what is hinduisms highest priority

[kaisersose]

Devotee,

I believe I have gotten my point across. Anything more I say will simply be a repitition.

People who read this thread will be wary of believing information on Advaita/Shankara posted by Hare Krishnas, ergo mission accomplished.

 

[Devotee]

Devotee,

I believe I have gotten my point across. Anything more I say will simply be a repitition.

People who read this thread will be wary of believing information on Advaita/Shankara posted by Hare Krishnas, ergo mission accomplished.

Ok, hopefully they will also understand that generalization and stereotyping isnt good too.

 

[atmarama]

I found no disrespect in anything you said. If anyone was disrespected, well, they misinterpreted what you said, or need to just ignore it. Yep, its sad that others think that we think so lowly about Shiva!

Agreed!

It seems you already have something agaisnt Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and I am sorry that you feel that way.

Yep. Strange for a follower of advaita... I have many friends with different understandings of the Supreme and we can talk nicely without getting ugly.

Ok, just so you know, you are starting to get offensive. Not just by this post, but many others you have made.

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.

...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.

Me too.

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.

Please show me where I offended Shankaracharya? We LOVE Him! He sang Bhaja Govinda prabhus! Hari Bol! Bhaja Govinda! Sri Shankaracharya Mahadeva ki Jaya! Professors of philosophy in India refer to a verse from the Padma Purana (Uttara khanda 25.7) that reveals the hidden identity of Shankaracarya:

mayavadam asac-chastram
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi
kalau brahmana-murtina

"The Mayavada philosophy, Siva informed his wife Parvati, is covered Buddhism. In the form of a brahmana in the kali-yuga, I teach this imagined philosophy." Shankaracarya is thus widely accepted as an incarnation of Shiva.

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.

:yes:

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.

Yoh! (A south african expression expressing exclamation)

It's funny because your "list" is a good mirror reflection of why I am still commenting...

1.Your incorrect views on Gaudiya philosophy.
2. So unsuspecting people do not fall for those lies
3. Your arrogance

I think you want the Gaudiya Vaishnavas to be mean people because it brings you pleasure to put us down. It is sad that you are like this, but you are only doing it to yourself.

Well said

 

[kaisersose]

Please show me where I offended Shankaracharya? We LOVE Him! He sang Bhaja Govinda prabhus! Hari Bol! Bhaja Govinda! Sri Shankaracharya Mahadeva ki Jaya! Professors of philosophy in India refer to a verse from the Padma Purana (Uttara khanda 25.7) that reveals the hidden identity of Shankaracarya:

mayavadam asac-chastram
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi
kalau brahmana-murtina

"The Mayavada philosophy, Siva informed his wife Parvati, is covered Buddhism. In the form of a brahmana in the kali-yuga, I teach this imagined philosophy." Shankaracarya is thus widely accepted as an incarnation of Shiva.

This is pecisely the nonsense that I was talking about; the stuff that people should stay away from. Needless to say, this entire piece is yet another lie perpetuated by ISKCON. A simple query on the Advaita discussion forum will prove it, for those who are interested.

You are calling Advaita a false philosophy and yet I am sure, your friend Devotee believes it is perfectly OK to say so and I am the offender for not agreeing with you! I will now let you guys get back to continue patting each other on the back.

 

[Riverwolf]

You are calling Advaita a false philosophy and yet I am sure, your friend Devotee believes it is perfectly OK and I am the offender for not agreeing with you!

I don't think it's the fact that you're disagreeing, but your choice of words.

 

[atanu]

Non-dualism extrapolates from the logical principle that God is everything. ---according to Shankara, reach Final Enlightenment and be equal to God.

Namaste Bhagavata

I think the above understanding is not complete. Shankara's first teaching is atma-anatma vichara. The teaching begins with discrimination, which is also the teaching of Gita --- knowing the 1) difference between untaintable atma and purusha immersed in prakriti and 2) the similarity between true undeluded purusha and unchangeable atma.

---problem was, when Shankara tried to argue his position logically, as good as it sounded in the beginning, by the time all the inconsistencies and problems with this comprehensive,-----

Though I do respect Adi Shankara, many parts of His philosophy dont make sense.

Can you spell out the inconsistencies please?

----the inconsistancies within the philosophy itself would begin to rise and bring my practice to a hault.

There may be solid reasons related to one's own deficiencies for failures. For now, however, I request you to state concisely the non-sense that YOU perceive in advaita.

Om

 

[kaisersose]

I don't think it's the fact that you're disagreeing, but your choice of words.

