19th century Indian intelligentsia the acceptability they so yearned to be granted by their British masters.

We encounter one of the first instances of the Radical Universalist infiltration of Hinduism in the syncretistic teachings of Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833), the founder of the infamous Brahmo Samaj. A highly controversial figure during his life, Roy was a Bengali pseudo-intellectual who was heavily influenced by the teachings of the Unitarian Church, a heterodox denomination of Christianity. In addition to studying Christianity, Islam and Sanskrit, he studied Hebrew and Greek with the dream of translating the Bible into Bengali. A self-described Hindu 'reformer', he viewed Hinduism through a warped colonial Christian lens. The Christian missionaries had told Roy that traditional Hinduism was a barbaric religion that had led to oppression, superstition and ignorance of the Indian people. He believed them. More, Roy saw Biblical teachings, specifically, as holding the cherished key to altering traditional Hindu teachings to make it more acceptable to India's colonial masters. In his missionary zeal to Christianize Hinduism, this Hindu 'reformer' even wrote an anti-Hindu tract known as The Precepts of Jesus: The Guide to Peace and Happiness. It was directly from these Christian missionaries that Roy derived the bulk of his ideas, including the anti-Hindu idea of the radical equality of all religions.

In addition to acquiring Radical Universalism from the Christian missionaries, Roy also felt it necessary to Christianize Hinduism by adopting many Biblical theological beliefs into his new neo-Hindu 'reform' movement. Some of these other non-intrinsic adaptations included a rejection of Hindu panentheism, to be substituted with a more Biblical notion of anthropomorphic monotheism; a rejection of all iconic worship ('graven images' as the crypto-Christians of the Brahmo Samaj phrased it); and a repudiation of the doctrine of avataras, or the divine descent of God. Roy's immediate successors, Debendranath Tagore and Keshub Chandra Sen, attempted to incorporate even more Christian ideals into this new invention of neo-Hinduism. Sen even went so far as concocting a Brahmo Samaj text that contained passages from a variety of differing religious traditions, including Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. In his later years, Sen portrayed himself as a divinized prophet of the 'New Dispensation', which he felt replaced the Old and New Testaments, in addition to traditional Hinduism. With Sen's continued descent into anti-Hindu apostasy and megalomania, the movement rapidly declined in importance and influence. The Brahmo Samaj is today extinct as an organization, but the global Hindu community is still feeling the damaging effects of its pernicious influence even at present.

The next two neo-Hindu Radical Universalists that we witness in the history of 19th century Hinduism are Ramakrishna (1836-1886) and Vivekananda (1863-1902). Though Vivekananda was a disciple (shishya) of Ramakrishna, the two led very different lives. Ramakrishna was born into a Hindu family in Dakshineshwar. In his adult life, he was a Hindu temple priest and a fervently demonstrative devotee of the Divine Mother. His primary object of worship was the goddess Kali, whom he worshipped with intense devotion all of his life. Despite his Hindu roots, however, many of Ramakrishna's ideas and practices were derived, not from the ancient wisdom of classical Hinduism, but from the non-Vedic religious outlooks of Islam and liberal Christianity. Though he saw himself as being primarily Hindu, Ramakrishna also resorted to worshipping in mosques and churches, and believed that all religions aimed at the same supreme destination. He experimented with Muslim, Christian and a wide variety of Hindu practices, blending, mixing and matching practices and beliefs as they appealed to him at any given moment. In 1875, Ramakrishna met Keshub Chandra Sen, the then leader of the neo-Hindu Brahmo Samaj, and formed a close working relationship with him. Sen introduced Ramakrishna to the close-knit community of neo-Hindu activists who lived in Calcutta, and would in turn often bring these activists to Ramakrishna's satsanghas.

Throughout his remarkable life, Ramakrishna remained illiterate, and wholly unfamiliar with both classical Hindu literature and philosophy, and the authentic teachings of the great acharyas who served as the guardians of those sacred teachings. Despite the severely obvious challenges that he experienced in understanding Hindu theology, playing upon the en vogue sentiment of religious universalism of his day, Ramakrishna ended up being one of the most widely popular of neo-Hindu Radical Universalists. The fame of Ramakrishna was to be soon eclipsed, however, by that of his most famous disciple.

