03-12-2006, 12:24 AM
I received an e-mail from a venerable member who urged me to clear that statement since it seems to be a controversial one.
As much as I wish to stay away from controversies, the mail I received had a point. I therefore take a few minutes to clear some things up and elaborate.
<b> In this and other thread, I feel that the biggest grudge that many harbour against ISKCON is the fact that they critic Mayavada more than they criticise other religions like Christianity and Islam. </b>
This feeling is because most of you fail to realise the fundamentals of Vaishnavism which does not take into concern other religions, but is opposed to Impersonalism as being the greater evil. Only Pantheism is worst than Shudda Advaita since it drags the Supreme being to the level of the material world. (Vedarthsasangraha, p.14, Ramanuja Granthamala 1956 edition, where Ramajuna calls Pantheism more heinous view than Sankara's Brahmajnanavada. The sanskrit verse of Ramanuja reads - excuse the shoddy transliteration - Brahmajananavada papiyanayam bedabedapaksham)
Also, ISKCON teaches Vaishnavism aggresively all over the place and therefore, its preaching materials are quite accessible compared to those of other schools. Thus quite a very small selection of those materials are read by Hindus who have wrong notions of a grand 'Hinduism' narrative and they naturally feel bad that ISKCON should reserve its uttermost critisism for Advaita, a Hindu Tradition and not for other religions.
Most Hindus against ISKCON harbour a vision of Hinduism being a very harmonous religion. Yes, a family which can be termed Hinduism does exist, and cordial inter-sect relations with peaceful coexistence also exists. But then the underlying siddhanta are great opposing forces. In philosophical terms, they critic each other, while on social level, there is co-existence and respect. Also, only great Acharyas are given the rights to be critical of other equally great personalities. Ordinary laymen don't enjoy that privilege.
<b>Believe me: If you think ISKCON is being harsh about Advaita, you just haven't seen or heard anything yet. </b>
Carl said: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There was no greater denouncer of mayavada than Lord Chaitanya, and He did so in the strongest language, and so have all the acharyas in His parampara, and before Him. This aspect of Vaisnavism is not the fancy of some newly-fouded religious organization, but is integral to Vaishnavism itself. In defining and teaching Vaishnavism, they have to delineate what it includes, and what is does NOT include.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Precisely. The essence of Vaishnavism includes fierce citicism of Advaitavada. It is least concerned about Allah or Jehovah or any other God/god whatsoever because of the simple fact that <b> our Shastras do not mention them nor do our Gurus talk about them </b>
1. ISKCON or Gaudiya is much much much softer on Sankara.
2. For ISKCON respects Sankara as an Incarnation of Shiva who descends to spread Confusion among the Buddhists.
3. However, for Madhavas, Sankara is the Chief Demon of all times who is constantly in enemity with Mukya Prana, Vayu. Sankara is the enemy of Bhima/Hanuman/Madhva who are all one and the same, incarnations of Mukya Prana. Sankara is the greatest poison of the Vedic Religion. The Greatest Enemy of the science of God Realisation.
Similarly.. Sri Vaishnavism also takes a hard position on Advaita vada. While Gaudiya, Madhava, Sri, Kumara and Rudra Vaishnava Sampradayas differ in many doctrinal issues, they are united in opposing Advaitavada.
If somebody feels angry at ISKCON for being harsh with Advaita, they ought to have a lot more grudge at Vaishnavism as a whole. Actually, Historically, there have been many incidents of violence against Vaishnavas from Advaitins in response to merciless and lethal philosophical criticisms.
Many here had objected the use of 'Mayavada' term for Advaita. But they do not realise that this is from the example of our Acharyas like Madhavacharya and Ramanujacharya who used the term themselves. 'Mayavada' as a term was used by Advaitins too in many of their works. So, it should not be a problem.
Coming to Sri Sankara as Demonic in Dwaita Traditions, I take a huge risk here. I will leave these quotes here for a short period of time and then edit-delete them if necessary. I ventured to put them here to illustrate the point I made above that its not just ISKCON being critical of Advaita, but all other Vaishnava traditions too.
I quote.. but before this, I must urge the members that this material is not up for discussion for the greater good. Just read and please, I beg of you, not to try to discuss it. Thank you!
The authentic biography of Madhavacharya is the 'SriMadwavijaya' by Sri Narayana Pandita acharya, son of Thivikrama Pandita Acharya, an contemporary of Madhva. Sri Narayana Pandita acharya was himselves a youngster at the time of Madhava.
