Gaudiya Vaishnavism queries and discussion thread.

[निताइ dasa]

what is the general view of Gaudiyas on Adi Shankara? Do you consider him a Vaishnava or no?

Nitai! Thank you for your question. We Gaudiyas view Sri Adi Sankaracharaya as a great Vaishnav, who was an incarnation of Lord Shiva. He specifically descended in Kaliyuga to defend Hinduism against the Buddhists and also to establish the authenticity of the Vedas. That being said, we totally reject his Kevala-Adwaita vada philosophy. All the 4 authoritative Sampradayas (of Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya, Nimbarkacharya and Visnu Swami) establish the personal truth of Sri Narayan as supreme, while it is only Sankara who establishes an impersonal truth of Brahman. We therefore reject His philosophy, knowing that he did not preach the ultimate truth but rather a sectarian truth in accordance with the circumstance. The Padma Purana verses in question are below:

mayavadam asat-sastram
pracchanam-baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devim
kalau brahmana rupinah

O goddess, in the age of Kali, I will appear in the form of a brahmana to preach the false doctrine of Mayavada which is simply covered Buddhism. (Padma Purana 6.236.7)

vedarthan maha-sastram mayavadam avaidikam
mayaiva kathitam devi jagatam nasakaranat

This powerful doctrine of Mayavada resembles the Vedas, but is by nature non-Vedic. O goddess, I propagate this philosophy in order to destroy the world. (Padma Purana 6.236.1)

Shiva does this under the direct orders of Lord Visnu as is found further in the Purana:

The Supreme Lord Vishnu tells Lord Siva:

svagamayaih kalpitais tvam ca janam mad vimukhan kkuru
mam ca gopaya yena syAt srsti hrasa uttara-uttara"

You should appear in Kali yuga among human beings in your partial incarnation and citing false scriptures preach a philosophy to turn men against Me. Make sure to keep My eternal identity and Supreme form as a deep secret. In this way the atheistic population will gradually increase. (Padma-Purana 42.1)

paratma jivayor aikyam maya atra pratipadyate
braamano’sya param rupam nirgunam darzitam maya
savasya jagato’pyasya nazanartham kalau yuge
vedartha van maha zastram mayavadam avaidikam
mayaiva kathitam devi jagatam nazakaranat

"Furthermore, I have established the one-ness of “paramatma”, Supersoul, with the jiva, as well as the view that Brahman is devoid of attributes. Intending to bring about the absolution of the world in Kali yuga, I have given mayavada philosophy the stamp of Vedic authority and recognition."


These quotes are from Edition of thePadma purana published by Nag Publishers. Nag Publishers has nothing to do with any sectarian group. The same quotes are also in other editions of the padma purana. There is no evidence that they are interpolated. Furthermore, they appear and are quoted in the Bhasya of Vijnana Bhiksu who lived in the 17-th century.

Prabhupada said 'a demon'.
Anyone not worshiping Lord Vishnu exclusively for Vaishnavas is either demonish, or at their most liberal, an 'ajnani', absolutely wrong, as Tattva informs me.

Prabhupada called the followers of Mayavada as demonic, although he gave great respect to Sankaracharya. The reason why we Vaishnavs totally disagree with this philosophy is because it denies the eternity of Lord Hari's form, pastimes and qualities. In-fact it says that "whether you worship Hari, Shiva, Ganesha or anyone they are all Brahman and ultimately these forms are all material conceptions anyway". This type of thinking is atheistic and in our humble opinion, rejects the injunctions of the Puranas as well those acharayas who wrote their commentaries on Vedanta. In essence, this philosophy is an offense against our Lord Hari Himself, and therefore Prabhupada calls it demonic. Others may follow it, but it contradicts what we understand.

Normally, Shaivas are not bitten by that 'exclusivity' bug. Sure, Shiva is their 'ishta', but they are equally respectful of Vishnu and his avataras.