Swami Vivekananda was arguably Ramakrishna's most capable disciple. An eloquent and charismatic speaker, Vivekananda will be forever honored by the Hindu community for his brilliant defense of Hinduism at the Parliament of World Religions in 1893. Likewise, Vivekananda contributed greatly to the revival of interest in the study of Hindu scriptures and philosophy in turn-of-the-century India. The positive contributions of Vivekananda toward Hinduism are numerous and great indeed. Notwithstanding his remarkable undertakings, however, Vivekananda found himself in a similarly difficult position as other neo-Hindu leaders of his day were. How to make sense of the ancient ways of Hinduism, and hopefully preserve Hinduism, in the face of the overwhelming onslaught of modernity? Despite some positive contributions by Vivekananda and other neo-Hindus in attempting to formulate a Hindu response to the challenge of modernity, that response was often made at the expense of authentic Hindu teachings. Vivekananda, along with the other leaders of the neo-Hindu movement, felt it was necessary to both water down the authentic Hinduism of their ancestors, and to adopt such foreign ideas as Radical Universalism, with the hope of gaining the approval of the European masters they found ruling over them.

Vivekananda differed quite significantly from his famous guru in many ways, including in his philosophical outlook, personal style and organizational ambitions. While Ramakrishna led a contemplative life of relative isolation from the larger world, Vivekananda was to become a celebrated figure on the world religion stage. Vivekananda frequently took a somewhat dismissive attitude to traditional Hinduism as it was practiced in his day, arguing (quite incorrectly) that Hinduism was too often irrational, overly mythologically oriented, and too divorced from the more practical need for social welfare work. He was not very interested in Ramakrishna's earlier emphasis on mystical devotion and ecstatic worship. Rather, Vivekananda laid stress on the centrality of his own idiosyncratic and universalistic approach to Vedanta, what later came to be known as 'neo-Vedanta'. Vivekananda differed slightly with Ramakrishna's version of Radical Universalism by attempting to superimpose a distinctly neo-Vedantic outlook to the idea of the unity of all religions. Vivekananda advocated a sort of hierarchical Radical Universalism that espoused the equality of all religions, while simultaneously claiming that all religions are really evolving from inferior notions of religiosity to a pinnacle mode. That pinnacle of all religious thought and practice was, for Vivekananda, of course Hinduism. Though Vivekananda contributed a great deal toward helping European and American non-Hindus to understand the greatness of Hinduism, the Radical Universalist and neo-Hindu inaccuracies that he fostered have also done a great deal of harm as well.

In order to fully experience Hinduism in its most spiritually evocative and philosophically compelling form, we must learn to recognize, and reject, the concocted influences of neo-Hinduism that have permeated the whole of Hindu thought today. It is time to rid ourselves of the liberal Christian inspired 'reformism' that so deeply prejudiced such individuals as Ram Mohan Roy over a century ago. We must free ourselves from the anti-Hindu dogma of Radical Universalism that has so weakened Hinduism, and re-embrace an authentically classical form of Hinduism that is rooted in the actual scriptures of Hinduism, that has been preserved for thousands of years by the various disciplic successions of legitimate acharyas, and that has stood the test of time. We must celebrate traditional Hinduism. The neo-Hindu importation of Radical Universalism may resonate with many on a purely emotional level, but it remains patently anti-Hindu in its origins, an indefensible proposition philosophically, and a highly destructive doctrine to the further development of Hinduism.

Logical Fallacies of Radical Universalism
[...]

click the link to read the rest of the article -- too long to post here.

08-31-2005, 01:55 AM

Hello all,

Is Dr Morales a hindu or Hindu Acharya ?

Does Vedas teach Universalism ?

IS Hindu free to explore Divinity beyond Vedas or does Vedas ( i believe Book or Books) limit the Spiritulaity or Divine to Itselves?

Can the Wisdom of Vedas be absorved with Bhakti or one has to be a scholar of Vedas to attain the spiritual Understanding?

Does Hindus follow Dharm or "religion " like Semetics do?

The whole discussion is confusing for simple Hindu like me, please enlighten in simple language .

Thanks

Prem

09-01-2005, 01:52 AM

hi prem.
my 2 cents:

Dr. Morales may not be a "Hindu acharya", but he is stating a well-known academic documentation of recent history, and then expressing his opinion that this trend is harmful to the health of Hindu society. The fact that the parties (swamis and saints) that drove and latched on to that trend in history were forced to call their doctrine NEO-Hinduism (or Neo-Vedanta, Neo-Advaita, etc) shows that it was branching away from traditional interpretations. But note that, whenever they can get away with it, they drop the "Neo", like in many of their publications...

