what is hinduisms highest priority

[Devotee]

Not necessarily the reason for the accusations of hostility.

Remember that I'm in agreement with many of your actual arguments and points; yet when it comes to your choice of words, I'm on their side.

Besides, you don't even need to worry about sugarcoating, as you can just leave any sort of taste-enhancing stuff out, and just keep the cereal bland.

I do agree with Riverwolf here. Many of your claims, Kaisersose, haven been making me think if Gaudiya Vaishnavaism is right for me. Its just that your tone is hostile, but your points do sometimes make sense, ill give you that.

 

[kaisersose]

Tell me this: if Atmarama was calling Shankara a liar, then why does he say that Gaudiya Vaishnavas love him? Why love a liar?

If you read Devotee's posts, I asked him the same question and he says he has no problems with that.

Are you sure it's not just a simple misunderstanding (possibly from a misleading translation)? That's certainly not worthy of the harsh words you've used. After all, it's quite clear that you're more well-studied.

The translation is clear.

Mayavadam - Advaita
asat - opposite of sat (truth) = untruth
Shastram - doctrine

I can translate more, if necessary.

I will do this: If they concede that they never realized that they were implying Shankara was a liar (by supporting the ISKCON position) then I will take back all my words!

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

3. The Advaitin wants to merge with BrahmaJyothi - an Iskcon term (False)

Sometimes I have trouble understanding the Iskcon folks. Like the term Brahmajyothi. I just have never seen the term used in any texts I have read.

 

[kaisersose]

I do agree with Riverwolf here. Many of your claims, Kaisersose, haven been making me think if Gaudiya Vaishnavaism is right for me. Its just that your tone is hostile, but your points do sometimes make sense, ill give you that.

Just to be clear, I am not on some kind of anti-GV crusade.

The death-bed post on Shankara opened the door and it quickly bubbled up. If they were simply posting on GV concepts, I would not even enter the thread. But when false claims are made about Shankara and Advaita - especially when they were not necessary at all, then I feel compelled to set the record straight.

I believe GV is just fine - sans the negative rhetoric on Mayavada.

 

[kaisersose]

Sometimes I have trouble understanding the Iskcon folks. Like the term Brahmajyothi. I just have never seen the term used in any texts I have read.

The fundamental premise here is Brahman with form and without form. The Gaudiyas believe the version with form is real and the formless version is real too. But the latter is inferior and this is the destination of Advaitins, also labeled Brahma Jyothi.

They are also confused on the topic -

1. Sometimes they believe Advaitins will merge with the Brahma Jyothi
2. Some other times they believe Mayavada is false and cannot lead to liberation. This is the position of Ramanuja and Madhva too. Madhva says Advaitins are hell bound.

A key point in this context is Madhva in one of his books says Advaita was taught by a demon with bad intentions. But they are also clear on this - they do not claim any respect for Shankara. Though the bulk of Madhva's arguments are against Advaita, he never mentions Shankara by name.

 

[atanu]

A key point in this context is Madhva in one of his books says Advaita was taught by a demon with bad intentions. But they are also clear on this - they do not claim any respect for Shankara. Though the bulk of Madhva's arguments are against Advaita, he never mentions Shankara by name.

Namaste kaisersose

Can you kindly cite the original reference (original writing of Madhavacharya) for the above?

Om

 

[atanu]

For Bhagavata

Post number 146 repeated

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2229439-post146.html

Om

 

[atmarama]

That is the difference. The Gaudiya Position is that Shankara was a liar - that is, he knowingly handed down a false philosophy as was posted by Atmaram earlier.

Not exactly a liar, but a servant of the Supreme, who descended for a very specific reason... The quote is from the Padma Purana. Here is a link to a nice article. Spiritual Leaders - Gaudiya-Vaisnava Acaryas - Sri Shankaracarya Actually we see Shankaracharya as a bone fide acharya

Again we come to the most important point - no matter what position we take, I am sure we agree that we require to find a spiritual master. He is the final word. I accept what my spiritual master says with full faith.

If some people lose sight of the intent/subject and choose to dwell on my tone, then that is just too bad!

Real humility

Also, your tone can express your intent. I must say that based on your posts, neither are good. This means that so far, you are seemingly validating my analysis.

:yes:

Show me where Atmarama said Adi Shankara is a liar? Oh, he didnt. This means that its purly a mental concoction, a imposition that you have placed upon His words. Good Job!

+1

They are also confused on the topic -

1. Sometimes they believe Advaitins will merge with the Brahma Jyothi
2. Some other times they believe Mayavada is false and cannot lead to liberation. This is the position of Ramanuja and Madhva too. Madhva says Advaitins are hell bound.

It is not really our field of analysis, mayavadi philosophy. It is distasteful for us to think of ourselves as identical to the Supreme Lord. We desire only to serve that great personality from whom everything emanates.