All the Shaivas actually follow the Adwaita-vada of Sankaracharya. They by nature believe that there is no difference between demigods and Sri Hari, and hence they don't need to make such claims. This process of Pancopasana (worshiping Surya, Ganesha, Shiva, Shakti or Visnu) was established by Sanakaracharya also and we reject it because we cannot find it anywhere in scriptures. We Vaishnavs do respect Lord Shiva, however we understand his actual position and worship him accordingly. Sruti declares many times the position of Lord Visnu as the origin and source of all the other Devis and Devatas.

I don't know, but recently there is this trend in hinduism to say things like "All Paths lead to God" however this concept cannot be found anywhere in the scriptures. Yes the Vedas do prescribe different paths, according to the adhikara of the sadhaka (karma, jnana, upasana) but they do not lead to the same goal.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my words, but Aupmanyavji bought this up so I had to give a Gaudiya reply to it. Maybe Ratikala mataji can also add to this.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram terese ji

Isn't Narada a devotee of Vishnu?

jai jai , ...certainly as he was blessd by Visnu he became loyal to lord Visnu , ....

thus if Narada muni shows respect to Shiva this only illustrates the point that Vaisnavas respect Shiva , .....that we should behave with humility showing respect to all , .....and not behaving in a superior manner , ...

Aupmanyav said: ↑
Normally, Shaivas are not bitten by that 'exclusivity' bug. Sure, Shiva is their 'ishta', but they are equally respectful of Vishnu and his avataras.

That's an unfortunate side of Vaishnavism.

nor should we be bitten by the bug of superiority a true Vaisnava is respectfull to all , .....

as Sri Chaitanya so sweetly put it , ....

"One should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street. One should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind, one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly." (Siksastakam, Verse 3)

 

[Terese]

Nitai! Thank you for your question. We Gaudiyas view Sri Adi Sankaracharaya as a great Vaishnav, who was an incarnation of Lord Shiva. He specifically descended in Kaliyuga to defend Hinduism against the Buddhists and also to establish the authenticity of the Vedas. That being said, we totally reject his Kevala-Adwaita vada philosophy, as it is a twisted meaning of the Vedanta. All the 4 authoritative Sampradayas (of Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya, Nimbarkacharya and Visnu Swami) establish the personal truth of Sri Narayan as supreme, while it is only Sankara who establishes an impersonal truth of Brahman. We therefore reject His philosophy, knowing that he did not preach the ultimate truth but rather a sectarian truth in accordance with the circumstance. The Padma Purana verses in question are below:

mayavadam asat-sastram
pracchanam-baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devim
kalau brahmana rupinah

O goddess, in the age of Kali, I will appear in the form of a brahmana to preach the false doctrine of Mayavada which is simply covered Buddhism. (Padma Purana 6.236.7)

vedarthan maha-sastram mayavadam avaidikam
mayaiva kathitam devi jagatam nasakaranat

This powerful doctrine of Mayavada resembles the Vedas, but is by nature non-Vedic. O goddess, I propagate this philosophy in order to destroy the world. (Padma Purana 6.236.1)

Shiva does this under the direct orders of Lord Visnu as is found further in the Purana:

The Supreme Lord Vishnu tells Lord Siva:

svagamayaih kalpitais tvam ca janam mad vimukhan kkuru
mam ca gopaya yena syAt srsti hrasa uttara-uttara"

You should appear in Kali yuga among human beings in your partial incarnation and citing false scriptures preach a philosophy to turn men against Me. Make sure to keep My eternal identity and Supreme form as a deep secret. In this way the atheistic population will gradually increase. (Padma-Purana 42.1)

paratma jivayor aikyam maya atra pratipadyate
braamano’sya param rupam nirgunam darzitam maya
savasya jagato’pyasya nazanartham kalau yuge
vedartha van maha zastram mayavadam avaidikam
mayaiva kathitam devi jagatam nazakaranat

"Furthermore, I have established the one-ness of “paramatma”, Supersoul, with the jiva, as well as the view that Brahman is devoid of attributes. Intending to bring about the absolution of the world in Kali yuga, I have given mayavada philosophy the stamp of Vedic authority and recognition."


