THE PROBLEM WITH IMPERSONALISM
ADVAITA PHILOSOPHY
MISCONCEPTIONS
DEVI VANAMALI
RAMAKRISHNA


THE PROBLEM WITH IMPERSONALISM



I really enjoy Vedic texts and read somewhere that we are all God. What do you think of this?

Thanks for your appreciation of the Vedic truths; however, you should know that the theory that "We are God" is completely bogus. It claims to be based on the Vedas, but the Vedic literature actually devotes quite a bit of space to refuting this idea.

If we were God, then we would already be God. We would not need some process to become God, because God is God eternally. God has no need to enter material bodies and experience the suffering and impurity of the material world; that is a ridiculous idea based on complete ignorance of the spiritual world. God is enjoying eternally in the spiritual world, and there is no need for Him to accept an imperfect material form.

The actual purport of the Māyāvādī impersonalist theory is that "We are God, so we do not have to accept any spiritual authority or discipline. We can be completely independent and do whatever we like." Thus the whole world has slid down the path to hellish existence. If we are all God and there is no reward or punishment after death for our activities, then everyone can do whatever they like. There is no right or wrong, no ethics or morality. It is simply an excuse to indulge our animal desires uninhibitedly, on the mistaken idea that there are no consequences to our actions.

This nonsense impersonalist theory is the cause of all the evil in the world. It is a demoniac theory concocted by those who hate God. Religion based on blind faith and guilt for sin is also demoniac, because it keeps people separated from God and in ignorance about real spiritual truth. We teach a method that brings the soul into direct personal relationship with God, purifies the mind and senses of material desire and lust, and leads to revival of our original eternal love relationship with God, Kṛṣṇa. By serving Kṛṣṇa we get everything: eternal existence, perfect knowledge and unending bliss in the spiritual world. Who needs to pretend to be God? By loving and serving the real God, Kṛṣṇa, we achieve everything we could aspire for.




Is there compatibility between the Esoteric Teaching and the theory of unmanifest Brahman?

Neti, neti, neti. Too much intelligence leads one around in circles, especially if not tempered by love and devotion. Just like many people in this group seem baffled that I keep drawing their attention to the Hard Questions, but actually they still have not understood them at all properly. Why?

It is a matter of epistemology and ontology: how do we know what we know about spiritual life, philosophy, sadhana etc? How do we know that what we know is accurate? How do we know what is knowable? How do we know what we know and what we do not know? And so forth. These are the questions addressed by epistemology and ontology.

Until and unless we fully understand the qualities and limitations of the various processes of gaining knowledge, simply studying and practicing the knowledge itself will always be more or less a matter of trial and error. So one can be brilliant in one's field, but if the field itself is asking the wrong questions, never arrive at any real answer.

Ontolgically speaking, the sum total of the categories can never equal the substance itself. Semantically speaking, the symbol is never equal to the referent. To arrive at a real answer, regardless of one's perceived level of 'knowledge', is realization. That is worth more than all the knowledge in the world. Because knowledge is and can be only about the subject, but to arrive at realization, one must encounter the subject Himself directly.

So our process of knowledge, the Esoteric Teaching, begins from knowledge, but it is really about faith. It is not a path of knowledge, but a path of the heart. It is about linking up in love with the Personality of Godhead, not simply artificially contemplating some abstract knowledge about Him.

For this reason the impersonal stage of realization is only a myth. No one has or can actually achieve it. The so-called path of knowledge that leads to annihilation of the individual personality in Brahman is only a path of hypocrisy. Anyone who actually achieves that kind of realization enters a coma and dies within a few days. It is a permanent death of the jiva or individual self.

Nobody really wants that. It's all a big bluff in the name of spirituality.

Sankara was an incarnation of Lord Siva, who states in the Padma Purana that he was instructed by Vasudev to appear in the Kali-yuga as a brahmana, just to mislead those who were influenced by the atheistic Buddhists and send them to hell. And so he did.

māyāvādam asac chāstraṁ
pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi
kalau brāhmaṇa-rūpiṇā

brahmaṇaś cāparaṁ rūpaṁ
nirguṇaṁ vakṣyate mayā
sarva-svaṁ jagato'py asya
mohanārthaṁ kalau yuge

vedānte tu mahā-śāstre
māyāvādam avaidikam
mayaiva vakṣyate devi
jagatāṁ nāśa-kāraṇāt

Lord Śiva informed his wife Pārvatī, "The Māyāvāda philosophy, is impious [asac chāstra]. It is covered Buddhism. My dear Pārvatī, in the form of a brāhmaṇa in the Kali-yuga I teach this imagined Māyāvāda philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedānta I describe the same Māyāvāda philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord."

In the Śiva Purāṇa the Supreme Personality of Godhead told Lord Śiva:

dvāparādau yuge bhūtvā
kalayā mānuṣādiṣu
svāgamaiḥ kalpitais tvaṁ ca
janān mad-vimukhān kuru

"In the Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings for the Vedas to bewilder them."

These are the descriptions of the vedic histories, Puranas. The Mayavada philosophy that Sankara propounded in his Sariraka-bhasya on Vedanta-sutra is poison for the soul. Anyone who reads it becomes bewildered and illusioned by this impersonal misinterpretation of the Vedas.

In Kali-yuga, the whole world has become converted to this impersonal philosophy, which hides in many different manifestations, from materialistic science to Judeo-Christian theology to phony so-called yoga and even Vedic studies—what to speak of the popular so-called civilization based on material sense gratification. If God is unmanifest—in other words, senseless and powerless—then let's just steal everything and use it for our edification and enjoyment. Whooppee, let's party—who cares if we destroy the world and our spiritual lives in the process!

Despite the fact that the entire purpose of the Vedas is to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and despite the fact that the entire Vedanta commentary written by the original author, Vyasadeva, confirms this fact, everyone has become bewildered by this impersonalist nonsense.

If you want to know why there is so much ignorance and suffering in the world, it is only because of this: bewildered by the impersonal theory, which cannot be realized in fact and which does not explain the direct personal experience of every human being, no one is actually worshiping God, the Lord, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And therefore our short, strident lives are filled with misery and misfortune.

This is God's world. Everything in it, including ourselves and our lives, is His. If we do not offer the property of God to Him and use it to forward His purposes, we are nothing but thieves and deserve to be punished. No wonder there are tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes, plagues and war. And more is coming... but then, that's what should happen when we rape God's green Earth for our own selfish ends.

People are so unintelligent, despite the obvious evil in the world they still choose to follow leaders that take them deeper into ignorance, causing still more evil. Therefore they fully deserve to suffer.

Yet, God is so merciful and loving that He reveals Himself in the Esoteric Teaching, but everyone chooses to follow the impersonal philosophy. Why? Because it allows them to preserve their illusion of independence and indulge in sense gratification, no matter if it is destroying the entire planet. People are so stupid that they actually choose to go to hell—after all, if everything is one, what does it matter?

So the short answer is, no, there is no compatibility between the Esoteric Teaching and the popular, but completely misguided and unrealizable theory of unmanifest Brahman.

Is the dictionary meaning of the Vedas important or could there be alternative meanings such as those put forward by the Mayavadis?

If an author writes something, whether a sentence or a whole book, the meaning of the words must be accepted according to the intention of the author. We cannot speculate that it actually means something else. That would be both incorrect and unethical. The dictionary exists to provide a neutral standard as to the meaning of words, precisely to prevent speculative distortion.

After writing the Vedas, Upaniṣads, Mahābhārata and other works, Śrīla Vyāsadeva was still unsatisfied. Therefore Vyāsadeva's spiritual master Nārada instructed Him to write specifically about the pastimes of the Lord and the science of bhakti. Nārada said:

na yad vacaś citra-padaṁ harer yaśo
jagat-pavitraṁ pragṛṇīta karhicit
tad vāyasaṁ tīrtham uśanti mānasā
na yatra haṁsā niramanty uśik-kṣayāḥ

"Those words which do not describe the glories of the Lord, who alone can sanctify the atmosphere of the whole universe, are considered by saintly persons to be like unto a place of pilgrimage for crows. Since the all-perfect persons are inhabitants of the transcendental abode, they do not derive any pleasure there.

tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavo
yasmin prati-ślokam abaddhavaty api
nāmāny anantasya yaśo 'ṅkitāni yat
śṛṇvanti gāyanti gṛṇanti sādhavaḥ

"On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest." [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.10-11]

Vyāsadeva therefore meditated on the Absolute Truth and then wrote the Vedānta-sūtras as his study notes; finally, he wrote Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the elaborate explanation of the same subject matter and the cream of the Vedic literature.

Yet the Māyāvādī impersonalist scholars say that Vedānta-sūtra does not mean what Vyāsadeva explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam; they assert that God is actually impersonal and that bhakti is meant for neophytes. They conclude this by speculating some different meanings for the words in the Vedic literature. Because of this nonsense misinterpretation, the entire Vedic civilization in India has become spoiled.

So this is not a small nor unimportant point. Both the writer and the reader must use the same dictionary meanings of the words, or communication and understanding break down. If someone says that an author's writing can mean anything they want it to mean, and that they can change the meanings of the words in any way that they like, then they can twist the words to mean the opposite of the writer's intentions.

This is exactly what has happened in so-called spiritual circles in India. Vedānta-sūtra clearly describes that God is a transcendental person and that bhakti is the highest spiritual path. Yet the rascals have used speculative definitions to prove exactly the opposite. As a result, the whole world has entered a hellish era of atheism and voidism. So we must be very careful to follow the standard method of interpretation, then the Vedic Absolute Truth is clear and will lead us to the highest goal of love of Godhead.





Seems to me that the Mayavadis intepret scriptures because they do not want to accept God. Is this right?

You are correct; the Māyāvādīs do not want to worship God, so they try to say that the scriptures are an allegory. The real truth is plainly written in the Vedas; the problem is, they don't want to accept it.

ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate
iti matvā bhajante māṁ
budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts." [Bhagavad-gītā 10.8]

The Vedic literature is not open to unauthorized speculative misinterpretation to support our pet theories. The principles of interpretation of difficult passages of the Vedic literature are given in the nyāya-śāstra:

upakramopasaṁhārāv abhyāso ‘pūrvata-phalam
artha-vādopapattī ca liṅgaṁ tātparya-nirṇaye

“The beginning, the ending, what is repeated again and again, what is unique and novel, the general purpose of the book, the author’s statement of his own intention, and appropriateness are the factors to consider in interpretation of obscure passages.”

If we apply these criteria, called samanvaya, to interpreting difficult passages in the Vedic literature, we clearly see that the Vedas consistently describe the Personality of Brahman and the individual conscious living entity as two distinct entities. For example, let us analyze the following passage from Śvetāśvatāra Upaniṣad [4.6-7] in the light of the above six criteria:

dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā samānaṁ vṛkṣaṁ pariśaṣvajāte
tayor anyaḥ pippalaṁ svādv atty anaśnann anyo ‘bhicakāśīti

“The individual living entity and the superconscious living entity, Brahman or the Personality of Brahman, are like two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. One of the birds [the individual living entity] is eating the fruit of the tree [the sense gratification afforded by the material body], and the other bird [the superconscious living entity] is not trying to eat these fruits, but is simply watching His friend.”

samāne vṛkṣe puruṣo nimagno ‘nīśāya śocati muhyamānaḥ
juṣṭaṁ yadā paśyati anyam īśam asya mahimānam iti vīta-śokaḥ

“Although the two birds are on the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness, bewildered by his own ignorance as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his face to his eternal friend Brahman and knows His glories, at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties.”

