what is hinduisms highest priority

[Devotee]

Except for chronology, everything here is incorrect. .

Im not sure how you can go as far as to say this is "incorrect". You can say that you dont believe it, but dont say its incorrect.

Shankara primarily debates the Mimamsa school as the Purva pakshin. The Mimamsa school of Jaimini focused entirely on the Karma kanda of the Vedas (injunctions for action) and rejected Vedanta. Shankara championed Vedanta and was successfully able to convert over Mimamsa Brahmins to Vedanta. Buddhism was not his target as incorrectly believed by the Hare Krishnas. The Mimamsa scholar Kumarila Bhatta is believed to be responsible for converting back a lot of Buddhist scholars back to Mimamsa. The story is KUmarila Bhatta was on his death-bed when Shankara went to meet him for a debate. He told Shankara to debate his student Mandana Mishra instead. .

Not only the Hare Krishnas believe that Buddhism was the target, but many of the Madhavas and the Ramanuja's believe the same thing. Dont try and make it seem as if we are the only ones. I feel as if you already have something agaisnt the Hare Krishna's and are just trying to say that they are wrong.

There is nothing impersonal about Advaita. That is yet another piece of misinformation circulated by Iskcon. Advaitins worship Gods like anyone else, visit temple, sing Bhajans, etc. Does not get any more personal than that. .

There are many things that are impersonal about Advaita, to say that there is NOTHING impersonal, as you said above, is down right extreme, absolute, and wrong. Their view of reality is impersonal, to say there is NOTHING impersonal about advaita, well, lets just say thats an absolute and a wrong one.

Shankara's doctrine was so forceful that it quickly spread across the country and became the standard. Several other scholars like Ramanuja and Madhva creatd new doctrines primarily arguing against Advaita. However, unlike Shankara, they all failed to find success beyond their own local regions (Karnataka and Tamilnadu). This does not make Advaita superior. It just means that for a variety of reasons, it continues to be the dominant Vedanta doctrine. .

Its not the dominant Vedanta doctrine. Only a small percentage of Hindus believe in Advaita. Isnt like 60% of Hindus Vaishanva? Im really asking to, not trying to be smart. I heard that about 10% of Hindus are Advaita Vedantist, please tell me if I am misinformed.

As for claims of superiority, if chronology matters, then Sai Baba is still alive which makes his school the most superior. Or else we can agree that chronology has nothing to do with it and Iskcon does not become superior to others simply because Chaitanya was born later than Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. .

I agree with this.

A feeling of superiority is arrogance and is a bad trait for someone who is engaged in spiritual activity.

Cant you have a good discussion without bringing in words like arrogance and wanting moderators to come here when they clearly need not be here? Its just a discussion where many opinions flow freely. Too many times people let their emotions get involved and only bad things happen when that occurs.

 

[Devotee]

What's BrahmaJyothi?

The Brahmajyoti is theh effulgence from the Body of God, it is the Energy of God. It is what Advaitins would call, Brahman. Advaitins believe it is the ultimate reality, while us Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that it is the effulgence or the shine of God.

 

[kaisersose]

Im not sure how you can go as far as to say this is "incorrect". You can say that you dont believe it, but dont say its incorrect.

Sure I can.

I can say with confidence that it is incorrect because I have spent the time to read and learn - unlike the person I was responding to, who is spreading all-familiar copy/paste Iskcon propoganda found on various websites. Read "The Rise and Fall of Buddhism in India" by Hazra, read Shankara's arguments against the Purva Pakshin in his Sutra-Bhashya and you will be where I am. Over 80% of his arguments are directed towards Mimamsa and less than 10% towards Buddhists. His biographies corroborate this too.

Its not the dominant Vedanta doctrine. Only a small percentage of Hindus believe in Advaita. Isnt like 60% of Hindus Vaishanva? Im really asking to, not trying to be smart. I heard that about 10% of Hindus are Advaita Vedantist, please tell me if I am misinformed.

Please check your facts. Vaishnava means "Worshipper of Vishnu" and nothing more. An advaitin who worships Krishna (lots of them do) is a Vaishnava too.