These quotes are from Edition of thePadma purana published by Nag Publishers. Nag Publishers has nothing to do with any sectarian group. The same quotes are also in other editions of the padma purana. There is no evidence that they are interpolated. Furthermore, they appear and are quoted in the Bhasya of Vijnana Bhiksu who lived in the 17-th century.




Prabhupada called the followers of Mayavada as demonic, although he gave great respect to Sankaracharya. The reason why we Vaishnavs totally disagree with this philosophy is because it denies the eternity of Lord Hari's form, pastimes and qualities. In-fact it says that "whether you worship Hari, Shiva, Ganesha or anyone they are all Brahman and ultimately these forms are all material conceptions anyway". This type of thinking is atheistic and rejects the injunctions of the Puranas as well those acharayas who wrote their commentaries on Vedanta. In essence, this philosophy is an offense against our Lord Hari Himself, and therefore Prabhupada calls it demonic. We do not consider it an authentic commentary of Vedanta.



All the Shaivas actually follow the Adwaita-vada of Sankaracharya. They by nature believe that there is no difference between demigods and Sri Hari, and hence they don't need to make such claims. This process of Pancopasana (worshiping Surya, Ganesha, Shiva, Shakti or Visnu) was established by Sanakaracharya also and we reject it because we cannot find it anywhere in scriptures. We Vaishnavs do respect Lord Shiva, however we understand his actual position and worship him accordingly. Sruti declares many times the position of Lord Visnu as the origin and source of all the other Devis and Devatas.

I don't know, but recently there is this trend in hinduism to say things like "All Paths lead to God" however this concept cannot be found anywhere in the scriptures. Yes the Vedas do prescribe different paths, according to the adhikara of the sadhaka (karma, jnana, upasana) but they do not lead to the same goal.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my words, but Aupmanyavji bought this up so I had to give a Gaudiya reply to it. Maybe Ratikala mataji can also add to this.

I think the "all paths lead to God" were made from Neo-Vedanta, from Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Ramakrishna etc.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Prabhu jis

I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my words, but Aupmanyavji bought this up so I had to give a Gaudiya reply to it. Maybe Ratikala mataji can also add to this.

sadly l have little time this morning , but gladly l will return to this question this evening , we should none of us be offended by any words here , the only word of caution is that we should not do what Budhists call ''striking at the heart'' , ...that is trying to discredit what another holds dear , ...we should simply try to undrstand why , ...however it is not a didifficult thing to do , .....

 

[निताइ dasa]

namaskaram Prabhu jis



sadly l have little time this morning , but gladly l will return to this question this evening , we should none of us be offended by any words here , the only word of caution is that we should not do what Budhists call ''striking at the heart'' , ...that is trying to discredit what another holds dear , ...we should simply try to undrstand why , ...however it is not a didifficult thing to do , .....

Yes thank you for that. I apologise again if I offended anyone, I am simply giving our opinion.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Prabhupada called the followers of Mayavada as demonic, although he gave great respect to Sankaracharya.

Isn't that inconsistent? Giving great respect to someone while at the same time labeling his teaching as demonic? In my opinion, it is simpler and more honest to not make a false claim of "great respect".

It is incorrect that Shankara removed Buddhism from India. There are several factors that led to its decline, but Shankara was not one of them.

All the Shaivas actually follow the Adwaita-vada of Sankaracharya.

That is an incorrect statement.

I don't know, but recently there is this trend in hinduism to say things like "All Paths lead to God" however this concept cannot be found anywhere in the scriptures.

That is correct. This unification is fairly recent. However, I must point out Gaudiyas/Hare Krishnas are guilty of doing the same. I have seen veteran Gaudiyas claim that Allah is no different from Krishna (but Shiva is inferior) and claiming that allah worshippers are better than Mayavadins and so on. Such ideas obviously are created out of a need to proselytize.