Riverwolf,

That is the classic age-old ISKCON tactic. I have seen it a hundred times and so can you - if you take a minute to browse other discussion forums.

Once you point out a mistake or call their bluff, this is exactly what they do. They try to show your argument as an insult and turn on the whiny tone.

Meanwhile, if you notice they also continue to disparage Advaita as he did in the previous post by calling it a false philosophy created to fool people. He also never admitted that he was wrong about the death-bed composition.

Now if I had called Gaudiya Vaishnava a false philosophy, that would have raised screams of horror from them. They apparently believe they have a prerogative.

 

[Devotee]

Riverwolf,

That is the classic age-old ISKCON tactic. I have seen it a hundred times and so can you - if you take a minute to browse other discussion forums.

Once you point out a mistake or call their bluff, this is exactly what they do. They try to show your argument as an insult and turn on the whiny tone.

Meanwhile, if you notice they also continue to disparage Advaita as he did in the previous post by calling it a false philosophy created to fool people. He also never admitted that he was wrong about the death-bed composition.

Now if I had called Gaudiya Vaishnava a false philosophy, that would have raised screams of horror from them. They apparently believe they have a prerogative.

 

[atmarama]

That is the classic age-old ISKCON tactic.

You seem to lump all Gaudiya Vaisnavism into "ISKCON" for some obscure reason...

Meanwhile, if you notice they also continue to disparage Advaita as he did in the previous post by calling it a false philosophy created to fool people.

Actually it is a quote from the Padma Purana (Uttara khanda 25.7):

mayavadam asac-chastram
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi
kalau brahmana-murtina

"The Mayavada philosophy, Siva informed his wife Parvati, is covered Buddhism. In the form of a brahmana in the kali-yuga, I teach this imagined philosophy."

We're not making it up.....

He also never admitted that he was wrong about the death-bed composition.

Yes I did... I researched it right away and admitted my mistake. Please read properly.

Now if I had called Gaudiya Vaishnava a false philosophy, that would have raised screams of horror from them. They apparently believe they have a prerogative.

Well there are no verses within the veda's that say that, so you'd have to speculate it completely...

 

[Devotee]

Now if I had called Gaudiya Vaishnava a false philosophy, that would have raised screams of horror from them. They apparently believe they have a prerogative.

You basically are calling Gaudiya Vaishnavism a false philosophy, your just covering it up with a bunch of unnecissary word play.

Actually it is a quote from the Padma Purana (Uttara khanda 25.7):

mayavadam asac-chastram
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi
kalau brahmana-murtina

"The Mayavada philosophy, Siva informed his wife Parvati, is covered Buddhism. In the form of a brahmana in the kali-yuga, I teach this imagined philosophy."

We're not making it up.....

Thank you for the Verse from the Padma Purana, Atmarama! For some reason, and its not just Kaisersose, many people think we are making this stuff up when much of it comes from the Puranas and arnt the Puranas based on the Vedas? The Puranas where written for average people who didnt have the time to read all threw the Vedas. We are not making this up, but taking it from the knowledge within Sanatana-Dharma. Gaudiya Vaishnavas are not here to speculate, simply because the mind and the senses are not a good thing to rely on to find the truth, they are imperfect. Therefore we have to rely on revelation from the Truth to know the Truth. So when the Truth (Krishna) tells us of Himself and His profound philosophy, we just accept. There is no time to sit around and speculate whether or not it is real, we must accept simply because it is comming down from a higher plane. That is why we defend this faith so much, we believe that it came down from God Himself.

 

[kaisersose]

OK. I will give you guys the benefit of doubt. Perhaps, you are as innocent as you sound.

1) The Padma Purana does not come from a higher plane. It is a 14th century text that comes in two different recensions - the Bengali version which contains this alleged verse and a South Indian recension which does not. Either way, it should be noted that Ramanuja and Madhva spent a lot of ink disproving Advaita and neither of them quote this verse. Madhva does quote from the Padma Purana several times and clearly such an explicit verse would have bene most useful in his Khandana.

In short, it is an interpolation by some unknown, unscrupulous person. The Dvaita and Ramanuja schools agree that such quotes are bogus. Also consult texts by Winternitz, Ludo Rocher, etc., to know more about Purana evolution, interpolations and their actual dates.

2) When Prabhupada came to the US, he had to provide a viable alternative to the already popular Rama Krishna Mission (Mayavadis). As part of aggressive evengelism, he maligned Advaita where possible and his followers adopted a similar model. It was all for the greater cause and the end justified the means. Consequently, a lot of western devotees spend more time talking ill about Advaita than on their own doctrine! This campaign against Mayavada is also not relevant anymore. Your time spent in criticizing Advaita can be better spent elsewhere.