In the Book, Madhva understanding on the truth and origins of Sankara is quite clear.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Canto 1, Chapter 1, Verses 45-55
<b>Background to the incarnation of Madhva:</b>
Verse 45: Bhima sheltering at all times at the feet of the Lord had dealt severe blows to the demons (destoying them by his valorous deeds). The badly mauled demons who became powerless and lost courage ran away and dispersed. This was like clouds being dispersed by strong wind
46. To avenge their being rendered powerless at the hands of the powerful Bhima, the demons schemed to take birth again in Kali Yuga. According to their innate nature, they composed evil (misleading) works propounding that Vishnu does not possess any attribute (Nirguna).
<b>Origin of Advaita Shastra </b>
47. In Dwapara yuga, Manimantha, a demon who had been killed by Bhima at Gandhamadana mountain had developed a great hatred and spirit of competition with Bhima. He performed rigorous penences to obtain Iswara's boon that he should be endowed with great <b> disputational abilities </b>. Manimantha took birth as Sankara in a brahmin family called Kaladi. Many other main demons were also born on this earth at the same time (with the same objective)
48. The thieving cat tries to drink the curds and milk - called saannaya kept as an offering for a Havis (sacrifice). The lowly dog which takes refuse as food tries to steal purudasha (sacred food offering of a sacrifice). An ape without sense tries to steal a necklace of invaluable jewels. Similarly, the evil Sankara took away (tried to steal) the sacred Vedas and other Shastras.
Note: Stealing the Vedas and Shastras refers to their misinterpretation knowlingly against their purport, leading to their effective annihilation as a source of God knowledge.
49. Knowing that people will not show him respect uness he takes the vows of an ascetic, in a spirit of deceipt, Sankara took the vows of an ascetic. This was similiar to an untamed wild elephant wanting to stir up slush in a clear pool of water with lotuses.
50. Realising that Buddhism was not accepted by the people as it did not accept the validity of the Vedas, Sankara, who had faith in it, used a suitable subterfude to propound buddhism.
51. The wicked Sankara called the ASat of the Bauddhas as Sadasadvilakshana and Samvruthi as Maya. To justify Shunya (of the Bauddhas), he called Brahman of Vedanta as Nirvishesha or Akshanda. As he propagated the tenets of Buddhism in a different vocabulary (claiming to be a Vedanthin), he was called Pracchanna Bauddha.
[note: This conclusion was justified by Sri madhava in his works, Tatvodyota, Vishnu Tatva Nirmaya and Anuvyakhyana]
52. Brahma Suthras composed by Veda Vyasa are like the Sun illuminating the tenets of Vedanta, with their aphorisms being the Sunrays. The Vedas (consisting of Vishaya and pramana texts) are the horses drawing the chariot of this Sun. Sankara stole the Brahma Sutras (by his commentaries) and hence is called as a Great thief.
53. Though Sankara wrote his Bhashyas on Brahmasutras claiming to be their commentator, he conveyed the exact opposite of the meanings intended by Veda Vyasa. Inspite of this gross offence, Veda Vyasa being an ocean of mercy, did not destroy and incinerate Sankara instantly.
54. The inherent pure effulgence of the Gems of the Vedas (illuminating the truth about the Supreme Being) was convered by the thick mud of gross misinterpretation in Sankara's commentaries. Samkara became notorious as Sankara (defiler) amongst the good people as he propagated the doctrine of Non-difference (Abheda) between all entities in the world to the people ignorant of Vedanta.
55. Manimantha and other daithyas thus propagated the doctrines of:
The world is unreal (Sadasadvilakshana - it is neither real nor unreal but is different)
The Supreme Being is wihtout any attributes (gunas).
There is no difference bwteen the Supreme Being and the souls.
Even the good people of the world were gradually misled and started accepting that Vasudave who i sthe embodiment of infinite auspicious qualitieis like bliss is wihout such qualities. What a shame!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-end of Canto 1 ---
I hope members will appreciate the fact that the central aim of Sampradayas is God Realisation. Unity of Hindus or goals such as protection of Cows, Scriptures, Brahmanas and Hindu Culture are highly essential but yet they are only temporal duties under the leadership of Kshatriyas. The Principle Sampradayas and Agamas do not lend their voice to such goals, but concern only with the goal of God realisation.
Similarly, when ISKCON does not critic other religions, it does not automatically mean that it accepts them. ISKCON has faced challenges and hurdles in totally hostile environments and holds the light for the future of how Hinduism should engage others without diluting itself to the point of obscurity.
---------------------------
Mitradena, I am sorry - I had been unduly Harsh while responding to you. I appreciate your concern for Hindu Unity. It is your calling and you have all rights to consider it the noblest.