That being said, some of your thoughts on our thoughts seem rather confused. The above quote being an example. There are different schools of Gaudiya thought on these matters, but again it comes down to our personal relationship with our spiritual master, and following his instructions.

Thank you again for the discussion.

 

[atanu]

---It is not really our field of analysis, mayavadi philosophy. It is distasteful for us to think of ourselves as identical to the Supreme Lord. We desire only to serve that great personality from whom everything emanates.

Hello atmarama

Well. If the desire was only to serve and worship the great personality from whom everything emanates, then the so-called mayavadi darshana would not be distasteful to you.

Om

 

[atmarama]

Hello atmarama

Well. If the desire was only to serve and worship the great personality from whom everything emanates, then the so-called mayavadi darshana would not be distasteful to you.

Om

Hi Atanu,

In the gaudiya vaisnava tradition we seek a loving and dynamic relationship with The Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krsna & His eternal associates. But before directly relating to Krsna, first we try to serve the servant of the servant of the servant. Therefore pleasing & serving the spiritual master becomes the goal of life, and because he is a dearmost servant of the Lord, the Lord becomes pleased.

Hare Krsna

 

[kaisersose]

Namaste kaisersose

Can you kindly cite the original reference (original writing of Madhavacharya) for the above?

Om

I do not have access to those books at the moment.

The demon was Manimanta. You should be able to find this story of how Manimanta took birth in Kaliyuga as a Brahmana (Shankara) on dvaita web sites like dvaita.org, etc.

 

[kaisersose]

Not exactly a liar, but a servant of the Supreme, who descended for a very specific reason... The quote is from the Padma Purana. Here is a link to a nice article. Spiritual Leaders - Gaudiya-Vaisnava Acaryas - Sri Shankaracarya Actually we see Shankaracharya as a bone fide acharya

That is a paradox. I am not sure you understand the full implication of what you are saying here. Let me explain.

Shiva took birth as Shankara with the sole intention of lying and deceiving people. He filled his Sutra-Bhashya, Upanishad Bhashyas, UPadesha saahasri, Soundarya Lahari, etc., with lies, lied with a straight face to his disciples and left behind a legacy full of lies which - for over a thousand years - is being cluelessly followed by hundreds of thousands of Advaitins - who were never Buddhists or had any association with Buddhism. Perhaps Shankara was laughing inside as well, when he was teaching his disciples at how he was conning them, big time?

Even worse, Shiva is a God who lies to his disciplies and devotees (whatever his reasons may be) and we have millions of people in India who are Shiva worshippers and are unaware that their Ishta Devata is a cheap liar.

This is essentially what you are saying when you stand by that verse. If you want to take this positon, I am absolutely fine. But having implied all of that, you contradict yourself when you claim high respect for Shankara.

Like I said earlier, Madhvas claim that Shankara was a demon. But

1) They are consistent in that they do not claim respect or regard for Shankara
2) They never take this criticism outside their own tradition. When talking to Advaitins, they always debate based on scriptural interpretations. Shankara's demon status or Madhva's avatar status are never factors in the debate.

Again we come to the most important point - no matter what position we take, I am sure we agree that we require to find a spiritual master. He is the final word. I accept what my spiritual master says with full faith.

Regardless of who said it, calling Shankara a liar and also claiming deep respect for him do not go together. Now if people want to pretend it is not a contradiction and everything is just fine, then so be it. It is the easy way out, after all.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Not exactly a liar, but a servant of the Supreme, who descended for a very specific reason... The quote is from the Padma Purana. Here is a link to a nice article. Spiritual Leaders - Gaudiya-Vaisnava Acaryas - Sri Shankaracarya Actually we see Shankaracharya as a bone fide acharya

I am sorry I do not see this link in such a positive light. It has an extremely negative view of the Atheist Buddhists and the false doctrine of Advieta Vedanta.

It also clearly sets up Shiva as inferior to Vishnu. It is true that shiva is a great devotee of Vishnu. But it s also true that Vishnu is a great devotee of Shiva.

This site was clearly written with the hope of being open minded. Yet it does not let Advaita Vedanta speak for it self, it's defined by Gaudiya ideas and terms. Its history is also incorrect in some ways. By the time Adi Sankara came on the stage the popularity of Buddhism was already receding from India. Sankara traveled all over India not in the attempt to nail the coffin shut on Buddhism but to reorganized Hinduism for modern times.

I prefer the modern Advaita Vedanta beliefs on this subject as taught by Swami Vievakanda. All paths lead to the Truth.

 

[atanu]

I do not have access to those books at the moment.
The demon was Manimanta. You should be able to find this story of how Manimanta took birth in Kaliyuga as a Brahmana (Shankara) on dvaita web sites like dvaita.org, etc.