These trends were motivated by a need felt by the elite to make Vedic religion conform to the latest philosophies and scientific theories that were coming out of Europe. They were also embarassed by some of the common cultural criticisms that Englishmen were making about Hinduism. So when the gora sahib told his subaltern babu that he had a funny nose, the embarassed and distressed babu felt the need to surgically cut off his own nose. That is, in short, what happened in the Neo-Hindu "reform".

Essentially, it involved a lot of mental speculation (often of a pretty low caliber). It was a weird patchwork invention of "modern art", a religious dadism, so to speak...which tried to legitimize itself by borrowing plumes from established schools of Vedanta.

QUOTEDoes Vedas teach Universalism ?
Depends on how we define "universalism". Certainly, the Vedic religion is universal, meant for all mankind, as long as people are willing to meet the standard. But "univesal" does not mean "anything goes", or a buffet-style "take your pick" kind of hodgepodge. Nor can Vedic religion be stretched to moralistically legitimize any and every sectarian cult's fancy. Every great acharya in history has always taken pains to denounce and reprimand all deviant practices in the name of religion, often inviting charges of "fanaticism" upon themselves. But the relativistic framework of Neo-Hinduism has always run after the trophy of "social tolerance", striking moralistic postures, and telling everyone that they are OK (while making some token reprimands about this or that obvious symbol of decadence).

Purity and clarity of doctrine should be there. Social tolerance of different views is a different matter. But indulging in relativistic DOCTRINE in order to appease different social parties is not what a real acharya does.

QUOTECan the Wisdom of Vedas be absorved with Bhakti or one has to be a scholar of Vedas to attain the spiritual Understanding?
One of the biggest misrepresentations of Neo-Hinduism has been "bhakti". It is seriously misunderstood. Para-bhakti is the end of all yoga (raso vai sah). So Godhead is All-Love, and we, being parts and parcels of God, are also love, and the most natural way to reconnect with Godhead is also through love (i.e., devotional service). Therefore, apart from being the end of all yoga, the discipline of bhakti-yoga (vaidhi-bhakti) is also the most natural and powerful method of yoga.

The acquisition of Knowledge is a preliminary stage in yoga. Perfect surrender is the goal. Refer Bhagavad Gita Chapter 12, verses 8-12. Link: http://www.asitis.com/

As bhakti-yoga matures, wisdom is a natural by-product. But preliminary scholarship of the Vedas is not a pre-requisite, as long as certain basics are properly understood.

"...Whosoever follows a false doctrine of the Self will perish." -- Chandogya Upanishad VIII.8.4

Basic doctrine of the nature and relationship between jiva, ishvara, prakriti, kaala and karma is important. That's why Vyasadeva divided the Vedanta-sutra into sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana jnaana. So you cannot engage in proper bhakti-yoga if you have silly, fuzzy mayavadi notions like "I am God, but I have just forgotten it". No, that is false doctrine. You are qualitatively one with God, but not completely identical. Self-realization means to dovetail and completely merge the individual will with the Supreme Will. I don't want to go deeper into this intricate concept, but I can give you links if you like. But just be careful of being taken in by simplistic, specious philosophies.

The other different types of yogas are all meant for differing grades of False-ego, which produce different "degrees of faith". For those who have a lingering egoic drive for achievement, there are various disciplines involving physical and intellectual sadhana. But the idea is only to finally burn those egoic drives away, and finally surrender in devotional service to the Supreme Godhead. Vaidhi-bhakti includes and involves all these processes, but the central focus is always clear. So yes, as long as we are not able to extinguish our "doubts", we engage in the accumulation of knowledge by reading scripture. But ultimately, surrender is the goal.

But just be careful of reading duplicitous commentaries. You are not identical with "God", but are one in ESSENCE. Even in Shankaracharya's commentaries, he uses two seperate terms with distinct shades of meaning -- advaita (uniqueness), and "ekatva" (collective oneness). Shankara also insisted that only Vishnu can uniquely be identified with Ishvara, and he reprimanded the Pashupatas and other Shaivites for doing so (He was called a "prachanna Vaishnava" by others for this very reason). Many of the practices and orders that Shankara instituted were taken from Vishnuswami, who comes in the Rudra-Vaishnava sampradaya. Other great acharyas like Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, etc upto Sri Chaitanya (and his 6 Goswami disciples) have left us with expanded and well-qualified semantic explanations on Vedanta. As per my limited understanding, the philosophy of "achintya-bheda-abheda tattva" encapsulates the essence of the Vedic doctrine, and it was spoken by EVERY acharya, and last spoken by Sri Chaitanya.