 

[Chakra]

Prabhupada said 'a demon'.
Anyone not worshiping Lord Vishnu exclusively for Vaishnavas is either demonish, or at their most liberal, an 'ajnani', absolutely wrong, as Tattva informs me.

But Shankaracharya did worship Lord Vishnu (probably exclusively), and he also considers people who do not worship Vishnu as ajnani (or something similar to that) in the BG. And since when was the idea "all paths are correct" a trademark of Hinduism?

 

[Chakra]

That is correct. This unification is fairly recent. However, I must point out Gaudiyas/Hare Krishnas are guilty of doing the same. I have seen veteran Gaudiyas claim that Allah is no different from Krishna (but Shiva is inferior) and claiming that allah worshippers are better than Mayavadins and so on. Such ideas obviously are created out of a need to proselytize.

This is something I don't understand either. At least gods like Shiva, Durga, etc are mentioned in scriptures; Allah and Jesus are not.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Isn't that inconsistent? Giving great respect to someone while at the same time labeling his teaching as demonic? In my opinion, it is simpler and more honest to not make a false claim of "great respect".

Not necessarily. Just like we Vaishnavs view Lord Buddha as an avatar of Visnu, yet still do not accept his philosophy of Buddhism, the same goes for Sankaracharya. That is why even Lord Chaitanya sang some of the astakams written by Sankara. .

I must point out Gaudiyas/Hare Krishnas are guilty of doing the same.

Yes unfortunately, however it was done according to circumstance. as I understand it. Though I agree, it cannot be called the final matter or representative of our views, especially when it contradicts our Siddhanta. I personally apologize for what they may have said.

That is an incorrect statement.

I'm sorry I may have over generalized here . Rather all the Shaivas that I have met follow or borrow heavily from the Kevala Adwaita-Vada of Srila Sankaracharya (by which I mean establishing an impersonal truth as the highest, as opposed to personal).

 

[Aupmanyav]

But Shankaracharya did worship Lord Vishnu (probably exclusively), and he also considers people who do not worship Vishnu as ajnani (or something similar to that) in the BG. And since when was the idea "all paths are correct" a trademark of Hinduism?

He must have been referring to some Shaivas who might not have been worshiping Lord Vishnu. Adi Sankara propounded Shanmata, the worship of six deities, basically equal respect to all Hindu deities. I do not follow "all paths are correct" ideology. Some paths result only in strife and cruelty. There are enough examples in the world history.

 

[Chakra]

He must have been referring to some Shaivas who might not have been worshiping Lord Vishnu. Adi Sankara propounded Shanmata, the worship of six deities, basically equal respect to all Hindu deities.

We've gone through this many times. I guess you can stick to your opinion, and I'll stick to mine.

I do not follow "all paths are correct" ideology. Some paths result only in strife and cruelty. There are enough examples in the world history.

If you don't follow it, why do you expect Vaishnavas to follow it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you don't follow it, why do you expect Vaishnavas to follow it?

I do not mean that they should not follow their belief, but they should show better respect to Shiva. He is the 'ishta' of just as many Hindus as Vishnu is. Why should they try to be one-up? Shiva along with Shakti are the older deities of Hinduism.

Moyan-jo-dero (Camp of the dead), 2,000 BC

 

[Shantanu]

personaly l belive that this is not something which can be explained by use of rationale , ....or that it is something that can be explained easily to the materialy orientated mind , ....in the Gita Krsna explains that , ...

Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth. ch ...7 v ..3

thus a Gaudiya takes the position of the most lowly , incapable of understanding the unlimited nature of the lord , ....
...

The truth has to be known: the nature of the lord has to be known for certain.

 

[Chakra]

I do not mean that they should not follow their belief, but they should show better respect to Shiva. He is the 'ishta' of just as many Hindus as Vishnu is. Why should they try to be one-up? Shiva along with Shakti are the older deities of Hinduism.