The label Vaishnava makes sense in relation to Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta. When discussing Vedanta, you compare Advaita, Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, etc. And as I said earlier among all these schools of Vedanta, Advaita has always been the dominant school (by numbers) since its inception. Feel free to verify this with Madhvas and Ramanujas. If I recall correctly, Dr. BNK Sharma the Dvaitin, gives his theory on why these schools failed to grow beyond their local regions.

Cant you have a good discussion without bringing in words like arrogance and wanting moderators to come here when they clearly need not be here? Its just a discussion where many opinions flow freely. Too many times people let their emotions get involved and only bad things happen when that occurs.

If you take the time to examine this thread, your colleague has been pushing his affiliation as the "superior" doctrine. That is arrogance - plain and simple. You did agree that no doctrine is superior and yet I fail to see you admonishing your colleague. I have seen this among other Hare Krishnas as well. They find it easy to call themselves superior, mock Mayavada and Shiva (demi-god), but when challenged they cry foul.

In case you had not noticed, this is a DIR forum, not a forum for debating. Hence, the call to the mdoerator to cut this off.

Like it or not, when you go around finding faults with others, you are putting yourself in a glass house. If you cannot take it, you can always stop and stick to your own doctrine. Stop your ill-advised campaign against Mayavada and Shiva and you will be just fine!

 

[Devotee]

If you take the time to examine this thread, your colleague has been pushing his affiliation as the "superior" doctrine. That is arrogance - plain and simple. You did agree that no doctrine is superior and yet I fail to see you admonishing your colleague. I have seen this among other Hare Krishnas as well. They find it easy to call themselves superior, mock Mayavada and Shiva (demi-god), but when challenged they cry foul.

In case you had not noticed, this is a DIR forum, not a forum for debating. Hence, the call to the mdoerator to cut this off.

Like it or not, when you go around finding faults with others, you are putting yourself in a glass house. If you cannot take it, you can always stop and stick to your own doctrine. Stop your ill-advised campaign against Mayavada and Shiva and you will be just fine!

First of all, I cant take responsibility for Atmarama's actions. I understand that we have the same beliefs, thats fine. But I feel, by looking at his posts, that I am a little more liberal. I dont care too much for the Advaita Philosophy, which we have called Mayavadi, but I dont go out of my way to call it bad things. In my little experiance, I have seen that people change when they see the Truth in something, not when someone comes over and just says things like "Your wrong!" So I dont do that to the Advaitins. Also, I have GREAT respect for Shiva and so do many of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I cant speak for ISKCON, because I am not apart of that organization. But I will say that Gaudiya Vaishnavism teaches that Shivaji is the greatest devotee of God and is to be respected, for the devotee is dear to Shiva and Shiva is dear to the devotee.

I hope this hasnt caused any negative emotions between us, I dont have any, and I hope we can move past this.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Brahmajyoti is theh effulgence from the Body of God, it is the Energy of God. It is what Advaitins would call, Brahman. Advaitins believe it is the ultimate reality, while us Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that it is the effulgence or the shine of God.

...I'm an advaitin, and I wouldn't describe Brahman as "energy of God," and I don't think Scriptures do, either.

 

[Devotee]

...I'm an advaitin, and I wouldn't describe Brahman as "energy of God," and I don't think Scriptures do, either.

...I'm an advaitin, and I wouldn't describe Brahman as "energy of God," and I don't think Scriptures do, either.

Would you consider the Srimad Bhagavatam an okay reference? I know some dont, but here is one verse:

Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.11​

yenasva-rocisā viśvam
rocitam rocayāmy aham
yathārko 'gnir yathā somo
yatharksa-graha-tārakāh​

TRANSLATION
I create after the Lord's creation by His personal effulgence [known as the brahmajyoti], just as when the sun manifests its fire, the moon, the firmament, the influential planets and the twinkling stars also manifest their brightness.
​

Also, in the Brahma Samhita (5.40)
​

yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-anda-koti-
kotisv aśesa-vasudhādi-vibhūti-bhinnam
tad brahma niskalam anantam aśesa-bhūtam
govindam ādi-puruṣam tam aham bhajāmi

"I serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental bodily effulgence, known as the brahmajyoti, which is unlimited, unfathomed and all-pervasive, is the cause of the creation of unlimited numbers of planets, etc., with varieties of climates and specific conditions of life."​