It is not going to get you any converts or any other benefits.

 

[Devotee]

OK. I will give you guys the benefit of doubt. Perhaps, you are as innocent as you sound.

1) The Padma Purana does not come from a higher plane. It is a 14th century text that comes in two different recensions - the Bengali version which contains this alleged verse and a South Indian recension which does not. Either way, it should be noted that Ramanuja and Madhva spent a lot of ink disproving Advaita and neither of them quote this verse. Madhva does quote from the Padma Purana several times and clearly such an explicit verse would have bene most useful in his Khandana.

In short, it is an interpolation by some unknown, unscrupulous person. The Dvaita and Ramanuja schools agree that such quotes are bogus. Also consult texts by Winternitz, Ludo Rocher, etc., to know more about Purana evolution, interpolations and their actual dates.

2) When Prabhupada came to the US, he had to provide a viable alternative to the already popular Rama Krishna Mission (Mayavadis). As part of aggressive evengelism, he maligned Advaita where possible and his followers adopted a similar model. It was all for the greater cause and the end justified the means. Consequently, a lot of western devotees spend more time talking ill about Advaita than on their own doctrine! This campaign against Mayavada is also not relevant anymore. Your time spent in criticizing Advaita can be better spent elsewhere.

It is not going to get you any converts or any other benefits.

Havent I said that I dont want to talk badly about Adi Shankara or his Philosophy, and Atmarama says that He respects Him too? If you dont believe us, well, thats your problem. But you can only go by what we have said, the rest is your own mental concoction. And then you say "Your time spent in criticizing Advaita can be better spent elsewhere." Well, maybe we are critisizing His philosophy, but thats apart of a debate and if you cant handle it then I suggest that your time "can be better spent elsewhere." Its a debate, its just that. Within debates there is critizisms and other things like that, because that it apart of a debate. But you have turned this into a scratching contest to try an prove yourself right. We are not the "whiny" people that you think we are, maybe some introspection on your part will reveal that the contrary may be true.

 

[kaisersose]

Havent I said that I dont want to talk badly about Adi Shankara or his Philosophy, and Atmarama says that He respects Him too?

You cannot claim to respect Shankara and also call his philosophy a lie at the same time. Pick one.

Here is an example.

I deeply respect Prabhupada. But his philosophy was intended to convert the hippies and high school dropouts of the sixties (1965 - 1977) to be precise. It has no standing after that and everyone should move to the Sai Baba camp. And once again, I deeply respect Prabhupada.

Does this work? I don't think so and for the same reason neither does your claim.

Its a debate, its just that. Within debates there is critizisms and other things like that,

But you said I was being offensive when I called your bluffs? Looks like you are singing a different tune now. And I am all for a debate. Never mind my tone and focus on the topic (if you can) and we will continue. So far,

1. There was a claim that Bhaja Govindam was composed on a death-bed (Dismissed for lack of evidence)
2. Mayavada is a false philosophy (Dismissed for bogus quotes)

What else do you have to debate?

 

[Devotee]

You cannot claim to respect Shankara and also call his philosophy a lie at the same time. Pick one.

Here is an example.

I deeply respect Prabhupada. But his philosophy was intended to convert the hippies and high school dropouts of the sixties (1965 - 1977) to be precise. It has no standing after that and everyone should move to the Sai Baba camp. And once again, I deeply respect Prabhupada.

Does this work? I don't think so and for the same reason neither does your claim.



But you said I was being offensive when I called your bluffs? Looks like you are singing a different tune now. And I am all for a debate. Never mind my tone and focus on the topic (if you can) and we will continue. So far,

1. There was a claim that Bhaja Govindam was composed on a death-bed (Dismissed for lack of evidence)
2. Mayavada is a false philosophy (Dismissed for bogus quotes)

What else do you have to debate?

Excuse me, but I can do what I will. I CAN respect Adi Shankara and dissagree with his philosophy. Just like I can respect Christ but not be a christian, dont impose your limitations upon me.

"I deeply respect Prabhupada. But his philosophy was intended to convert the hippies and high school dropouts of the sixties (1965 - 1977) to be precise. It has no standing after that and everyone should move to the Sai Baba camp. And once again, I deeply respect Prabhupada."

Sure this works!!! You can respect Prabhupada and not believe in his Philosophy. Many theologins in the 60's and 70's deeply respected Prabhupada but did not accept His Philosophy.


And you really really hate it when someone says that they messed up. Didnt Atmarama say that He messed up with the Bhaja Govindam death-bed thing? Oh but you dont like that because that would mean that you couldnt keep on ridiculing him.