In this passage, the upakrama [beginning] is dvā suparṇā [two birds]; the upasaṁhāra [ending] is anyam īśam [the other person, who is Brahman or the Personality of Brahman]; the repeated feature is the word anya [the other person], as in the phrases tayor anyo ‘śnan [the other person does not eat] and anyam īśam [he sees the other person, who is the Supreme Brahman]. The apūrvata [unique feature] is the relationship between the individual conscious living entity and the Supreme Brahman, which cannot be understood without the revelation of the Vedic scripture; the phalam [object or general purpose of the passage] is vīta-śokaḥ [the individual conscious living entity becomes free from suffering by seeing Brahman]. The artha-vāda [author’s statement of his own intention] is mahimānam eti [one who understands the Supreme Brahman becomes glorious] and the upapattī [appropriateness] is anyo ‘naśan [the other person, the Supreme Brahman, does not eat the fruits of material happiness and distress].

By carefully analyzing this passage, we see that in all six points of interpretation, it teaches the difference between the jīva and Brahman. One can analyze many other passages from Vedic literatures in the same way, and one may clearly understand the difference between the Personality of Brahman and the individual living entity.

Under the circumstances, there is no scope for the impersonal misinterpretation of the Vedas according to word jugglery. One must be honest and straightforward, that is all, and accept the plain direct meaning of the texts. Then all spiritual truth and advancement become available.





Impersonalism doesn't make much sense to me. Why not?

Yes, exactly, it does not make sense. Therefore if anyone tries to understand this Māyāvāda philosophy, he simply spoils his intelligence.

cid-ānanda—teṅho, tāṅra sthāna, parivāra
tāṅre kahe—prākṛta-sattvera vikāra

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of spiritual potencies. Therefore His body, name, fame and entourage are all spiritual. The Māyāvādī philosopher, due to ignorance, says that these are all merely transformations of the material mode of goodness.

tāṅra doṣa nāhi, teṅho ājñā-kārī dāsa
āra yei śune tāra haya sarva-nāśa

"Śaṅkarācārya, who is an incarnation of Lord Śiva, is faultless because he is a servant carrying out the orders of the Lord. But those who follow his Māyāvādī philosophy are doomed. They will lose all their advancement in spiritual knowledge." [Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi 7.113-114]

PURPORT

Māyāvādī philosophers are very proud of exhibiting their Vedānta knowledge through grammatical jugglery, but in the Bhagavad-gitā 7.15 Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa certifies that they are māyayāpahṛta-jñāna, bereft of real knowledge due to māyā. Māyā has two potencies with which to execute her two functions: prakṣepātmikā-śakti, the power to throw the living entity into the ocean of material existence, and āvaraṇātmikā-śakti, the power to cover the knowledge of the living entity. The function of the āvaraṇātmikā-śakti is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā 7.15 by the word māyayāpahṛta-jñānāḥ.

Why the daivī-māyā, or illusory energy of Kṛṣṇa, takes away the knowledge of the Māyāvādī philosophers is also explained in the Bhagavad-gīta by the use of the words āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ, which refer to a person who does not agree to the existence of the Lord. The Māyāvādīs, who are not in agreement with the existence of the Lord, can be classified in two groups, exemplified by the impersonalist Śaṅkarites of Vārāṇasī and the Buddhists of Saranātha. Both groups are Māyāvādīs, and Kṛṣṇa takes away their knowledge due to their atheistic philosophies. Neither group agrees to accept the existence of a personal God. The Buddhist philosophers clearly deny both the soul and God, and although the Śaṅkarites do not openly deny God, they say that the Absolute is nirākāra, or formless. Thus both the Buddhists and the Śaṅkarites are aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ, or imperfect and unclean in their knowledge and intelligence.

ye 'nye 'ravindākṣa vimukta-māninas
tvayy asta-bhāvād aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ
āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ
patanty adho 'nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ

"Persons who are falsely under the impression of being liberated, without devotional service to the Lord, may reach the goal of the brahmajyoti, but because of their impure consciousness and for want of shelter in the Vaikuṇṭhalokas, such so-called liberated persons again fall down into material existence." [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.2.32]

The most prominent Māyāvādī scholar, Sadānanda Yogīndra, has written a book called Vedānta-sāra, in which he expounds the philosophy of Śaṅkarācārya, and all the followers of Śaṅkara's philosophy attribute great importance to his statements. In this Vedānta-sāra Sadānanda Yogīndra defines Brahman as sac-cid-ānanda combined with knowledge and without duality, and he defines ignorance (jaḍa) as knowledge distinct from that of sat and asat. This is almost inconceivable, but it is a product of the three material qualities. Thus he considers anything other than pure knowledge to be material. The center of ignorance is considered to be sometimes all-pervading and sometimes individual. Thus according to his opinion both the all-pervading Viṣṇu and the individual living entities are products of ignorance.

In simple language, it is the opinion of Sadānanda Yogindra that since everything is nirākāra (formless), the conception of Viṣṇu and the conception of the individual soul are both products of ignorance. He also explains that the viśuddha-sattva conception of the Vaiṣṇavas is nothing but pradhāna, or the chief principle of creation. He maintains that when all-pervading knowledge is contaminated by the viśuddha-sattva, which consists of a transformation of the quality of goodness, there arises the conception of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the omnipotent, omniscient supreme ruler, the Supersoul, the cause of all causes, the supreme īśvara, etc. According to Sadānanda Yogīndra, because īśvara, the Supreme Lord, is the reservoir of all ignorance, He may be called sarva-jña, or omniscient, but one who denies the existence of the omnipotent Supreme Personality of Godhead is more than īśvara, or the Lord. His conclusion, therefore, is that the Supreme Personality of Godhead (īśvara) is a transformation of material ignorance and that the living entity (jīva) is covered by ignorance. Thus he describes both collective and individual existence in darkness. According to Māyāvādī philosophers, the Vaiṣṇava conception of the Lord as the Supreme Personality of Godhead and of the jīva, or individual soul, as His eternal servant is a manifestation of ignorance. If we accept the judgment of Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā, however, the Māyāvādīs are to be considered māyayāpahṛta-jñāna, or bereft of all knowledge, because they do not recognize the existence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or they claim that His existence is a product of the material conception (māyā). These are characteristics of asuras, or demons.

Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, in His discourses with Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, said:

jīvera nistāra lāgi' sūtra kaila vyāsa
māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa
[Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 6.169]

"Śrīla Vyāsadeva presented Vedānta philosophy for the deliverance of conditioned souls, but if one hears the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, everything is spoiled."

Vyāsadeva composed the Vedānta-sūtra to deliver the conditioned souls from this material world, but Śaṅkarācārya, by presenting the Vedānta-sūtra in his own way, has clearly done a great disservice to human society, for one who follows his Māyāvāda philosophy is doomed. In the Vedanta-sūtra, devotional service is clearly indicated, but the Māyāvādī philosophers refuse to accept the spiritual body of the Supreme Absolute Person and refuse to accept that the living entity has an individual existence separate from that of the Supreme Lord. Thus they have created atheistic havoc all over the world, for such a conclusion is against the very nature of the transcendental process of pure devotional service. The Māyāvādī philosophers' unrealizable ambition to become one with the Supreme through denying the existence of the Personality of Godhead results in a most calamitous misrepresentation of spiritual knowledge, and one who follows this philosophy is doomed to remain perpetually in this material world. Therefore the Māyāvādīs are called aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ, or unclean in knowledge. Because they are unclean in knowledge, all their austerities and penances end in frustration. Thus although they may be honored at first as very learned scholars, ultimately they descend to physical activities of politics, social work, etc. Instead of becoming one with the Supreme Lord, they again become one with these material activities. This is explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.2.32 [quoted in full above]:

āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ
patanty adho 'nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ

In actuality the Māyāvādī philosophers very strictly follow the austerities and penances of spiritual life and in this way are elevated to the impersonal Brahman platform, but due to their negligence of the lotus feet of the Lord they again fall down to material existence.

So the Māyāvādī conception of the Absolute Truth is actually illogical and inconceivable. Anyone who tries to understand it merely ruins his intelligence. The real Absolute Truth is that Govinda, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and everything is coming from His original transcendental form.





Does this impersonalist philosophy masquerade itself as being a bonafide path of the Vedas coming from Brahma?

No, they are pretty honest and straightforward about the fact that the Māyāvādī philosophy was invented 1500 years ago by Śaṅkara. They have a separate lineage, separate scriptures, temples and gurus. All four bona fide Vaiṣṇava lineages completely reject Śāṅkara's philosophy, and all four have commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that defeat it.

The impersonal misconception, however, is deeply embedded in material culture, language and religion. Hence we bring this contamination with us when we enter devotional service, and it can take a long time to overcome. This is the real danger. If we want to ask "Who are the Māyāvādīs?" The answer is: "We are."

Impersonalism is at the root of all materialism and ignorance, all irreligion and sinful behavior. To perform sinful acts, one must first believe that if God exists, He is powerless to stop or punish him. Thus we find that all criminals are atheists. A truly Godly man can never harm any of God's creatures, not can he steal or misuse God's property, including his own body. We always see evil hiding behind the Māyāvāda philosophy. That is its greatest danger.





Are the Mayavadi maha-vakyas bonafide?

The actual maha-vakyas or maha-mantras of the Vedas are the Holy Names of the Lord. But the Mayavadi philosophers created several false maha-vakyas and think they will attain liberation by chanting them.

'praṇava' se mahāvākya--vedera nidāna
īśvara-svarūpa praṇava sarva-viśva-dhāma

"The Vedic sound vibration oṁkāra, the principal word in the Vedic scriptures, is the basis of all Vedic vibrations. Therefore one should accept oṁkāra as the sound representation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the reservoir of the cosmic manifestation." [Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 7.128]

From the Purport:

The Māyāvādī philosophers consider many Vedic mantras to be the mahā-vākya, or principal Vedic mantra, such as tat tvam asi (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.8.7), idaṁ sarvaṁ yad ayam ātmā and brahmedaṁ sarvam (Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.5.1), ātmaivedaṁ sarvam (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.25.2) and neha nānāsti kiñcana (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.1.11). That is a great mistake. Only oṁkāra is the mahā-vākya. All these other mantras that the Māyāvādīs accept as the mahā-vākya are only incidental. They cannot be taken as the mahā-vākya, or mahā-mantra. The mantra tat tvam asi indicates only a partial understanding of the Vedas, unlike oṁkāra, which represents the full understanding of the Vedas. Therefore the transcendental sound that includes all Vedic knowledge is oṁkāra (praṇava).