 

[Riverwolf]

Would you consider the Srimad Bhagavatam an okay reference? I know some dont, but here is one verse:

Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.11​

yenasva-rocisā viśvam
rocitam rocayāmy aham
yathārko 'gnir yathā somo
yatharksa-graha-tārakāh​

TRANSLATION
I create after the Lord's creation by His personal effulgence [known as the brahmajyoti], just as when the sun manifests its fire, the moon, the firmament, the influential planets and the twinkling stars also manifest their brightness.
​

Also, in the Brahma Samhita (5.40)
​

yasyaprabhā prabhavato jagad-anda-koti-
kotisv aśesa-vasudhādi-vibhūti-bhinnam
tadbrahmaniskalamanantamaśesa-bhūtam
govindamādi-puruṣam tam aham bhajāmi

"I serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental bodily effulgence, known as the brahmajyoti, which is unlimited, unfathomed and all-pervasive, is the cause of the creation of unlimited numbers of planets, etc., with varieties of climates and specific conditions of life."​

What translations are those? (Because, yes, I do consider Srimad Bhagavatam an authority.)

 

[kaisersose]

Would you consider the Srim []ad Bhagavatam an okay reference? I know some dont, but here is one verse:
Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.11

Nothing about Brahman in that verse. The Brahma-Samhita is a Gaudiya text and it really should not be quoted to non-Gaudiyas.

You could try Gita 14.27 is favor of the effulgence theory. However, such an interpretation would contradict several other verse in the Gita (8.3, etc.,), the Upanishads and the Sutras. Hence, to be consistent, no school of Vedanta interprets 14.27 that way.

 

[Riverwolf]

By the way, Devotee, just so you're aware, the Upanishads are the most authoritative Scriptures for me.

 

[kaisersose]

By the way, Devotee, just so you're aware, the Upanishads are the most authoritative Scriptures for me.

The Gaudiyas do not have much use for the Upanishads. Their authority is the Bhagavatam which they believe is some kind of a summary of everything.

A few years ago, they were claiming on internet forums that they were a branch of Madhva's Dvaita school! The Dvaita folks at Poorna Prajna institute of Bangalore wrote a position paper clarifying this was not true at all.

Here is an excerpt from the paper -

The basic approach of the system was pinning its faith on a single main source -- Bhâgavata, generally reducing the importance of all other sources accepted by the other schools of Vedânta. Its lack of critical examination by rival schools in debates has resulted in a system which is essentially not capable of being sustained in traditional disputation, as there are no accepted common ground rules essential for debate with the three main systems.

Here is the full paper clarifying the differences between Dvaita and GVs.
Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

 

[Riverwolf]

The Gaudiyas do not have much use for the Upanishads. Their authority is the Bhagavatam which they believe is some kind of a summary of everything.

Well, the text itself does say that it's the final word.

 

[Storm]

****Mod Post****

Thread moved to Religious Debates.
​

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
[specially friend atmaram whose quote is referred to below]

That is simply your opinion

Am unable to get across that existence contains every form including humans and IT goes on on its own and none is outside IT to make any difference to IT; in other way there is none to have any opinion as simply it is the MIND that forms opinions and that itself is the *disillusions* that needs to be rid off.

If my friend atmaram can understand the point referred to would like to take the discussion ahead from here.

Love & rgds

 

[Devotee]

The Gaudiyas do not have much use for the Upanishads. Their authority is the Bhagavatam which they believe is some kind of a summary of everything.

A few years ago, they were claiming on internet forums that they were a branch of Madhva's Dvaita school! The Dvaita folks at Poorna Prajna institute of Bangalore wrote a position paper clarifying this was not true at all.

Here is an excerpt from the paper -

The basic approach of the system was pinning its faith on a single main source -- Bhâgavata, generally reducing the importance of all other sources accepted by the other schools of Vedânta. Its lack of critical examination by rival schools in debates has resulted in a system which is essentially not capable of being sustained in traditional disputation, as there are no accepted common ground rules essential for debate with the three main systems.