"Better respect"? Shiva is a parama Vaishnava in Vaishnava theology, and the second greatest deva (behind Brahma). An offense against him is Vaishnava Apradha, and you know that is a huge thing in Vaishnavism. All Vaishnavas strive to be like Shiva, who is always meditating on Vishnu. That being the case, we would never offend Shiva or his devotees.

Of course, if by "better respect" you meant making Shiva's status on par with Vishnu's, then no. Not everyone wants to be a Smartha.

 

[kalyan]

Haribol, and we respect your great faith with the Vedas. I think we fundementally differ on this, so further debate would be anti-productive. For us, we accept the highest validity of Srimad Bhagavatam, because for us, even the Vedas and its anga should not be read without the support of the Bhagavatam. Srila Jiva Goswami says that a great portion of the Vedas have been lost to us, while Srimad Bhagavatam is all intact (all 18000 verses are there due to Sridhara Svami's commentary). Again I have posted by we accept SB as praman amalam. For us it is "nigama kalpa taror amrtam phalam" (the fully ripened fruit of the Vedas). Anyway, who are we to call certain things authoritative or not. I mean if this philosophy (of proof based primarily on sruti) was established by Adi Sankaracharya, then we Gaudiya Vaishnavs reject it as we also reject his Kevala-Adwaita Vada, in accordance with a injunctions in Padma Purana regarding him.

Nothing Ratikalaji has said contradicts with the Bhagavatam (if they do please point it out kindly). Even the story of the Samudra Manthan is in accordance with the Bhagavatam, so I don't understand the point you are bringing here. Our Acharayas have simply expanded the meaning, not contradicted it. This is done by all major schools, when they write their commentaries. Anyway let us agree to disagree here. Nitai!

if you regard bhagawatham as highest pramana, let me bring the bad news, there are ZERO or no mentions of any character called RADHA in bhagawatham, you should reject that then,

One thing is absolutely clear to me that gaudiyas do not revere Vedas as authority and it is tampering with some of the teahchings of vedas which is downright wrong. They established their own theories which I have no objection to but what is against vedas is to be taken with a pinch of salt, like that stuff yoou have given me on sada siva, and other stuff of samadra mathanam where narada glorifies Siva, this is not there in bhagawatham. Vishnu assumes 8 avataras during sagara mathanam.

I am not sure why this sampradaya is called vaishnava..sorry to say this bt it is a fact and am not attacking....the best thing of this is 'hari nAma sankeertana'

 

[kalyan]

Heh.

@Nitai-Dasji, what is the general view of Gaudiyas on Adi Shankara? Do you consider him a Vaishnava or no?

i dont think there is any point now as it became clear to me now that gaudiyas have written their own theories except bhagawatham (which actually has no chracter radha) and BG and they have no valid authoritative backing.......That is why the 3 pramAnic acharya lineage should not be diverted with imo (Trio of Shankara, Ramanuja and madhva) because their word never crossed even a single letter of vedam ) to accomodate newer stuff possibly from isckon. They say Krushna created Vishnu which is directly against vedic scritures

 

[निताइ dasa]

if you regard bhagawatham as highest pramana, let me bring the bad news, there are ZERO or no mentions of any character called RADHA in bhagawatham, you should reject that then,

One thing is absolutely clear to me that gaudiyas do not revere Vedas as authority and it is tampering with some of the teahchings of vedas which is downright wrong. They established their own theories which I have no objection to but what is against vedas is to be taken with a pinch of salt, like that stuff yoou have given me on sada siva, and other stuff of samadra mathanam where narada glorifies Siva, this is not there in bhagawatham. Vishnu assumes 8 avataras during sagara mathanam.

I am not sure why this sampradaya is called vaishnava..sorry to say this bt it is a fact and am not attacking....