Thank you kaisersose

As far as I know, the story of manimanta is not from madhavacharya directly, but is fertile imagination of Sri Narayana Panditacharya, who wantonly disregards the teachings of Veda, Upanishad and Gita, while constructing the straw man. He also ascribes to manimanta certain teachings that appear to be advaita but is actually not advaita. For example he says:

He (manimanta) became notorious 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
​

Anyone who has studied Shankara will know that Shankara never taught that the entities of the world are all same. Actually, Shankara teaches, following Sruti, that entitities of the world are differentiated by names and forms but beneath the differences of names and forms remains hidden the same Paramatman pervading all entitities, which owe their apparent life and intelligence to the Atman alone. Shankara teaches in order that aspirants may know the atman.

Gita teaches the same. Gita teaches that the Paramatman though one, appears divided in bodies. Gita also exhorts us to know the undivided Pramatman seated in the hearts of all beings. Shankara's teachings are not mere philosophy but guides one towards the vision/experience of advaita paramatman. In fact Hinduism's highest goal (the topic of OP) is to know the Self -- as taught in every upanishad.

Any darshana which is premised on permanent difference of all entitities have no way to guide the aspirants towards the Vedic teaching that the Truth is one and that the all pervasive undivided atman must be known in order to attain freedom from cycles of death and birth.

Regards

 

[atanu]

Hi Atanu,

In the gaudiya vaisnava tradition we seek a loving and dynamic relationship with The Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krsna & His eternal associates. But before directly relating to Krsna, first we try to serve the servant of the servant of the servant. Therefore pleasing & serving the spiritual master becomes the goal of life, and because he is a dearmost servant of the Lord, the Lord becomes pleased.

Hare Krsna

I asked "If the desire was only to serve and worship the great personality from whom everything emanates, then the so-called mayavadi darshana would not be distasteful to you."

Your above above reply does not answer how some emanation of Lord is distasteful to you?

But don't worry anymore about it.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Again we come to the most important point no matter what position we take, I am sure we agree that we require to find a spiritual master. He is the final word. I accept what my spiritual master says with full faith.

Even this comment I would not accept 100%.

My sect teaches that one should accept a teacher only after testing and watching Her till we know that they are what they say they are.

There is a Hassidic Jew saying. I go to the rabbi not to learn scripture but how to tie my shoes.

A Guru should be accepted because you trust them and they have what you want. (Enlightenment is always accompanied by a lack of neurosis) How do they live are they full of love for all beings not only for the few who agree with them.

There is an old Bengali saying. Follow what your teacher says accept for the head and the tail. When you eat fish you cut off the head and tail. Apply what you can in the here and now the rest don't worry about. All will come with time.

 

[Devotee]

That is a paradox. I am not sure you understand the full implication of what you are saying here. Let me explain.

Shiva took birth as Shankara with the sole intention of lying and deceiving people. He filled his Sutra-Bhashya, Upanishad Bhashyas, UPadesha saahasri, Soundarya Lahari, etc., with lies, lied with a straight face to his disciples and left behind a legacy full of lies which - for over a thousand years - is being cluelessly followed by hundreds of thousands of Advaitins - who were never Buddhists or had any association with Buddhism. Perhaps Shankara was laughing inside as well, when he was teaching his disciples at how he was conning them, big time?

Even worse, Shiva is a God who lies to his disciplies and devotees (whatever his reasons may be) and we have millions of people in India who are Shiva worshippers and are unaware that their Ishta Devata is a cheap liar.

This is essentially what you are saying when you stand by that verse. If you want to take this positon, I am absolutely fine. But having implied all of that, you contradict yourself when you claim high respect for Shankara.

Like I said earlier, Madhvas claim that Shankara was a demon. But

1) They are consistent in that they do not claim respect or regard for Shankara
2) They never take this criticism outside their own tradition. When talking to Advaitins, they always debate based on scriptural interpretations. Shankara's demon status or Madhva's avatar status are never factors in the debate.



Regardless of who said it, calling Shankara a liar and also claiming deep respect for him do not go together. Now if people want to pretend it is not a contradiction and everything is just fine, then so be it. It is the easy way out, after all.

I cant believe you continue to imply certain things upon others posts that they dont even say.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

It feels like the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition is getting beat up on. I feel bad about it.

I have the Highest respect for Sri Chaitanya and his teachings. The more I hear about Achintya Bheda Abheda Tattva the more I like it. It is a very logical way to look at Hindu scripture.

Whatever the truth is about Iskcon (I am not sure myself) it is no refection on the path of the Lord Chaitanya.

 

[Devotee]

It feels like the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition is getting beat up on. I feel bad about it.

I have the Highest respect for Sri Chaitanya and his teachings. The more I hear about Achintya Bheda Abheda Tattva the more I like it. It is a very logical way to look at Hindu scripture.

Whatever the truth is about Iskcon (I am not sure myself) it is no refection on the path of the Lord Chaitanya.

Thank you Wannabe Yogi.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Thank you Wannabe Yogi.

Jai Radhe