As much as I wish to stay away from controversies, the mail I received had a point. I therefore take a few minutes to clear some things up and elaborate.
<b> In this and other thread, I feel that the biggest grudge that many harbour against ISKCON is the fact that they critic Mayavada more than they criticise other religions like Christianity and Islam. </b>
This feeling is because most of you fail to realise the fundamentals of Vaishnavism which does not take into concern other religions, but is opposed to Impersonalism as being the greater evil. Only Pantheism is worst than Shudda Advaita since it drags the Supreme being to the level of the material world. (Vedarthsasangraha, p.14, Ramanuja Granthamala 1956 edition, where Ramajuna calls Pantheism more heinous view than Sankara's Brahmajnanavada. The sanskrit verse of Ramanuja reads - excuse the shoddy transliteration - Brahmajananavada papiyanayam bedabedapaksham)
Also, ISKCON teaches Vaishnavism aggresively all over the place and therefore, its preaching materials are quite accessible compared to those of other schools. Thus quite a very small selection of those materials are read by Hindus who have wrong notions of a grand 'Hinduism' narrative and they naturally feel bad that ISKCON should reserve its uttermost critisism for Advaita, a Hindu Tradition and not for other religions.
Most Hindus against ISKCON harbour a vision of Hinduism being a very harmonous religion. Yes, a family which can be termed Hinduism does exist, and cordial inter-sect relations with peaceful coexistence also exists. But then the underlying siddhanta are great opposing forces. In philosophical terms, they critic each other, while on social level, there is co-existence and respect. Also, only great Acharyas are given the rights to be critical of other equally great personalities. Ordinary laymen don't enjoy that privilege.
<b>Believe me: If you think ISKCON is being harsh about Advaita, you just haven't seen or heard anything yet. </b>
Carl said: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There was no greater denouncer of mayavada than Lord Chaitanya, and He did so in the strongest language, and so have all the acharyas in His parampara, and before Him. This aspect of Vaisnavism is not the fancy of some newly-fouded religious organization, but is integral to Vaishnavism itself. In defining and teaching Vaishnavism, they have to delineate what it includes, and what is does NOT include.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Precisely. The essence of Vaishnavism includes fierce citicism of Advaitavada. It is least concerned about Allah or Jehovah or any other God/god whatsoever because of the simple fact that <b> our Shastras do not mention them nor do our Gurus talk about them </b>
1. ISKCON or Gaudiya is much much much softer on Sankara.
2. For ISKCON respects Sankara as an Incarnation of Shiva who descends to spread Confusion among the Buddhists.
3. However, for Madhavas, Sankara is the Chief Demon of all times who is constantly in enemity with Mukya Prana, Vayu. Sankara is the enemy of Bhima/Hanuman/Madhva who are all one and the same, incarnations of Mukya Prana. Sankara is the greatest poison of the Vedic Religion. The Greatest Enemy of the science of God Realisation.
Similarly.. Sri Vaishnavism also takes a hard position on Advaita vada. While Gaudiya, Madhava, Sri, Kumara and Rudra Vaishnava Sampradayas differ in many doctrinal issues, they are united in opposing Advaitavada.
If somebody feels angry at ISKCON for being harsh with Advaita, they ought to have a lot more grudge at Vaishnavism as a whole. Actually, Historically, there have been many incidents of violence against Vaishnavas from Advaitins in response to merciless and lethal philosophical criticisms.
Many here had objected the use of 'Mayavada' term for Advaita. But they do not realise that this is from the example of our Acharyas like Madhavacharya and Ramanujacharya who used the term themselves. 'Mayavada' as a term was used by Advaitins too in many of their works. So, it should not be a problem.
Coming to Sri Sankara as Demonic in Dwaita Traditions, I take a huge risk here. I will leave these quotes here for a short period of time and then edit-delete them if necessary. I ventured to put them here to illustrate the point I made above that its not just ISKCON being critical of Advaita, but all other Vaishnava traditions too.
I quote.. but before this, I must urge the members that this material is not up for discussion for the greater good. Just read and please, I beg of you, not to try to discuss it. Thank you!
The authentic biography of Madhavacharya is the 'SriMadwavijaya' by Sri Narayana Pandita acharya, son of Thivikrama Pandita Acharya, an contemporary of Madhva. Sri Narayana Pandita acharya was himselves a youngster at the time of Madhava.