Here is the full paper clarifying the differences between Dvaita and GVs.
Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

Ok, just so you know, you are starting to get offensive. Not just by this post, but many others you have made. It seems you already have something agaisnt Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and I am sorry that you feel that way. But please dont go around doing to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas what you dont like them doing to you. You got upset at Atmarama about how he portreyed Adi Shankara and the Mayavadi philosophy, well your doing that to the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy. Dont be what you dislike.

I understand that many of us Gaudiya Vaishnavas can be what others call "Close Minded" or other terms that are supposed to mean something about us. But we just believe differently then mainstream Hinduism. I dont take myself to be close minded, or bigoted agaisnt Shiva, or anything like that. I am very liberal and like the other philosophies within Hinduism and I never try to disrespect them because they all came from a common source, the Veda's. Therefore I respect Adi Shankara, I dont try to put down His Philosophy, because I understand that we have a common root, the Veda's. So before you want to group me with others and put me in the corner with some stereotype, I suggest that you first get to know my POV and you may find that you like it, or you may not. But dont generalize me or anything like that. You say many on here that the Gaudiya Vaishnavas dislike Shiva and the Mayavadi philosophy, and that shows your ignorance. I have a deep respect for Shiva, because He is one with Garbhodakashayi Vishnu. I dont care for the Mayavadi philosophy, but I dont degrade it or try to put it down, thats not my place. Be very carefull that your not becomming the very thing you dislike.

 

[atmarama]

Im not sure how you can go as far as to say this is "incorrect". You can say that you dont believe it, but dont say its incorrect.

Not only the Hare Krishnas believe that Buddhism was the target, but many of the Madhavas and the Ramanuja's believe the same thing. Dont try and make it seem as if we are the only ones. I feel as if you already have something agaisnt the Hare Krishna's and are just trying to say that they are wrong.

There are many things that are impersonal about Advaita, to say that there is NOTHING impersonal, as you said above, is down right extreme, absolute, and wrong. Their view of reality is impersonal, to say there is NOTHING impersonal about advaita, well, lets just say thats an absolute and a wrong one.

Cant you have a good discussion without bringing in words like arrogance and wanting moderators to come here when they clearly need not be here? Its just a discussion where many opinions flow freely. Too many times people let their emotions get involved and only bad things happen when that occurs.

Agreed...

First of all, I cant take responsibility for Atmarama's actions.

Ok - if anyone was offended by something I said please accept my sincere apologies. My posts were not meant to offend. As far as I knew we were discussing "what is hinduisms highest goal"...

Also, I have GREAT respect for Shiva and so do many of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I cant speak for ISKCON, because I am not apart of that organization. But I will say that Gaudiya Vaishnavism teaches that Shivaji is the greatest devotee of God and is to be respected, for the devotee is dear to Shiva and Shiva is dear to the devotee.

Agreed. Lord Shiva is NOT to be disrespected. I have heard he is the greatest Vaisnava.

I hope this hasnt caused any negative emotions between us, I dont have any, and I hope we can move past this.

Yes :yes: me too guys

 

[Devotee]

Ok - if anyone was offended by something I said please accept my sincere apologies. My posts were not meant to offend. As far as I knew we were discussing "what is hinduisms highest goal"...

I found no disrespect in anything you said. If anyone was disrespected, well, they misinterpreted what you said, or need to just ignore it.

Agreed. Lord Shiva is NOT to be disrespected. I have heard he is the greatest Vaisnava.

Yep, its sad that others think that we think so lowly about Shiva!

And I dont know if Kaisersose is going to want to be friends with us, Atmarama, He seems to just dislike Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

 

[kaisersose]

Thanks to the moderators for moving this thread.

Ok, just so you know, you are starting to get offensive. Not just by this post, but many others you have made. It seems you already have something agaisnt Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and I am sorry that you feel that way. But please dont go around doing to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas what you dont like them doing to you. You got upset at Atmarama about how he portreyed Adi Shankara and the Mayavadi philosophy, well your doing that to the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy. Dont be what you dislike.

You cannot tell me this because of your double standards. To spell it out, you made this statement to your fellow Hare Krishna, Atmaram.

I found no disrespect in anything you said. If anyone was disrespected, well, they misinterpreted what you said, or need to just ignore it.