Aside from oṁkāra, none of the words uttered by the followers of Śaṅkarācārya can be considered the mahā-vākya. They are merely passing remarks. Śaṅkarācārya, however, has never stressed chanting of the mahā-vākya oṁkāra; he has accepted only tat tvam asi as the mahā-vākya. Imagining the living entity to be God, he has misrepresented all the mantras of the Vedānta-sūtra with the motive of proving that there is no separate existence of the living entities and the Supreme Absolute Truth. This is similar to the politician's attempt to prove nonviolence from the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa is violent to demons, and to attempt to prove that Kṛṣṇa is not violent is ultimately to deny Kṛṣṇa. As such explanations of the Bhagavad-gītā are absurd, so also is Śaṅkarācārya's explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra, and no sane and reasonable man will accept it. At present, however, the Vedānta-sūtra is misrepresented not only by the so-called Vedāntis but also by other unscrupulous persons who are so degraded that they even recommend that sannyāsīs eat meat, fish and eggs. In this way Śaṅkara's so-called followers, the impersonalist Māyāvādīs, are sinking lower and lower. How can these degraded men explain the Vedānta-sūtra, which is the essence of all Vedic literature?

Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has declared, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: "Anyone who hears commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra from the Māyāvāda school is completely doomed." [Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 6.169] As explained in the Bhagavad-gītā 15.15, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: all Vedic literature aims to understand Kṛṣṇa. Māyāvāda philosophy, however, has deviated everyone from Kṛṣṇa. Therefore there is a great need for the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world to save the world from degradation. Every intelligent and sane man must abandon the philosophical explanation of the Māyāvādīs and accept the explanation of Vaiṣṇava ācāryas. One should read Bhagavad-gītā As It Is to try to understand the real purpose of the Vedas.




Thank you for your opposition to the mayavadi philosophy. Impersonalism is dangerous right?

This is our great bhakti tradition, which is coming down from Lord Brahma in the beginning of the universe. The Sankarite impersonal misinterpretation of Vedanta is a recent invention, no more than 1500 years old. It served the purpose of bringing the atheist and voidist scholars back into the context of the Vedas, once Buddhism was kicked out of India. But it did so at the cost of twisting the meaning of the Upanisads, and making all kinds of offenses to the Supreme Lord.

Anyone who follows Mayavadi philosophy is doomed. Better he becomes a Christian or even a Muslim, for then at least he will be a theist. But the false philosophy of identity of atma and paramatma is poison. It feeds the false egoist illusion that we are controllers and enjoyers, and denies the truth that we are eternally the lovers and beloveds of God. It is eminently unprovable and unverifiable, and like the flimsy, self-contradictory 'hinduism' based on it, is nowhere to be found in the original Vedas.

The philosophy expressed in Bhagavad-gita As It Is did not originate with Srila Prabhupada, but is the original Vedic truth, viewed through the concentrating lens of Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the yuga-avatar for the Age of Kali, who appeared about 500 years ago in Bengal. We are just carrying on that school, based on the Brahma-sampradaya teachings of Madhvacarya.

I was an impersonalist, studying many Vedic teachings, but since finding your site I realize I have found the Truth.

You could not find satisfaction in the impersonalist misinterpretation of the Vedas because you are sincere. The Lord within your heart was always telling you, "Well that's good, you are close but not quite on the mark. Keep trying..." Until you found an authentic school that is actually based on the Vedas.

In Śrī Īśopaniṣad it is said,

vidyāṁ cāvidyāṁ ca yas
tad vedobhayaṁ saha
avidyayā mṛtyuṁ tīrtvā
vidyayāmṛtam aśnute

"Only one who can learn the process of nescience and that of transcendental knowledge side by side can transcend the influence of repeated birth and death and enjoy the full blessings of immortality." [Śrī Īśopaniṣad, Mantra 11]

In other words, as Śrīla Prabhupāda used to say, "Failure is the pillar of success." A musician practices many hours, making all the mistakes that can be made, until he masters his instrument and perfects his performance. Similarly most people have to explore all the false paths before we can recognize the real one.





It seems that many of your responses to Impersonalism are quite harsh. Why?

A student nicely answers:

Our forceful refutation of impersonalistic mayavada philosophy may not have been palatable for some, but it was definitely necessary. The Vaisnava acaryas words that we often quote are harsh not because they are crazy fanatics, but their words are commensurate with the dangers of falling into the mayavadi trap. In the beginning we may not even see what the big deal is about this personal-impersonal issue, but that is because we have not developed a mature Vaisnava perspective yet. That is why the acaryas have to literally yell out their cautions, because we may not even see the pitfalls. If the pitfalls were obvious to everyone then we would not need to use such strong words.

Mayavada philosophy is dangerous because it can be very, very subtle and work its way into the way we view everything. It may masquerade as some all-loving, nice philosophy but if you follow the trail of the philosophy to its basis, you will find that it is ultimately very offensive to the Personality of God. Consequently, there is no hope of making advancement in realizing our original spiritual nature in a loving relationship with God if we are stuck with an impersonalist ontology - even though we may externally be adopting some personalist spiritualist practices. A common example of what damage impersonal philosophy can do is this: we may think that God is obligated to respond to our spiritual practices. We may unconsciously think "Oh I'm doing all this japa, it's about time God showed up because that's how the formula is supposed to work." In this way, we unconsciously reduce God to an impersonal vending-machine who can be controlled by us by regulated spiritual processes. Naturally this is a very offensive mindset that blocks any hope of developing a meaningful relationship with God. That is one of the dangers. It is subtle, but we eventually notice it.

Instead, a personalist understands that spiritual advancement is about uncovering a relationship with God. Nobody is obliged to do anything, but rather we gradually develop a spontaneous mood of service and love, which then gives real taste in our relationship with God. This beautiful and most important aspect of the Personality of God is ruthlessly hacked away by the impersonalists. Instead, the idea that WE are God is subtly but surely injected into the ontology of the impersonalist, and that is an ego-trip that is very, very hard to reverse.

If you have an impersonal background then you may have a good deal of un-learning to do, but it will surely be possible if you take up a careful study of Prabhupada's books and other resources on this website. The process of Krsna Consciousness that Prabhupada gave us is so simple that it can be practiced by anyone in any condition of life in any location: chanting the Holy Names of God. Why is this the process? Because it is strongly recommended in the scriptures as the only way in this age:

harer nāma harer nāma
harer nāmaiva kevalam
kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva
nāsty eva gatir anyathā

TRANSLATION

In this Age of Kali there is no other means, no other means, no other means for self-realization than chanting the holy name, chanting the holy name, chanting the holy name of Lord Hari.’

So I invite you to take up this study seriously, where we aren't holding anything back, or assuming that you or anyone else isn't ready for it. Welcome.








ADVAITA PHILOSOPHY



Is Advaita Vedanta the false monistic misinterpretation of Vedanta?

The issue of Advaita Vedanta, or Mayavada philosophy, is very important. Srila Prabhupada writes:

"The purpose of the discussions in the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra is to philosophically establish the personal feature of the Absolute Truth. The impersonalists, however, in order to establish their philosophy, accept these discussions in terms of lakṣaṇā-vṛtti, or indirect meanings. Thus instead of being tattva-vāda, or in search of the Absolute Truth, they become Māyāvāda, or illusioned by the material energy. When Śrī Viṣṇusvāmī, one of the four ācaryas of the Vaiṣṇava cult, presented his thesis on the subject matter of śuddhādvaita-vāda, immediately the Māyāvādīs took advantage of this philosophy and tried to establish their advaita-vāda or kevalādvaita-vāda. To defeat this kevalādvaita-vāda, Śrī Rāmānujācārya presented his philosophy as viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda, and Śrī Madhvācārya presented his philosophy of tattva-vāda, both of which are stumbling blocks to the Māyāvādīs because they defeat their philosophy in scrupulous detail. Students of Vedic philosophy know very well how strongly Śrī Rāmānujācārya's viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda and Śrī Madhvācārya's tattva-vāda contest the impersonal Māyāvāda philosophy. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, however, accepted the direct meaning of the Vedānta philosophy and thus defeated the Māyāvāda philosophy immediately. He opined in this connection that anyone who follows the principles of the Śārīraka-bhāṣya is doomed. This is confirmed in the Padma Purāṇa, where Lord Śiva tells Pārvatī:

śṛṇu devi pravakṣyāmi tāmasāni yathā-kramam
yeṣāṁ śravaṇa-mātreṇa pātityaṁ jñāninām api

apārthaṁ śruti-vākyānāṁ darśayal̐ loka-garhitam
karma-svarūpa-tyājyatvam atra ca pratipādyate

sarva-karma-paribhraṁśān naiṣkarmyaṁ tatra cocyate
parātma-jīvayor aikyaṁ mayātra pratipādyate

"My dear wife, hear my explanations of how I have spread ignorance through Māyāvāda philosophy. Simply by hearing it, even an advanced scholar will fall down. In this philosophy, which is certainly very inauspicious for people in general, I have misrepresented the real meaning of the Vedas and recommended that one give up all activities in order to achieve freedom from karma. In this Māyāvāda philosophy I have described the jīvātmā and Paramātmā to be one and the same."

How the Māyāvāda philosophy was condemned by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His followers is described in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā, Second Chapter, verses 94 through 99, where Svarūpa-dāmodara Gosvāmī says that anyone who is eager to understand the Māyāvāda philosophy must be considered insane. This especially applies to a Vaiṣṇava who reads the Śārīraka-bhāṣya and considers himself to be one with God. The Māyāvādī philosophers have presented their arguments in such attractive, flowery language that hearing Māyāvāda philosophy may sometimes change the mind of even a mahā-bhāgavata, or very advanced devotee. An actual Vaiṣṇava cannot tolerate any philosophy that claims God and the living being to be one and the same. [Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 7.110 Purport]

So this is a crazy philosophy, used by sophisticated rascals to enhance their egos. Of course it is painful to associate with such people, because their whole lives are built on a lie.




I am a Hindu Brahmin and have read many scriptures. I would like to know what you think about Advaita Vedanta.

If you look around and read our books you will find that we do not accept the Advaita misinterpretation of Vedānta. This very recent Śāṅkara-apasampradāya is not at all approved by actual Vedic authorities like Madhvācārya and Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. We have already commented extensively on this question in our edition of Vedānta-sūtra, which you can read online on our main site.

As an educated Indian, you should know that the so-called 'hindu' religion is a syncretism promoted by the British Raj, whose actual purpose was to demean and exploit the people of Bhārata, and so they tried to compromise the ancient Vedic sanātana-dharma with temporary sectarian faiths like Christianity and Islam (please see our Hinduism FAQ). If you actually study Vedānta-sūtra, you should know that large sections of it argue strongly against the impersonal misunderstanding of the Upaniṣads, and like Bhagavad-gītā, Vedānta-sūtra ultimately advocates bhakti as the highest purpose of the Vedas.

As we have pointed out again and again, any philosophy that minimizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead is simply atheism in the disguise of religion. Buddhism and Śāṅkarite impersonalism advocate an impossible idea, that we are all God or that the ultimate state of existence is nothingness. There is no actual ontological distinction between these two misconceptions; oneness is the same as nothingness.