In the Book, Madhva understanding on the truth and origins of Sankara is quite clear.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Canto 1, Chapter 1, Verses 45-55
<b>Background to the incarnation of Madhva:</b>
Verse 45: Bhima sheltering at all times at the feet of the Lord had dealt severe blows to the demons (destoying them by his valorous deeds). The badly mauled demons who became powerless and lost courage ran away and dispersed. This was like clouds being dispersed by strong wind
46. To avenge their being rendered powerless at the hands of the powerful Bhima, the demons schemed to take birth again in Kali Yuga. According to their innate nature, they composed evil (misleading) works propounding that Vishnu does not possess any attribute (Nirguna).
<b>Origin of Advaita Shastra </b>
47. In Dwapara yuga, Manimantha, a demon who had been killed by Bhima at Gandhamadana mountain had developed a great hatred and spirit of competition with Bhima. He performed rigorous penences to obtain Iswara's boon that he should be endowed with great <b> disputational abilities </b>. Manimantha took birth as Sankara in a brahmin family called Kaladi. Many other main demons were also born on this earth at the same time (with the same objective)
48. The thieving cat tries to drink the curds and milk - called saannaya kept as an offering for a Havis (sacrifice). The lowly dog which takes refuse as food tries to steal purudasha (sacred food offering of a sacrifice). An ape without sense tries to steal a necklace of invaluable jewels. Similarly, the evil Sankara took away (tried to steal) the sacred Vedas and other Shastras.
Note: Stealing the Vedas and Shastras refers to their misinterpretation knowlingly against their purport, leading to their effective annihilation as a source of God knowledge.
49. Knowing that people will not show him respect uness he takes the vows of an ascetic, in a spirit of deceipt, Sankara took the vows of an ascetic. This was similiar to an untamed wild elephant wanting to stir up slush in a clear pool of water with lotuses.
50. Realising that Buddhism was not accepted by the people as it did not accept the validity of the Vedas, Sankara, who had faith in it, used a suitable subterfude to propound buddhism.
51. The wicked Sankara called the ASat of the Bauddhas as Sadasadvilakshana and Samvruthi as Maya. To justify Shunya (of the Bauddhas), he called Brahman of Vedanta as Nirvishesha or Akshanda. As he propagated the tenets of Buddhism in a different vocabulary (claiming to be a Vedanthin), he was called Pracchanna Bauddha.
[note: This conclusion was justified by Sri madhava in his works, Tatvodyota, Vishnu Tatva Nirmaya and Anuvyakhyana]
52. Brahma Suthras composed by Veda Vyasa are like the Sun illuminating the tenets of Vedanta, with their aphorisms being the Sunrays. The Vedas (consisting of Vishaya and pramana texts) are the horses drawing the chariot of this Sun. Sankara stole the Brahma Sutras (by his commentaries) and hence is called as a Great thief.
53. Though Sankara wrote his Bhashyas on Brahmasutras claiming to be their commentator, he conveyed the exact opposite of the meanings intended by Veda Vyasa. Inspite of this gross offence, Veda Vyasa being an ocean of mercy, did not destroy and incinerate Sankara instantly.
54. The inherent pure effulgence of the Gems of the Vedas (illuminating the truth about the Supreme Being) was convered by the thick mud of gross misinterpretation in Sankara's commentaries. Samkara became notorious as Sankara (defiler) amongst the good people as he propagated the doctrine of Non-difference (Abheda) between all entities in the world to the people ignorant of Vedanta.
55. Manimantha and other daithyas thus propagated the doctrines of:
The world is unreal (Sadasadvilakshana - it is neither real nor unreal but is different)
The Supreme Being is wihtout any attributes (gunas).
There is no difference bwteen the Supreme Being and the souls.
Even the good people of the world were gradually misled and started accepting that Vasudave who i sthe embodiment of infinite auspicious qualitieis like bliss is wihout such qualities. What a shame!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-end of Canto 1 ---
I hope members will appreciate the fact that the central aim of Sampradayas is God Realisation. Unity of Hindus or goals such as protection of Cows, Scriptures, Brahmanas and Hindu Culture are highly essential but yet they are only temporal duties under the leadership of Kshatriyas. The Principle Sampradayas and Agamas do not lend their voice to such goals, but concern only with the goal of God realisation.
Similarly, when ISKCON does not critic other religions, it does not automatically mean that it accepts them. ISKCON has faced challenges and hurdles in totally hostile environments and holds the light for the future of how Hinduism should engage others without diluting itself to the point of obscurity.
---------------------------
Mitradena, I am sorry - I had been unduly Harsh while responding to you. I appreciate your concern for Hindu Unity. It is your calling and you have all rights to consider it the noblest.