Of course you do not see anything wrong with what he said. You could stare at it all day and you still woudn't because you are a fellow Hare Krishna and share the same derogatory views on Shankara and Advaita and believe your doctrine is superior.

On the other hand if someone points out your flaws you get emotional/weepy and this person pointing out the flaw or calling your bluffs is "Offensive". I have seen this boo-hoo MO dozens of times from other HKs in the past. They are perfectly fine with insulting others, but cannot take anything back.

I will repeat to you (a dose of your own medicine) what you told Atmaram - If anyone was disrespected, well, they misinterpreted what I said, or need to just ignore it. By your own logic, you you should simply be ignoring what I say!

 

[Devotee]

Thanks to the moderators for moving this thread.


You cannot tell me this because of your double standards. To spell it out, you said this to fellow Hare Krishna, Atmaram.



Of course you do not see anything wrong with what he said. You could stare at it all day and you still woudn't because you are a fellow Hare Krishna and share the same derogatory views on Shankara and Advaita and believe your doctrine is superior.

On the other hand if someone points out your flaws you get emotional/weepy and this person pointing out the flaw or calling your bluffs is "Offensive". I have seen this boo-hoo MO dozens of times from other HKs in the past. They are perfectly fine with insulting others, but cannot take anything back.

I will repeat to you (a dose of your own medicine) what you told Atmaram - If anyone was disrespected, well, they misinterpreted what I said, or need to just ignore it. By your own logic, you you should simply be ignoring what I say!

Read what I wrote, because you obviously didnt, I said if anyone was disrespected, it was misinterpreted. I am not misinterpreting what you are saying, you are intending to be disrespectful and offensive, that is the difference between you and Atmarama.

And your not pointing out flaws, your being down right mean and offensive, now your trying to manipulate the debate to make it seem otherwise.

Where have I insulted Adi Shankara, or his Philosophy, please show me where I have, oh wait, you cant because I dont do that. You are a generalizing person who thinks all people who are Gaudiya Vaishnavas are whiny, crying, babies, and because of that you will always stay in your ignorance, and thats not offensive but the truth. You can clearly see that I have not put down Adi Shankaras philosophy or Him himself. And yet you say I have and group me with others who have? Thats your fault and you need to fix that. You are a generalizing, stereotyping individual. I am asking you not to stop that (because I cant), but to not do it here.

I tried to clear things up with you, but you refused. I tried to be your friend, but you denied me that. I am very sorry you feel like this.

 

[kaisersose]

Btw, I am calling Hare Krishna bluffs and pointing out their inconsistencies for multiple reasons -

1. Their incorrect views on Shankara and Advaita.
2. So unsuspecting people do not fall for those lies
3. Their arrogance, especially when they try to mask it with "Prabhu, I have deep respect for..."
4. They opened the door

If you feel uncomfortable with their emotional responses of "Prabhu, you are being offensive...", that is their standard thin-skinned reaction to any criticism or unanswerable questions - as can be seen on other discussion forums over the years. They are only capable of dishing it out.

 

[Devotee]

Btw, I am calling Hare Krishna bluffs and pointing out their inconsistencies for multiple reasons -

1. Their incorrect views on Shankara and Advaita.
2. So unsuspecting people do not fall for those lies
3. Their arrogance, especially when they try to mask it with "Prabhu, I have deep respect for..."
4. They opened the door

If you feel uncomfortable with their emotional responses of "Prabhu, you are being offensive...", that is their standard thin-skinned reaction to any criticism or unanswerable questions - as can be seen on other discussion forums over the years. They are only capable of dishing it out.

I think you want the Gaudiya Vaishnavas to be mean people because it brings you pleasure to put us down. That is sad. And I am not arrogant when I say that I have deep respect for a particular God, because I do have a deep respect for all Gods.

Oh, here we go again. There are many thin-skinned people, but here is where you impose another absolute upon a group of people. We are ALL not thin-skinned, just like not all "insert group" are agaisnt this or that. Maybe a many are, but not all. Here you, again, validate my claim that you are a generalizing and stereotyping person and will not go beyond that. It is sad that you are like this, but you are only doing it to yourself.