So Śāṅkara was simply teaching covered Buddhism in the name of Vedic culture. One may argue that since Śaṅkarācārya is an incarnation of Lord Śiva, how is it that he cheated people in this way? The answer is that he did so on the order of his master, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is confirmed in the Padma Purāṇa in the words of Lord Śiva himself:

māyāvādam asac chāstraṁ
pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi
kalau brāhmaṇa-rūpiṇā

brahmaṇaś cāparaṁ rūpaṁ
nirguṇaṁ vakṣyate mayā
sarva-svaṁ jagato'py asya
mohanārthaṁ kalau yuge

vedānte tu mahā-śāstre
māyāvādam avaidikam
mayaiva vakṣyate devi
jagatāṁ nāśa-kāraṇāt

Lord Śiva informed his wife Pārvatī, "The Māyāvāda philosophy, is impious [asac chāstra]. It is covered Buddhism. My dear Pārvatī, in the form of a brāhmaṇa in the Kali-yuga I teach this imagined Māyāvāda philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedānta I describe the same Māyāvāda philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord."

In the Śiva Purāṇa the Supreme Personality of Godhead told Lord Śiva:

dvāparādau yuge bhūtvā
kalayā mānuṣādiṣu
svāgamaiḥ kalpitais tvaṁ ca
janān mad-vimukhān kuru

"In the Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings for the Vedas to bewilder them."

These are the descriptions of the Purāṇas. And this is why the so-called 'orthodox hindus' decry the Purāṇas and other śruti and accept only the smṛti. Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the crown jewels of the vedic literature, teach only bhakti without any admittance of the nonsense impersonalist philosophy. Real Vedic philosophy is only bhakti, and when we practice bhakti, we get all the benefits of pious life without separate endeavor.

iṣṭān bhogān hi vo devā
dāsyante yajña-bhāvitāḥ
tair dattān apradāyaibhyo
yo bhuṅkte stena eva saḥ

"In charge of the various necessities of life, the demigods, being satisfied by the performance of yajña [sacrifice], supply all necessities to man. But he who enjoys these gifts, without offering them to the demigods in return, is certainly a thief." [Bhagavad-gītā 3.12]

There is no question of performing yajña if we think that we are God. Such a sacrifice is simply hypocrisy, and God, knowing our hearts, gives us fallible material benefits but withholds His personal presence. Such Godlessness in the name of religion is a travesty of everything the Vedas actually stand for. The impersonal Māyāvāda philosophy is the exact reason why Bhārata, once the greatest and richest country in the world, has been reduced to a slave-farm of the Western materialists.





I always found Advaita philosophy confusing. Could you explain qualified non-dualism as suggested by Ramanuja?

Not only is Advaita philosophy confusing, it is self-contradictory. Śāṅkara's argument is basically that Vedavyāsa made a mistake, and that the conclusion of Vedānta-sūtra that bhakti is the ultimate spiritual path is wrong. At the same time, he bases his whole teaching on the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra; this is like sawing off the branch of the tree that you are sitting on.

jīvājñāna-kalpita īśvare, sakala-i ajñāna
yāhāra śravaṇe bhaktera phāṭe mana prāṇa

“The Māyāvādī philosopher tries to establish that the living entity is only imaginary and that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is under the influence of māyā. Hearing this kind of commentary breaks the heart and life of a devotee.” [Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya 2.99]

Because Śāṅkarācārya was actually an incarnation of Lord Śiva, he is a great devotee; he was disgusted by the nonsense he was teaching. Therefore at the end of his life, when he was about to immerse his body in boiling ghee as a consequence of losing a debate with a Buddhist (they played for keeps in those days!), he revealed his real mind to his disciples:

bhaja govindaṁ bhaja govindam
bhaja govindaṁ mūḍha mate
nahi nahi rakṣati dukṛn-karaṇe

"You fools, asses, just worship Govinda. This jugglery of words, grammatical jugglery and false logic, will not help you at the time of death."

If you misinterpret and speculate that "With this grammatical addition or grammatical alteration this meaning can be derived," then you will never reach the real conclusion of the Vedas: bhaja govindaṁ. You will at best realize the impersonal Brahman, but if in the process of false reasoning you commit offenses to Bhagavān, then all your hard work is just for nothing. Kṛṣṇa says,

kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām
avyaktāsakta-cetasām
avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
dehavadbhir avāpyate

"For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied." [Bhagavad-gītā 12.5]

śabda-brahmaṇi niṣṇāto
na niṣṇāyāt pare yadi
śramas tasya śrama-phalo
hy adhenum iva rakṣataḥ

"If through meticulous study one becomes expert in reading Vedic literature but makes no endeavor to fix one's mind on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then one's endeavor is certainly like that of a man who works very hard to take care of a cow that gives no milk. In other words, the fruit of one's laborious study of Vedic knowledge will simply be the labor itself. There will be no other tangible result." [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.11.18]

But Śāṅkara praises the Bhagavad-gītā in his transparently devotional work Gītā-mahatmya, comparing Kṛṣṇa to a Surābhī cow that can give unlimited amounts of milk, and Arjuna to a calf who is ecstatically drinking that milk. So we can understand that Śāṅkarācārya was actually a devotee, but he propagated the Māyāvādī philosophy on the order of the Lord, simply to attract and bewilder the atheists so they would commit offenses and sinful activities, and go to hell.

Since Lord Śiva's potency is irresistible, he has certainly been successful in his mission. But now the whole world is so contaminated with the impersonalist philosophy, even basically pious people accept it, and so we have much work to do to convince them to adopt bhakti instead.

It is easy to understand Rāmānūja's philosophy as expressed in his brilliant Śrī-bhāṣya, or any of the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas' philosophies, if we consider them part of a progression of philosophical refutations of Śāṅkara's māyāvāda-vāda, each stronger than the last. The Śrī-bhāṣya establishes the viśiṣṭādvaita-vāda philosophy. Similarly, in the Brahma-sampradāya, Madhvācārya’s Pūrṇaprajña-bhāṣya establishes śuddha-dvaita-vāda. In the Kumāra-sampradāya, or Nimbārka-sampradāya, Śrī Nimbārka establishes the philosophy of dvaitādvaita-vāda in the Pārijāta-saurabha-bhāṣya. And in the Viṣṇusvāmi-sampradāya, or Rudra-sampradāya from Lord Śiva, Viṣṇusvāmī has written a commentary called Sarvajña-bhāṣya, which establishes śuddhādvaita-vāda.

A Vaiṣṇava should study the commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra written by the four sampradāya-ācāryas, namely Śrī Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇusvāmī and Nimbārka, for these commentaries are based upon the philosophy that the Lord is the master and that all living entities are His eternal servants. One interested in studying Vedānta philosophy properly must study these commentaries, especially if he is a Vaiṣṇava. If we do this, we can see a progression of thought gradually re-establishing the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and defeating the Śārīraka-bhāṣya commentary of Śāṅkara.

The real Vedic truth is that the energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are inconceivably, simultaneously one with and different from Him. So dvaita and advaita are both true, depending on the context. This is inconceivable in material Aristotelian logic, but is quite sensible and understandable from the point of view of transcendental, non-Aristotelian logic. The Western-educated mind finds it difficult to comprehend, but the Vedas are quite at home with this truth.

The ultimate in the development of this philosophical progression is the acintya-bhedābheda-tattva philosophy of Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. This philosophy is perfectly elaborated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and more concisely expressed in the Govinda-bhāṣya of Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana. I have based my own edition of Vedānta-sūtra firmly on Govinda-bhāṣya, and I recommend that you study it if you want some insight into the ultimate development of the Vaiṣṇava school of thought, as revealed by Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the incarnation of Kṛṣṇa for the Kali-yuga.






MISCONCEPTIONS


Is sāyujya-mukti desirable for some? Ramana Maharishi was such a peaceful soul even if in impersonal mode. Is being impersonal really an offence?

Consider the following discussion from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā Chapter 6:

kṛṣṇera vigraha yei satya nāhi māne
yei nindā-yuddhādika kare tāṅra sane
sei duira daṇḍa haya—‘brahma-sāyujya-mukti’
tāra mukti phala nahe, yei kare bhakti

The Bhaṭṭācārya continued, “The impersonalists, who do not accept the transcendental form of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and the demons, who are always engaged in blaspheming and fighting with Him, are punished by being merged into the Brahman effulgence. But that does not happen to the person engaged in the devotional service of the Lord.

yadyapi se mukti haya pañca-parakāra
sālokya-sāmīpya-sārūpya-sārṣṭi-sāyujya āra

“There are five kinds of liberation: sālokya, sāmīpya, sārūpya, sārṣṭi and sāyujya.

PURPORT

Sālokya means that after material liberation one is promoted to the planet where the Supreme Personality of Godhead resides, sāmīpya means remaining an associate of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, sārūpya means attaining a four-handed form exactly like that of the Lord, sārṣṭi means attaining opulences like those of the Supreme Lord, and sāyujya means merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Lord. These are the five types of liberation.

‘sālokyādi’ cāri yadi haya sevā-dvāra
tabu kadācit bhakta kare aṅgīkāra

“If there is a chance to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead, a pure devotee sometimes accepts the sālokya, sārūpya, sāmīpya or sārṣṭi forms of liberation, but never sāyujya.

‘sāyujya’ śunite bhaktera haya ghṛṇā-bhaya
naraka vāñchaye, tabu sāyujya nā laya

“A pure devotee does not like even to hear about sāyujya-mukti, which inspires him with fear and hatred. Indeed, the pure devotee would rather go to hell than merge into the effulgence of the Lord.”

PURPORT

Śrīla Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī has sung, kaivalyaṁ narakāyate. The impersonalist’s conception of becoming one with the effulgence of the Lord is exactly like hell. Therefore, of the five types of liberation, the first four (sālokya, sāmīpya, sārūpya and sārṣṭi) are not so undesirable because they can be avenues of service to the Lord. Nonetheless, a pure devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa rejects even these types of liberation; he aspires only to serve Kṛṣṇa birth after birth. He is not very interested in stopping the repetition of birth, for he simply desires to serve the Lord, even in hellish circumstances. Consequently the pure devotee hates and fears sāyujya-mukti, merging into the effulgence of the Lord. This merging is due to an offense committed against the transcendental loving service of the Lord, and therefore it is not at all desirable for a pure devotee. [Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 6.264-269]

In other words, a devotee who has attained self-realization is already in a liberated condition because he is in personal association with the Supreme Personality of Godhead through his mature devotional service. He is so satisfied in this condition that he looks upon the various kinds of spiritual liberation as undesirable, and considers even the greatest material happiness to be worthless and insignificant.

People like Ramana 'Maharishi' are actually rascals because they distort the message of the Vedas and cheat the people in general, who have no spiritual knowledge. Impersonalist philosophy is based on the mistaken idea that the soul and Supersoul are one and the same. This is nonsense. If we were God then we would already be God. God is eternally God; it is not that God can forget that He is God, and fall down into the material world. What kind of 'god' is that?

Accepting the Māyāvādī philosophy means we think that God is not all-knowing, perfect, infallible or completely pure. That is offensive, therefore the goal of the impersonalists, sāyujya-mukti, is actually a kind of punishment for their offenses against the Lord. They are so deluded that they think this punishment is their reward. No, it is the spiritual equivalent of "Wrong! You flunk. Go to the back of the class, sit down and shut up."

You can read more about Maharishi in our "Other Spiritual Teachings FAQ."




Is the Supreme Purusha desiring to know itself and uniting with prakrati, in this way creating the sound Aum?