You actually are attacking us prabhuji, in-fact without any proof at all! Please provide the appropriate passages from shastra and we can discuss. Everything I have claimed, I have backed up by a scriptural passage. Nothing I have said contradicts the Vedas, and where there are apparent contradictions, I have resolved them by giving an explanation in accordance with our Siddhanta. Therefore I think it is very very disrespectful to call our position "against the Vedas". Like I have explained before, books like Brahma Samhita are accepted by us as Vedic, because they are quoted by our previous acharayas. I think I have repeated this about 2-3 times now.

let me bring the bad news, there are ZERO or no mentions of any character called RADHA in bhagawatham, you should reject that then,

Srimati Radharani can be found in Bhagavatam, but in a very hidden form. She is very very confidential, so Suka-Deva Goswami was very careful not to reveal Her directly. The verses in question are as below:

anayaradhito nunam
bhagavan harir isvarah
yan no vihaya govindah
prito yam anayad rahah

"Certainly this particular gopi has perfectly worshiped the all-powerful Personality of Godhead, Govinda, since He was so pleased with Her that He abandoned the rest of us and brought Her to a secluded place" (SB 10.30.28).

Vishwanatha Cakravarti Thakura comments here that "aradhito" here indirectly refers to Radhika. This type of confirmation is also found in the Bhramara Gita (using kacit, and vadhvah). If Sukadeva Goswami spoke Radha's name even once directly, he would go into Samadhi and hence be unable to finish the Bhagavatam Katha to Parik**** Maharaj! Furthermore the name of Radha can be directly found in Padma, Narada, and Matsya Puranas as well the numerous Vaishnav Tantras. It is a great offense to consider Srimati Radharani an imagination, and frankly I am shocked a Vaishnav like you would say these things.

One thing is absolutely clear to me that gaudiyas do not revere Vedas as authority and it is tampering with some of the teahchings of vedas which is downright wrong. They established their own theories which I have no objection to but what is against vedas is to be taken with a pinch of salt, like that stuff yoou have given me on sada siva, and other stuff of samadra mathanam where narada glorifies Siva, this is not there in bhagawatham.

Of course we accept the Vedic Authority, it is you who is cherry picking what is Vedic and what is not. I have given multiple proofs from my claim (from Brahma Samhita, and even from Bhagavatam) regarding this. Even the Shiva claim I backed up from SB. Yes you may not consider it Vedic, but that is not an excuse to label our whole sampradaya as "against the Vedas". For us, Vedas are that which is manifest by our Acharayas. That is Sabda Pranam, hearing from a Bona-Fide Guru the actual meaning of the Shastras. Are you in fact calling the writings of all our Goswamis and Acharayas an imagination? Why it is that great personalities like Sri Vallabhacharya and Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Himself constantly sang the name of Radharani? I feel like I am becoming an aparadhi myself talking about these topics. In-fact this finger that your are pointing at us can also be easily turned towards Srila Madhav and Srila Ramanuja, who both quote from scriptures that cannot be found today (esp Madhacharya). However, we accept those Shlokas because we have faith in them. Similiarily we Gaudiyas have great faith in our Goswamis and their explanations. I do understand prabhu why you want to defend the Vedas, but what you must understand that even with Sabda Pramana it must be accepted under the instruction of a Bona-fide Guru.

 

[kalyan]

For us, Vedas are that which is manifest by our Acharayas

ofcourse but that is not official vedam

Why it is that great personalities like Sri Vallabhacharya and Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Himself constantly sang the name of Radharani?

what concealed? its nothing.....radhito does not mean radharani, radhito is a term to explain love not a person.
I cannot speak for why chaitanya sang radharani, but radharani is not mentioned in bhagawatham even once
Neela devi the consort of Sri Vishnu whom Sri Krushna has utmost love for is mentioned in Bhagawatham,

 

[kalyan]

I'd love to go to that temple

Aren't Saivites like that also? And i'd never say anything negative to Shiva or Durga, or Ganesha or Murugan or their worshipers.

the picture is of Mohini avatara of Sri Maha Vishnu

 

[Chakra]

@kalyan, you should probably give some Shastric support to back up your claims.

Radha could have been the incarnation of Neela Devi, who knows? This is getting way too heated.