And I dont want to debate with you anymore because your not debating, your going at peoples neck and manipulating things to make it seems as if its ok, when you know darn well that its not. I am not whining to you or crying, I am just tellin you how I see it. Stop hiding behind the excuse "You are whiny ISKCON members" and get a backbone and debate properly! But you have shown throughout this that you cant do that.

 

[kaisersose]

Excuse me, but I can do what I will. I CAN respect Adi Shankara and dissagree with his philosophy. Just like I can respect Christ but not be a christian, dont impose your limitations upon me.

"I deeply respect Prabhupada. But his philosophy was intended to convert the hippies and high school dropouts of the sixties (1965 - 1977) to be precise. It has no standing after that and everyone should move to the Sai Baba camp. And once again, I deeply respect Prabhupada."

Sure this works!!! You can respect Prabhupada and not believe in his Philosophy. Many theologins in the 60's and 70's deeply respected Prabhupada but did not accept His Philosophy.


And you really really hate it when someone says that they messed up. Didnt Atmarama say that He messed up with the Bhaja Govindam death-bed thing? Oh but you dont like that because that would mean that you couldnt keep on ridiculing him.

And I dont want to debate with you anymore because your not debating, your going at peoples neck and manipulating things to make it seems as if its ok, when you know darn well that its not. I am not whining to you or crying, I am just tellin you how I see it. Stop hiding behind the excuse "You are whiny ISKCON members" and get a backbone and debate properly! But you have shown throughout this that you cant do that.

Respected Sir,

I take this as an admission that you have nothing more to debate on Advaita. If you do find something, I will be happy to engage you.

Thanks you for your interest in the topic and do tell your friends. More info on Advaita can be found at http://www.advaita-vedanta.org or on any of the Ramakrishna mission (Mayavadi) web sites. The AV site also contains a very active discussion forum with many knowledgeable people to answer any queries you may have.

And no, I cannot claim to respect one who I call a liar. I consider it weird that you can respect someone you call a liar (Shankara specifically).

Regards

 

[Riverwolf]

Riverwolf,

That is the classic age-old ISKCON tactic. I have seen it a hundred times and so can you - if you take a minute to browse other discussion forums.

Once you point out a mistake or call their bluff, this is exactly what they do. They try to show your argument as an insult and turn on the whiny tone.

Meanwhile, if you notice they also continue to disparage Advaita as he did in the previous post by calling it a false philosophy created to fool people. He also never admitted that he was wrong about the death-bed composition.

Now if I had called Gaudiya Vaishnava a false philosophy, that would have raised screams of horror from them. They apparently believe they have a prerogative.

Sorry, but I'm with Devotee on this.

However true what you say may be, it doesn't excuse the choice of words.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sure this works!!! You can respect Prabhupada and not believe in his Philosophy.

As I do.

I not only disagree with Sri Prabhupada, I heartily disagree with him. But I still respect him for bringing an alternative form of Vedic thought to an America that until that point was really only familiar with the Ramakrishna perspective (the one I personally prefer.)

I must also point out that there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's philosophy, and calling it a lie. I don't believe that Sri Prabhupada was lying; I simply don't believe that his overall teaching was correct. Simple as that.

 

[Devotee]

Riverwolf,

May I ask what sect of Hinduism you follow, if you have one. Or are you a sort of universalist?

Thanks.

 

[Riverwolf]

Riverwolf,

May I ask what sect of Hinduism you follow, if you have one. Or are you a sort of universalist?

Thanks.

I'm kinda an advaitic eclectic. ^_^ I don't really belong to any particular sect; one hour I'm Shaivite, chanting Om Namah Shivaya, the next I'm Vaishnavite, chanting the name of Rama (I actually feel closer to Rama than Krishna). I pray at a Shiva temple, but I'm currently reading Srimad Bhagavatam and Adhyatma Ramayana. However, both were translated by Swamis from the Ramakrishna sect (the S. Bhagavatam by Swami Prabhavananda, and A.R. by Swami Tapasyananda.)

Basically, as I said before, I see it like this: Whatever Form the Lord takes, I worship That. As for Brahman, I believe that It is the total aggregate of all existence.

 

[kaisersose]

I must also point out that there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's philosophy, and calling it a lie. I don't believe that Sri Prabhupada was lying; I simply don't believe that his overall teaching was correct. Simple as that.

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.

Some people prefer not to get involved in such posts and prefer to stay quiet. And then there are some others who would want to set the record straight, for the benefit of readers.

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