The Vedas reveal the Supreme in three principal aspects: the impersonal Brahman effulgence, the localized Paramātmā or Supersoul, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate origin and controller of everything. We often quote this śloka:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate

"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān." [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.11]

In general, Brahman is described in the Upaniṣads and Vedānta-sūtra, Paramātmā is described in Bhagavad-gītā, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta. All these Vedic scriptures are available through our site, and you should read them in the order given to eliminate your philosophical misunderstandings. The Esoteric Teaching of the Vedic literature is the original and most complete spiritual knowledge available. So please take advantage of this treasure and get to know these three aspects of the Supreme.

You ask about "Purusha desiring to know it self and uniting with prakrati to do so thus creating the sound Aum." Where did you get this information? Certainly not from the Vedas. You cannot quote any Vedic scripture where this is said. This sounds like Māyāvādī impersonalist speculation. Puruṣa, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, never contacts prakṛti, or the material energy. That is the meaning of "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is transcendental." However, we foolish spirit souls are trying to enjoy prakṛti, material nature, therefore we have taken material bodies and have to accept karmic reactions and so much suffering. Therefore we need to engage in the transcendental process of devotional service to enlighten us and free ourselves from the trap of enjoying material nature.

prakṛtiṁ puruṣaṁ caiva
viddhy anādī ubhāv api
vikārāṁś ca guṇāṁś caiva
viddhi prakṛti-sambhavān

"Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature." [Bhagavad-gītā 13.20]

But Puruṣa or God is always transcendental, always enlightened. He never falls down into contact with prakṛti. He is always a person, and due to His unlimited, all-pervading transcendental consciousness and intelligence, He creates, controls and knows everything. He can never fall into the illusion of enjoying māyā. Those who think that God can fall down are called Māyāvādīs, or impersonalists. They speculate some nonsense philosophy to justify their addiction to material enjoyment. They are very dangerous, because they masquerade as holy men while maintaining material consciousness. You have to educate yourself on the actual Vedic philosophy to avoid this impersonalist misunderstanding. "So try to understand the position of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is nārāyaṇaḥ paro 'vyaktāt, transcendental, paraḥ avyaktāt. That is puruṣottama-yoga in the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa has said, "Anyone who has understood Me, ajam avyayam, ajam—I never take birth in this material world, neither I am deteriorated by material contact—he knows me perfectly."

janma karma ca me divyam
evaṁ yo vetti tattvataḥ
tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma
naiti mām eti so 'rjuna

"One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna." [Bhagavad-gītā 4.9]

That is called puruṣottama. Puruṣa uttama. Uttama. Uttama means "not of this material world." Ut. Ut means above, and tama means this darkness. So ut-tama means "above this darkness." So uttama puruṣa. Puruṣa uttama. Puruṣa. Puruṣa means enjoyer. Prakṛti means enjoyed. So actually, we are not puruṣa; we are prakṛti. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā,

apareyam itas tv anyāṁ
prakṛtiṁ viddhi me parām
jīva-bhūtāṁ mahā-bāho
yayedaṁ dhāryate jagat

"Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature." [Bhagavad-gītā 7.5]

Apareyam, these material elements, bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ, earth, water, fire, air, sky, mind, intelligence, bhinnā me prakṛtir aṣṭadhā, these are separated energies, material energies of Kṛṣṇa. They are also prakṛti. As this material world is prakṛti, similarly, there is another prakṛti, Kṛṣṇa gives information. Apareyam itas tu viddhi me prakṛtiṁ parām. But that is parā-prakṛti. So we are not puruṣa; we are prakṛtis. Although by materially dressed, we appear to be puruṣa, actually, we are not puruṣa. Just like if you dress one woman like a man, that does mean she has become man. She is woman. Similarly, we are puruṣa in the sense that we are trying to imitate the supreme puruṣa, Puruṣottama. Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme enjoyer. We are trying to become imitation Kṛṣṇa. Just like so many rascals, they declare that "God, I am God." That is the last snare, Māyāvāda." [London, July 14 1973]

"The theory of the asuras [demons] is that the living entities are born of material nature, or prakṛti, in touch with the puruṣa. This theory also cannot be accepted, because both the material nature and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are eternally existing. Neither the material nature nor the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be born. The Supreme Lord is known as aja, or unborn. Similarly, the material nature is called ajā. Both these terms, aja and ajā, mean “unborn.” Because both the material nature and the Supreme Lord are unborn, it is not possible that they can beget the living entities. But it is accepted in the Vedic literature that as water in contact with air sometimes presents innumerable bubbles, so a combination of the material nature and the Supreme Person causes the appearance of the living entities within this material world. As bubbles in the water appear in different shapes, the living entities also appear in the material world in different shapes and conditions, influenced by the modes of material nature. As such, it is not improper to conclude that the living entities appearing within this material world in different shapes, such as human beings, demigods, animals, birds and beasts, all get their respective bodies due to different desires. No one can say when such desires were awakened in them, and therefore it is said, anādi-karma: the cause of such material existence is untraceable. No one knows when material life began, but it is a fact that it does have a point of beginning because originally every living entity is a spiritual spark. As a spark’s falling onto the ground from a fire has a beginning, so a living entity’s coming to this material world has a beginning, but no one can say when. Even though during the time of dissolution all the conditioned living entities remain merged within the spiritual existence of the Lord, as if in deep sleep, their original desires to lord it over the material nature do not subside. Again, when there is cosmic manifestation, they come out to fulfill the same desires, and therefore they appear in different species of life." [Kṛṣṇa Book, Chapter 87]






I have a text book from university which speaks of Sankhya as being the foundation of Ayurveda and Yoga as well as other philosophical system. In the text book it states:

"Purusha desired to know its self but had no real way of doing so. It had no mind or senses from which to explore its own nature. Hence, Purusha decided to merge itself with Prakrati, the potential form, in order to create a vehicle for its self exploration. The coming together of these two potentials upset the inherit balance of the three basic qualities of nature called, gunas, that lay dormant in prakrati, tamas rajas,sattva. ... as the universe unfolded a sound vibration echoed through all creation. That sound was Om." "..... there is a component in creation that does not have its origin in prakriti ... Atman."

Is this true and/or is it impersonal? It also says:

"Vedanta teaches that there is a supreme ruler whose name is Ishvara. This aspect of God comes to the devotee in whatever form is dear to them. This makes the concept of Ishvara easier to accept of many faiths. Ishvara may be seen as Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Moses, or even a coyote or a burning bush. The devotee sees God in the image he or she is most comfortable with. Advaita Vedanta is a non dualistic form of Vedanta which argues that there is no separation between ourselves and God."

Is this true?

The Vedānta-sūtra doesn't say that; you can read it yourself here. Those rascals are lying to you. They want to misinterpret Vedānta so they can justify their sense gratification by saying that they are God. If the soul and God are one, then there is no meaning to self-realization. God and the soul are eternal, so if we were God then we would already be God. Actually oneness with God would mean unconsciousness and total annihilation of the individual. Listen to this podcast: Oneness Means Nothingness.

There is a detailed refutation of atheisic Sāṅkhya philosophy in Śrī Vedānta-sūtra, Adhyāya 2 Pāda 1 This section disproves the speculative Sāṅkhya theories of the theistic Kapila, but these proofs also apply to all such materialistic theories of creation, such as materialistic science, etc.

For a detailed and coherent explanation of creation by the Lord and His energies, please read the Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 3, Chapter 26 which is titled 'Fundamental Principles of Material Nature'. Everything is explained there according to the original Sankhya philosophy of Kapiladeva. It may be quite involved, but this is the complete description of the answers to your question.

You will find that we are the only school that gives you direct access to the original text of the Vedic scriptures. Why? Because our conclusion agrees with the scriptures and is supported by them. Other schools claim to be based on Vedas, but actually their conclusions disagree with the Vedas. So they do not want you to read the original texts. Instead, they hide them behind a smokescreen of third-hand misinterpretations.

We do not ask you to take our word for it; rather we encourage you to compare what we are teaching with the original Vedic scriptures, and also with the writings of the previous gurus in the line descending from Kṛṣṇa and Vyāsadeva. Guru, śāstra and sadhu must all agree; then you know you're getting the authentic Esoteric Teaching.

A student responds to this in more detail with the following:

To answer your question about the quote from your textbook - yes, it's a rubbish concoction and opposed to the conclusions of the Vedic literature (siddhanta). The only reason you are taking them seriously is because it's in a formal textbook and is being taught in some 'accredited' college. First that idea has to be tossed into the garbage bin; there is a lot of nonsense being taught in similar books and colleges and the only reason the people buy into it is because they place their trust in these phony figures of authority. That trust is then shockingly abused to propagate and perpetuate false propaganda, and the trusting students are blissfully unaware of this abuse. This issue runs very deep in today's society and you can look into it in greater depth if you need to.

Once you understand this, then you can begin to look at your textbooks intelligently and critically (rather than be conditioned to accept it) and that alone will enable you to identify most of the nonsense in there. Apart from that, if you start studying the original Vedic literatures like Bhagavad-Gita As It Is then you will understand this philosophy accurately and will not be easily tricked by this new-age impersonalist nonsense.

If you quoted your textbook verbatim, then I'm shocked at how ridiculous it is. It seems that they are hoping the reader has no idea about anything and thus they are simply throwing some Sanskrit terms around. Since the reader has no understanding of these terms, everything just sinks in as a mush of misunderstanding, putting the reader into semi-unconsciousness and arresting his critical thinking. This is a nonsense tactic and you need to put in the effort to study the Vedic terminology carefully.

To understand the Three Modes of Material Nature, please read Chapter 14 of the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is completely transcendent to the Modes of Material Nature. Your textbook is using the term Brahman so loosely that it makes little sense. 'Brahman' is a term that is used in many different contexts with different meanings. It can be used to indicate the Supreme Personality of Godhead or it can also sometimes be used to denote the mahat-tattva, as in this verse:

The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth, and it is that Brahman that I impregnate, making possible the births of all living beings, O son of Bharata.

PURPORT
This is an explanation of the world: everything that takes place is due to the combination of kṣetra and kṣetra-jña, the body and the spirit soul. This combination of material nature and the living entity is made possible by the Supreme God Himself. The mahat-tattva is the total cause of the total cosmic manifestation; and that total substance of the material cause, in which there are three modes of nature, is sometimes called Brahman. The Supreme Personality impregnates that total substance, and thus innumerable universes become possible. This total material substance, the mahat-tattva, is described as Brahman in the Vedic literature (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.9): tasmād etad brahma nāma-rūpam annaṁ ca jāyate. The Supreme Person impregnates that Brahman with the seeds of the living entities. The twenty-four elements, beginning from earth, water, fire and air, are all material energy, and they constitute what is called mahad brahma, or the great Brahman, the material nature. As explained in the Seventh Chapter, beyond this there is another, superior nature—the living entity. Into material nature the superior nature is mixed by the will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and thereafter all living entities are born of this material nature.