QUOTEDoes Hindus follow Dharm or "religion " like Semetics do?
Hinduism is not an "organized religion" in the sense of simply being socially/politically affiliated with a sect. But Hinduism is not a "do your own thing" freelance "private" religion either. Rather, it is somewhere inbetween -- it is based on a personal relationship with Guru, and the guru should come from an authentic parampara. In that framework, one associates and works with one's guru and godbrothers/godsisters.

There is only ONE eternal dharma -- sanatana dharma, and that is to realize our eternal, instrumental oneness with God. Then there are the many exoteric dharmas based on this goal, meant for people of different psycho-physical natures. So, under the guidance of a bonafide Guru, we should practice the dharma and sadhana appropriate to us. Only your Guru can tell you that. But one thing is certain, as the Vedic literature is unanimous on it -- the ONLY effective yoga for this Age (Kali-yuga) -- the yuga-dharma -- is Harinama Sankirtana -- loving glorification of the Supreme Personality of Godhead through thought, word and deed.

If you have the time, read the following article by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati (in two parts):
Be Humbler than a Blade of Grass - Part 1, Part 2

QUOTEIS Hindu free to explore Divinity beyond Vedas...
Why not? But the Vedic religion (when understood properly) gives the highest and purest understanding of tattva. After assimilating that, then we can read and understand the ESSENCE in any world religion. So Srila Bhaktivinod Thakura asks us to be "saaragrahi vaishnava" -- one who takes the essence, like a swan. On the other hand, an ignorant, sectarian fool neither understands his own religion properly, nor others. He becomes involved in nit-picking ritualism, ethnic chauvinism, sectarian fanaticism, nationalism, etc. It is the nature of the conditioned soul to mistake the form for the essence. Hare Krishna.
----------------------------------------

Two quotes by the acharyas:

"Krishna as Object of worship is one-Half, and, as the Support of His worshipper, He Himself is the other Half of the Whole. The variety of reciprocal activity of these Two Moieties constitutes the Fullness of the Divinity. Krishna is the complete realization of the Support of His worship."

"The Prime Cause of all effects should not be mutilated or manufactured through the agency of our unblossomed prerogatives. We are limited entities, but the Unlimited Infinity minus our infinitesimality would give us, as a result, an almost infinite gulf. We are earnestly called upon to search for and establish a tie between us and the Unlimited Entity."

03-03-2006, 12:45 PM

RADHE KRISHNA SRI CARL. ALTHOUGH THE STYLE OF UR CONVEYING THINGS HAS SOFTENED, THE SELF STYLED JARGONS U R USING ARE STILL OFFENSIVE.
I AGREE TO THE FACT THAT THOSE WHO FOLLOW ISCKON ARE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THEIR GURU. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT UR GURU IS BONAFIDE AND A GURU EVEN IF HE IS ADVOCATING SOMETHING DIFFERENT IS MALAFIDE.

I APPRECIATE THAT U DONT DISRESPECT SHANKARACHARYA. BUT ENTER ANY SITE OF ISCKON. I AM SO SORRY TO SAY THAT THESE ARE LITTERED WITH ABUSES OF THIS GREAT SAINT OF INDIA. PEOPLE WHO ARE NON ENTITIES ARE HEAPING ABUSES ON SHANKARACHARYA IN UR SITES.

U DONT AGREE WITH ADVAITA IS ONE THING. SAY THAT U DONT AGREE WITH ADVAITA. BE SINCERE. DONT GIVE A CONCOCTED NAME TO A GREAT PHILOSOPHY LIKE "MAYAVADA" AND GO ON DISPROVING IT. FOR U R DISPROVING MAYAVADA AND NOT ADVAITA.
FOR UR KIND INFORMATION, WHENEVER PEOPLE SAY A PERSON HAS DEFEATED ANOTHER IDEOLOGY, PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY, THAT WHAT IS DEFEATED IS THE CAPACITY OF ARGUMENT OF ANOTHER PERSON AND NOT THE IDEOLOGY OF ALTOGETHER.
IN THE PAST SO MANY ACHARYAS BELONGING TO SO MANY IDEOLOGIES HAVE DEFEATED OPPONENT IDEOLOGISTS. BUT NOT THE OPPONENT IDEOLOGY.

TO SAY ADVAITA AS "MAYAVADA" IS AS DEROGATORY AS REFERRING "SHRI KRISHNA BALARAMA MANDIR" IN BRINDAVAN AS "ANGREZI MANDIR".
LET US BE HONEST IN OUR APPROACH .
THAT IS WHAT IS TAUGHT BY CHAITANYA MAHAPRABHU.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?