The scorpion lays its eggs in piles of rice, and sometimes it is said that the scorpion is born out of rice. But the rice is not the cause of the scorpion. Actually, the eggs were laid by the mother. Similarly, material nature is not the cause of the birth of the living entities. The seed is given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and they only seem to come out as products of material nature. Thus every living entity, according to his past activities, has a different body, created by this material nature, so that the entity can enjoy or suffer according to his past deeds. The Lord is the cause of all the manifestations of living entities in this material world. [ Bhagavad-Gita 14.3]

So now with this you can see that this 'Brahman' that your textbook refers to is completely vague and baseless. There is no "merging into one" of anything, least of all Purusha and Prakrti. And what is this " satva becam Brahma ... Rajas became Vishnu ... and Tamas became Shiva"? First of all, if I say something like "my desk became a man by the name John Doe" your bullshit-alarm should immediately go off and you should ask me how something like my desk could suddenly and causelessly become something conscious, which is a different ontological class altogether. Just because you see it in a book doesn't mean that you must accept it uncritically, but this is what these silly new-agers count on - that people will be so swept up by how cool and exotic this eastern philosophy is that they won't bother to risk making it uncool by actually investigating it logically. Rascals.

You quoted: "Vedanta teaches that there is a supreme ruler whose name is Ishvara" Again, this sentence is worded in a way that makes it look almost immature and simplistic, in particular the choice of the phrases "supreme ruler" and "whose name is". These phrases rob the statement of its philosophical implications and reduce it to a material, relativist platform where the reader will make associations with other "rulers" in history that have other names. Contrast it with the philosophical implications of what "supreme" means as stated by the Personality of Godhead, Krsna Himself:

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread. [ Bhagavad-Gita 7.7]

God has no name in the sense that we do. We're named by someone; nobody names God. Instead, we call Him by His unlimited qualities and attributes. So Ishvara is a Sanskrit word that means "controller", and hence it is one of the names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So you can see that even the choice of words show the lack of philosophical rigor.

The rest of the statement you quoted is also nonsense (sorry to use that word repeatedly). This is largely due to the so-called neo-Vedantists like Vivekananda who became very popular in the west and propagated this rubbish idea that the personality of God is a convenient (but false) "concept" and that we can actually imagine God to be whatever we want, to make it "convenient" to encompass anything that we want to do. Ultimately, they say, we are merged with God and all individuality is illusion.

This idea is comprehensively refuted by Krsna Himself:

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. [Bhagavad-Gita 2.12]

Please click on the link to read the entire purport to this verse. Further, the form of the Lord is not imaginary nor is it material:

Kṛṣṇa who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. [ Brahma-Samhita 5.1]

Imagining some convenient form of the Lord is idolatory and is strictly condemned.

Try and understand why such dangerous and illogical reasoning of impersonalism is so popular:

- It's the ultimate ego-trip to believe that we're God, that there's nothing superior to us

- It preys on the psychological reactions of people who are disgusted with the fanaticism and autocracy of corrupted theistic religious organizations. So this impersonalism walks around daintily, saying "Oh we accommodate everything, don't worry. You can believe whatever you like and it's all good. We're not fanatics like the others." People love that and will jettison all rationality to jump on that wagon.

And there are many other psychological reasons. But their tactics are usually the same: hide the original Vedic source literature from the people, replace it with mushy and sentimental writings of their own that subtly take people off the logical platform - and once that's accomplished, they can make the absurdest claims and nobody will think to examine it closely because they're too intoxicated by the ego-trip.

If you are serious about pursuing the Absolute Truth then you will have to trash all this pseudo-philosophy that you might be surrounded by and sincerely start studying everything again right from scratch. You are actually worse off that someone with a blank slate because you have already formed some ideas and opinions about the conclusions of the Vedas. We have all the resources that you will need; but you have to take up the work yourself. We've taken the time to respond to this series of questions only so that you can come to an understanding of the difference between authentic Vedic philosophy and dumbed-down junk that is out there, and how it preys on people. There is no comparison in the least, and so it is useless to try to compare the two.

As Babaji has mentioned several times, this is a serious esoteric school. We're not here to make anyone feel good on a sentimental platform or to push any kind of political agenda or serve some personal ends. We only aim to preserve the original Vedic teachings and their conclusions without distortion and build a community of sincere students.

So please follow up on the resources that I have linked to in this post and continue to study the resources carefully and methodically. This is a great science:

Therefore the doubts which have arisen in your heart out of ignorance should be slashed by the weapon of knowledge. [Bhagavad-Gita 4.42]


Another student answers:


First of all you need to duplicate, understand, contemplate and realize the fact that Western society is run through psychological conditioning in order to achieve the highest rate of obedience towards so called authorities.

This conditioning starts as soon (sometimes even before) a living entity takes birth in this miserable place.

John Taylor Gatto writes on this subject:

"I've noticed a fascinating phenomenon in my twenty-five years of teaching - that schools and schooling are increasingly irrelevant to the great enterprises of the planet. No one believes anymore that scientists are trained in science classes or politicians in civics classes or poets in English classes. The truth is that schools don't really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides and administrators but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions. Although teachers do care and do work very hard, the institution is psychopathic - it has no conscience. It rings a bell and the young man in the middle of writing a poem must close his notebook and move to different cell where he must memorize that man and monkeys derive from a common ancestor.

Our form of compulsory schooling is an invention of the state of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted - sometimes with guns - by an estimated eighty per cent of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost in Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the 1880's when the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard." [Why Schools Don't Educate]

A 'textbook' all by itself does not have an innate authority on anything. It is simply a collection of pictures and stories - expressing the views of some group of interest. (In the West and other spheres of Western influence this group is usually connected to either a state propagandist institute or an influential corporation.) Anyone can print a book (check www.lulu.com - if you don't believe me...). A book is not a symbol or a guarantee for truth. -- So that is the first thing I want you to reflect.

All the above mentioned facts about 'textbooks' also apply onto 'institutions'. Anyone can open an institution. An institution is simply a collection of some people's agreements and actions. It is an abstract category and does not have any real world instance.

So - Nor does any 'Ayurvedic College XYZ' nor any 'textbook on whatever' this institution issues possess any intrinsic truths, values or authority. All this pomp is simply meant to cheaply gain the admiration and trust of the cheap and innocent public - exploiting the already set and established circuits of Pavlovian conditioning in governmental 'schools'. -- That is the second thing I would like you to meditate on.

Now to the 'philosophical' part:

You wrote:

"It [the infamous 'textbook'] speaks of Sankhya as being the foundation of Ayurveda and Yoga as well as other philosophical system."

First question: So what?

Second question: What is the authority of this textbook?

Third question: Who wrote it? Is he/she a bona fide representative of any Vedic disciplic lineage?

Fourth question: Where is the scriptural reference to verify this information?

Sāṅkhya mentioned all by itself is another nonsense of this 'textbook'. There are two different teachings of sāṅkhya philosophy. The first was spoken by Kapiladeva, a few million years back. (And you can read the whole story in the third canto of Śrīmad-Bhagavatam) The second system of 'sāṅkhya' was quite recently taught by the atheistic imposter Kapila.


Basically sāṅkhya is a tool to analyze the material nature in order to realize one self as a spirit soul, as opposed to the bodily concepts of life. But there are two different sāṅkhya philosopies: one is in accordance with Vedic siddhānta, and the other is not in accordance with Vedic siddhānta.

I guess it is not to your surprise when I tell you that the sāṇkhya your 'textbook' is referring to is not in line with the conclusions of the Vedas and the Vedic literature.


You will soon see why this is so.

You further wrote:

"In the text book it states. "Purusha desired to know its self but had no real way of doing so. It had no mind or senses from which to explore its own nature. Hence, Purusha decided to merge itself with Prakrati, the potential form, in order to create a vehicle for its self exploration."

This nonsense is not at all part of Vedic philosophy but is a modern concoction of so called followers of 'the Vedas' who always fail to name and recite their sources for such outrageous statements.

Here is what the Upaniṣads write about Brahman:


The same Upaniṣad further states:

jñāna-prasādena viśuddha-sattvas tu taṁ paśyate niṣkalaṁ dhyāyamānaḥ

“If by the mercy of spiritual knowledge one meditates on the unchangeable, pure Supreme Lord, he can get darśana of Him.” [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.8]
In 'The Science of Self Realization' Śrīla Prabhupāda gives more information on the qualities of Brahman, God:

"Parāśara Muni, a great sage and the father of Vyāsadeva, who compiled all the Vedic literatures, gave the following definition of God:

aiśvaryasya samagrasya
vīryasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ
jñāna-vairāgyayoś caiva
saṇṇāṁ bhaga itiṅgana
(Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.47)

Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is thus defined by Parāśara Muni as one who is full in six opulences—who has full strength, fame, wealth, knowledge, beauty, and renunciation." [emphasis mine]

God is always God and He always possess these six opulences. This is His ontological position as God. So there is no question of God not knowing Himself or coming into contact with the material nature.

Your post further states:

"The coming together of these two potentials [Puruṣa and prakṛiti] upset the inherit balance of the three basic qualities of nature called, gunas, that lay dormant in prakrati, tamas rajas,sattva. ... as the universe unfolded a sound vibration echoed through all creation."

Wow! This stuff is so off that it is hard for me to decide where to start...

1. As shown above: God does not unite with His lower energies.

2.There is no 'balance' or ideal state of the modes of nature - ever. What kind of 'balance' should that be? "Just add a tablespoon of ignorance. Then gently stir in a small amount of passion, mix it with the goodness from last Sunday - and voilá..." Just like the doṣas in the ayurvedic system: The term doṣa means 'fault' or 'impurity'. So how can there be balance of faults - comprising an ideal or perfect state? No matter what is concerned: nothing in this material world is perfect or eternal. This is the very definition of material: imperfect, incomplete, changing and ending. Spiritual on the other hand is defined as: perfect, complete, unchanging and eternal.

3. The guṇas don't 'lie dormant' in the material nature. They are expressions of the deities residing over these qualities.

4. What is the universe? In this description of yours the 'universe' is a separate entity apart from God. More nonsense! What do you think the universe is comprised of?

Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.5] states:

ātmānandamayaḥ ānanda ātmā brahma pucchaṁ pratiṣṭhā

“The Supreme Lord is full of ecstasy. The impersonal Brahman is His bodily effulgence. He is the source of Brahman.”

In Śrī Īśopaniṣad [Invocation] it is stated:

oṁ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaṁ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

Chāndogya Upaniṣad [3.14] states:

sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma taj jalāniti śānta upāsīta

“Whatever we see is a manifestation of Brahman. Everything is created, maintained, and annihilated by Brahman. Therefore one should peacefully worship Him.”

5. How can 'the universe' 'unfold' a sound vibration? Sound vibration itself is spiritual. Śabdha Brahman - spiritual sound vibration.

"All the Vedic scriptures are evidence in the form of spiritual sound. They are the incarnation of self-evident knowledge (svatah-siddha-jnana). Sabda alone is the best evidence because it reveals the truth that lies beyond material perception." [Vaiṣṇava-siddhānta-mala, 10]

6. If the universe 'unfolds' this sound - then what is this 'creation' through which the sound permeates?

You write further:

"there is a component in creation that does not have its origin [in ?] prakriti ... Atman."

The living entity or the soul does not belong to 'creation'. His constitutional postion is in the spiritual world. Only the bodies of the numerous embodied living entities are part of what you call creation.

Atman also, has different meanings, depending of the circumstances of the scriptural passage. It can mean the Lord or the individual soul. So, again your textbook fails completely to describe anything accurately.

The soul is eternal and is directly emanated by the Supreme Lord. He is not part of the material nature.

Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.1] states:


Please take advantage of our school and study the material we have directed you to. Then you will find peace of mind and develop your personal, blissful relationship with the Supreme Lord.

tad vijñānena paripaśyanti dhīrā ānanda-rūpam amṛtam yad vibhāti

“By knowledge of the Absolute Truth, the sober practitioners realize that blissful, immortal, all-pervading Supreme Lord,” [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 2.2.7]





I saw a video on Youtube which goes against Prabhupada's conclusion of the Vedas. He says the Maha mantra isn't even a bonafide Vedic mantra. Is this true?

I don't have to watch the video to know that this is bogus. There are three main camps who are against us: the impersonalists, who hate the Supreme Personality of Godhead and everything related to Him, and the sahājiyas, who think that sentiment is enough to attain self-realization, and karma-yoga or other devotional service is unnecessary. And then there are the sectarian religionists and neophyte devotees who are against us for primarily political reasons, because we talk plainly about the absurdity of man-made religious faiths and organizations.

As different as the first two groups of philosophical opponents are, the thing that both these camps have in common is that they do not want to accept any discipline or authority. They want to continue their material sense gratification without any actual spiritual process. The impersonalists think either that they are God, or that everything is ultimately oneness or nothingness, so it doesn't matter what we do. The sahājiyas think that their sense gratification, especially sex life, is somehow devotional service. The sectarians are against us just because we aren't members of their group.

Just because someone says something on YouTube or anywhere, does not mean that it is true or that you have to take it seriously. You should be intelligent enough to search the scriptures on your own and find the answers. Have you downloaded the VedaBase? Can you use the Search feature? Don't be gullible or lazy; verify everything with the Vedic scriptures and think it over for yourself before you accept or reject it.

Now, in regards to this rascal saying that the mahā-mantra is not in the Vedas, that is just plain untrue. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, widely recognized as the greatest scholar of His time, quoted the Purāṇas:

harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam
kalau nāstyeva nāstyeva nāstyeva gatir anyathā

“Chant the Holy Name [in the neophyte stage], chant the Holy Name [in the clearing stage], certainly you must chant the Holy Name [in the liberated stage of life] constantly. In the Age of Kali there is no other way [by the austere yoga practices recommended for the Satya-yuga], no other way [by the elaborate Vedic sacrifices recommended for the Treta-yuga], no other way [by the opulent Deity worship recommended for the Dvārapa-yuga] to attain the ultimate destination [of the personal association of the Lord].” [Bṛhan-nāradīya Purāṇa]

For progress in spiritual life, the Vedic scriptures recommend austerity and meditation in Satya-yuga, sacrifice for the satisfaction of Lord Viṣṇu in Treta-yuga and gorgeous worship of the Lord in the temple in Dvāpara-yuga, but in the Age of Kali one can achieve spiritual progress only by chanting the Holy Name of the Lord. This is confirmed in many scriptures.

For example, in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam [12.3.51] it is said:

kaler doṣa-nidhe rājann
asti hy eko mahān guṇaḥ
kīrtanād eva kṛṣṇasya
mukta-saṅgaḥ paraṁ vrajet

“In the Age of Kali there are many faults, for people are subjected to many miserable conditions, yet in this age there is one great benediction: simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra one can be freed from all material contamination and thus be elevated to the spiritual world.”

The Nārada-pañcarātra also praises the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra as follows:

trayo vedaḥ ṣaḍ-aṅgāni chandāṁsi vividhāḥ surāḥ
sarvaṁ aṣṭākṣarāntaḥsthaṁ yac cānyad api vāṅ-mayam
sarva-vedānta-sārārthah saṁsārārṇava-tāraṇaḥ

“The essence of all Vedic knowledge—comprehending the three kinds of Vedic activity [karma-kāṇḍa, jñāna-kāṇḍa and upasāna-kāṇḍa], the chandas, or Vedic hymns, and the processes for satisfying the demigods—is included in the eight syllables Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa. This is the reality of all Vedānta. The chanting of the Holy Name is the only means to cross the ocean of nescience.”

Similarly, the Kali-santaraṇa Upaniṣad directly states,

hare kṛṣṇa hare kṛṣṇa kṛṣṇa kṛṣṇa hare hare
hare rāma hare rāma rāma rāma hare hare
iti ṣoḍaśakaṁ nāmnāṁ kali-kalmaṣa-nāśanam
nātaḥ parataropāyaḥ sarva-vedeṣu dṛśyate

“Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare; Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare—these sixteen names composed of thirty-two syllables are the only means to counteract the evil effects of Kali-yuga. In all the Vedas it is seen that to cross the ocean of nescience there is no alternative to the chanting of the Holy Name.”

Śrī Mādhvācārya, in his commentary upon the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, quotes the following śloka from the Nārāyaṇa Saṁhitā:

dvāparīyair janair viṣṇuḥ pañcarātrais tu kevalaiḥ
kalau tu nāma-mātreṇa pūjyate bhagavān hariḥ

“In the Dvāpara-yuga one could satisfy Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu only by worshiping Him gorgeously according to the pañcarātrikī [Deity worship] system, but in the Age of Kali one can worship and satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead Hari only by chanting His Holy Name.”

Since the Holy Name can deliver the conditioned soul from all material suffering, it is called sarva-mantra-sāra, the essence of all Vedic hymns. However, one should receive the Holy Name from the pure devotee who is fully engaged in the loving devotional service of the Lord. One who has a merely academic interest in religion, or who poses as a great spiritual teacher merely for the sake of transient name, fame, profit and cheap adoration from the innocent public, cannot impart the real thing.

The Holy Name is most effective when heard from a self-realized teacher situated in the paramparā (disciplic succession) from Kṛṣṇa Himself:

evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ

“This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way.” [Bhagavad-gītā 4.2]

All the great Vaiṣṇava ācāryas and spiritual masters have accepted the supreme power of Kṛṣṇa's Holy Name:

“Due to being situated on the platform of supreme attractiveness, it should be understood that the name ‘Kṛṣṇa’ is His principle name. Therefore (not only in form) in name also He is Kṛṣṇa. This meaning is also applicable. The Supreme Lord, who takes different bodies in different yugas, manifests in three different colors. Among them, the white incarnations, the red incarnations, the yellow incarnations, and other incarnations that have different symptoms and colors (in other words, those incarnations who appear in other Dvāpara-yugas and resemble the color of a parrot) all of Them have now at the time of His appearance merged into the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the blackish form of this boy. Because He has personally appeared after gathering together all of His expansions, He is the original Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. In other words, because He has transformed all of His expansions into a blackish form, and because He has attracted everyone, His primary name is Kṛṣṇa. Since within the meaning of the name Kṛṣṇa all greatest happiness and all objects are included, the above-mentioned explanations are appropriate. Therefore such a great name is natural for Him. Just as all Vedic knowledge is included within the praṇava oṁkāra, all names of Viṣṇu are included within the name of Kṛṣṇa and all forms of Viṣṇu are included within the form of Kṛṣṇa. This is reasonable because the names of all viṣṇu-tattvas are adjectives to the name Kṛṣṇa, which is a noun. And in the verse of the Prabhāsa-khaṇḍa that states: ‘The sweetest of the sweet and the most auspicious of all auspicious things,’ the name ‘Kṛṣṇa’ is mentioned at the very end. And elsewhere it is stated: ‘O killer of the enemies, among all the names of Viṣṇu, this name of Mine, Kṛṣṇa, is the principle. Therefore the first syllable of the name Kṛṣṇa is also celebrated as the mahā-mantra.’” [Śrī Jīva Prabhu’s Laghu-toṣaṇī]

A self-realized spiritual master is not an ordinary human being, but is fully qualified to act as the representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. How to approach such a spiritual master is also described:

tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ

“Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.” [Bhagavad-gītā 4.34]

One should fully accept all these merciful scriptural instructions of the Lord as one’s purpose in life to quickly perfect one’s self-realization and put an end to all misery. Hearing and chanting the Holy Names of the Lord is the only effective medicine for the disease of material suffering. Anyone in material conditioned existence can cleanse their consciousness from all material contamination and find relief from all misconceptions by this simple process (ceto-darpaṇa mārjanam).

As stated in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.3.52:

kṛte yad dhyāyato viṣṇuṁ tretāyāṁ yajato makhaiḥ
dvāpare paricaryāyāṁ kalau tad dhari-kīrtanāt

“Whatever result was obtained in Satya-yuga by meditating on Viṣṇu, in Tretā-yuga by performing sacrifices, and in Dvāpara-yuga by serving the Lord’s lotus feet can be obtained in Kali-yuga simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra.”

Elsewhere in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.3.51 it is stated:

kaler doṣa-nidhe rājann asti hy eko mahān guṇaḥ
kīrtanād eva kṛṣṇasya mukta-saṅgaḥ paraṁ vrajet

“My dear King, although Kali-yuga is an ocean of faults, there is still one good quality about this age: Simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, one can become free from material bondage and be promoted to the transcendental kingdom.”

The Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.5.36 further states:

kaliṁ sabhājayanty āryā guṇa jñāḥ sāra-bhāginaḥ
yatra saṅkīrtanenaiva sarva-svārtho ‘bhilabhyate

“Those who are actually advanced in knowledge are able to appreciate the essential value of this age of Kali. Such enlightened persons worship Kali-yuga because in this fallen age all perfection of life can easily be achieved by the performance of saṅkīrtana.”

And in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (6.2.17) it is stated:

dhyāyan kṛte yajan yajñais tretāyāṁ dvāpare ‘rcayan
yad āpnoti tad āpnoti kalau saṅkīrtya keśavam

“Whatever is achieved by meditation in Satya-yuga, by the performance of sacrifice in Tretā-yuga, and by the worship of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s lotus feet in Dvāpara-yuga is obtained in the age of Kali simply by glorifying the name of Lord Keśava.”

The phrase yuga-dharma-pālau is described as follows: According to the scriptures dealing with karma-kāṇḍa, or fruitive activities, the religious principle for the age of Kali is charity. But as the maintainers of yuga-dharma, the two most magnanimous Lords, Śrī Gaura and Śrī Nityānanda, have inaugurated the congregational chanting of the holy names of Kṛṣṇa. The Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.5.32 and 10.8.9 says:

kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam
yajñaiḥ saṅkīrtana-prāyair yajanti hi su-medhasaḥ

“In the age of Kali, intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the names of Kṛṣṇa. Although His complexion is not blackish, He is Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is accompanied by His associates, servants, weapons and confidential companions.”

āsan varṇās trayo hy asya gṛhṇato ‘nuyugaṁ tanūḥ
śuklo raktas tathā pīta idānīṁ kṛṣṇatāṁ gataḥ

“Your son Kṛṣṇa appears as an incarnation in every millennium. In the past, He assumed three different colors—white, red, and yellow—and now He has appeared in a blackish color. In another Dvāpara-yuga, He appeared (as Lord Rāmacandra) in the color of śuka, a parrot. All such incarnations have now assembled in Kṛṣṇa.”

Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has offered his obeisances unto Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanyadeva as follows:

namo mahā-vadānyāya kṛṣṇa-prema-pradāya te
kṛṣṇāya kṛṣṇa-caitanya- nāmne gaura-tviṣe namaḥ

“I offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, who is more magnanimous than any other avatāra, even Kṛṣṇa Himself, because He is bestowing freely what no one else has ever given—pure love of Kṛṣṇa.”

In other words, magnanimity is Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s characteristic and distributing love of Kṛṣṇa is His pastime. Do not listen to rascals who say that the goal of spiritual life is anything else. Śrīla Kavirāja Gosvāmī has stated in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi 8.15):

śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-dayā karaha vicāra
vicāra karite citte pābe camatkāra

“If you are indeed interested in logic and argument, kindly apply it to the mercy of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. If you do so, you will find it to be strikingly wonderful.”








DEVI VANAMALI


Is Krsna a manifestation of the formless God? I was reading Devi Vanamali and she says this is so.

This impersonal misunderstanding is very, very common in India; in fact, since the creation of 'hinduism,' it has unfortunately become the standard. It is self-contradictory and foolish. It is also completely against the statements of the Vedic literature such as Vedānta-sūtra.

janmādy asya yataḥ

janma–birth; ādi–beginning with; asya–of that; yataḥ–from Whom.

Brahman is He from Whom everything emanates. [Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.2]

Those who compromise with the impersonal misinterpretation of Śāṅkara cannot be considered as great devotees; in fact, they are not devotees at all, but frauds. Maybe they speak some apparently devotional nonsense just to mislead the people in general, but they are ultimately cheaters. It is not only a philosophical issue; it is an ethical one. How can we accept people who delude others and contradict themselves at every turn as spiritual leaders?

In the age of Kali, the only spiritual principle left is truthfulness.

idānīṁ dharma pādas te
satyaṁ nirvartayed yataḥ
taṁ jighṛkṣaty adharmo 'yam
anṛtenaidhitaḥ kaliḥ

"You [religion personified] are now standing on one leg only, which is your truthfulness, and you are somehow or other hobbling along. But quarrel personified [Kali], flourishing by deceit, is also trying to destroy that leg." [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.17.25]

Religious principles are based on truthfulness, cleanliness, austerity and mercy. Mercy is destroyed by meat-eating, austerity is destroyed by intoxication, cleanliness is destroyed by illicit sex, and truthfulness is destroyed by gambling or mental speculation. The only virtue we have left in this age is truthfulness, and therefore if make a mockery of the truth by compromise with the impersonalist speculators, then what do we have left?



Devi Vanamali seems to have so much love for Krsna in her writings though. Why would she accept the Impersonal conclusion.

avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannaṁ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam

"Unintelligent men, who know Me not, think that I have assumed this form and personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is changeless and supreme." [Bhagavad-gītā 7.24]

Śrīla Prabhupāda writes in the Purport to this śloka:

"One cannot understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, or His form, quality or name simply by mental speculation or by discussing Vedic literature. One must understand Him by devotional service. When one is fully engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, beginning by chanting the mahā-mantra—Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare—then only can one understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Nondevotee impersonalists think that Kṛṣṇa has a body made of this material nature and that all His activities, His form and everything, are māyā. These impersonalists are known as Māyāvādī. They do not know the ultimate truth.

The twentieth verse clearly states: "Those who are blinded by lusty desires surrender unto the different demigods." It is accepted that besides the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there are demigods who have their different planets (Bg. 7.23), and the Lord also has a planet. It is also stated that the worshipers of the demigods go to the different planets of the demigods, and those who are devotees of Lord Kṛṣṇa go to the Kṛṣṇaloka planet. Although this is clearly stated, the foolish impersonalists still maintain that the Lord is formless and that these forms are impositions. From the study of the Gītā does it appear that the demigods and their abodes are impersonal? Clearly, neither the demigods nor Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are impersonal. They are all persons; Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He has His own planet, and the demigods have theirs.

Therefore the monistic contention that ultimate truth is formless and that form is imposed does not hold true. It is clearly stated here that it is not imposed. From the Gītā we can clearly understand that the forms of the demigods and the form of the Supreme Lord are simultaneously existing and that Lord Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda, eternal blissful knowledge. The Vedas also confirm that the Supreme Absolute Truth is ānandamaya, or full of blissful pleasure, and that He is abhyāsāt, by nature the reservoir of unlimited auspicious qualities. And in the Gītā the Lord says that although He is aja (unborn), He still appears. These are the facts that we should understand from the Gītā. We cannot understand how the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be impersonal; the imposition theory of the impersonalist monist is false as far as the statements of the Gītā are concerned. It is clear herein that the Supreme Absolute Truth, Lord Kṛṣṇa, has both form and personality."

In other words, Kṛṣṇa's form is not made of some other material, such as impersonal Brahman. Kṛṣṇa's form is Absolute and the basis of everything else, including impersonal Brahman.

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca

"And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal." [Bhagavad-gītā 14.27]

It is not a fact that Kṛṣṇa's form comes from Brahman; actually, Brahman comes from the transcendental form of Kṛṣṇa. So people like Devi Vanamali actually do not know Kṛṣṇa at all. How can they say they love Kṛṣṇa, if they do not even accept Kṛṣṇa's clear statement in Bhagavad-gītā that He is the source of impersonal Brahman, not the other way around? You see they are simply cheaters; they do not even read Bhagavad-gītā. Their so-called love of Kṛṣṇa is nothing but rascal cheating propaganda to fool innocent but stupid people into accepting them as spiritual authorities.

Anyone can look at Bhagavad-gītā and understand what Kṛṣṇa clearly says about Himself. If someone accepts a spiritual teacher but does not check what guru-śāstra-sadhu has to say, then they are a fool and deserve to be cheated.





RAMAKRISHNA


What are your views on avatāras like Ramakrishna?

There is a regular industry in India manufacturing bogus avatāras, like Ramakrishna or the latest, some kid who is supposed to be a reincarnation of the Buddha.

Gentle devotees of the Supreme Personality of Godhead know perfectly well who is God and who is not. Nondevotee impersonalists, however, who have no idea what God is and who never offer prayers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are always interested in accepting a human being as God and offering such prayers to him. This is the difference between a devotee and a demon. Demons manufacture their own gods, or a demon himself claims to be God, following in the footsteps of Rāvaṇa and Hiraṇyakaśipu. Although Pṛthu Mahārāja was factually an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he rejected those praises because the qualities of the Supreme Person were not yet manifest in him. He wanted to stress that one who does not actually possess these qualities should not try to engage his followers and devotees in offering him glory for them, even though these qualities might be manifest in the future. If a man who does not factually possess the attributes of a great personality engages his followers in praising him with the expectation that such attributes will develop in the future, that sort of praise is actually an insult. [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.15.23 Purport]

So as Śrīla Prabhupāda would say, "This is going on." The Māyāvādīs want to become God, and so they want to manufacture false gods to prove their system. But this kind of god is just an expansion of false ego, not an expansion of Kṛṣṇa.




What do you think about the validity of Ramakrishna's nirvikalpa samādhi and his multiple samādhi experiences?

Ramakrishna was a meat-eating worshiper of Goddess Kālī, the horrible ghastly form of the material nature, who thought that he was God. What is the use of any teaching coming from a source like that?

So here it is said that rāma-kṛṣṇāv iti [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.23]. God appeared as Rāma and Kṛṣṇa. There are some foolish persons who are misled by another imitation Ramakrishna. You see? But those who are intelligent... This rascal Ramakrishna said that "I am the same Rāma-Kṛṣṇa." Another rascal believed, "Oh, he is Rāma-Kṛṣṇa." Why I say rascal? Because here it is said, rāma-kṛṣṇāv iti bhuvo bhagavān aharad bharam: ["The Lord advented Himself as Lord Balarāma and Lord Kṛṣṇa in the family of Vṛṣṇi, or the Yadu dynasty, and by so doing He removed the burden of the world."]. There must be symptoms of Rāma-Kṛṣṇa. Anyone will say, "I am Rāma-Kṛṣṇa," and he becomes Rāma-Kṛṣṇa? How? What is the test? The test is bhagavān aharad bharam. When Kṛṣṇa and Rāma appeared, Balarāma, He killed so many demons to make the world peaceful. The beginning of killing was their maternal uncle Kaṁsa. Not only that beginning. From the beginning of Kṛṣṇa's birth, Pūtanā, Aghāsura, Bakāsura, the Keśī, and so many asuras... Every day, Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma used to go in the forest and some asura would come to disturb Them, to kill Them, and Kṛṣṇa will finish them. And the friends will come at home and narrate the story to their mothers, "Mother, Kṛṣṇa is so wonderful. Such a big demon came and He killed immediately in this way and that way." That is Kṛṣṇa. Not that because one has got some so-called meditation, He becomes Kṛṣṇa without any test. But what is the proof that he is Rāma-Kṛṣṇa? But they do not take the proof. They simply pose a bogus man as Rāma-Kṛṣṇa.

So this Rāma-Kṛṣṇa is different from this bogus Ramakrishna. Rāma-Kṛṣṇa Bhagavān. They are actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and They proved it. Not that Rāma-Kṛṣṇa is dying out of cancer disease. Yes. We are not after such kind of Ramakrishna. Besides that, when there is real Rāma-Kṛṣṇa, why I shall go to the false and imitation Ramakrishna? They say the same Rāma-Kṛṣṇa. That's all right, the same, but I don't find any proof that the same. So why shall I take to this imitation Ramakrishna? Why not take this real Rāma-Kṛṣṇa?

So we should be intelligent enough. We should not be bluffed. Kṛṣṇa yei bhaje sei baḍa catura: "Anyone who takes to devotional service is exalted, whereas a nondevotee is always condemned and abominable." [Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta Antya 4.67] Without being very intelligent, nobody surrenders to Kṛṣṇa.

bahūnāṁ janmanām ante
jñānavān māṁ prapadyate
vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti
sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ

"After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare." [Bhagavad-gītā 7.19]

So anyone who has surrendered to Kṛṣṇa, He is the most intelligent man, jñānavān. Kṛṣṇa says, unless one is fully wise, after many, many births, after many, many births. Because everyone is trying to place a competitor of Kṛṣṇa. Just like I have said it... "Oh, why that Rāma-Kṛṣṇa? Here is another with big beard, Ramakrishna." So... But he is not wise? That kind of Ramakrishna is for the foolish man, and those who are presenting, he is also foolish. But bahūnām... In this way, foolishly accepting something as God... When one actually becomes wise, after many [births], if he is actually searching after God...

catur-vidhā bhajante māṁ
janāḥ sukṛtino 'rjuna
ārto jijñāsur arthārthī
jñānī ca bharatarṣabha

"O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men render devotional service unto Me—the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute." [Bhagavad-gītā 7.16]
[Class on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.23, Los Angeles 9/28/72]

So what to speak of being God, Ramakrishna is not even accepted as being a bona fide devotee. He posed himself as God, and his foolish followers accepted and propagated this nonsense. Then when his disciple Swami Vivekananda presented this bogus philosophy at the World Convention of Religions in Chicago in 1915, it created a sensation: "Oh great, we can also become God." There was no bona fide Vedic teacher there to defeat this nonsense. So in that way, a completely wrong misconception of yoga and meditation became established among foolish people, that "I can do some mystic meditation and realize that I am God," and this nonsense is still going on today under the banner of the new-age philosophy.

We have to be intelligent to understand who is actually God. To be accepted as an incarnation of God there are three requirements: certain esoteric symptoms on the body, prophetic statements in the scriptures, and superhuman activities. Ramakrishna displayed none of these symptoms, yet foolish people still accept him as God just out of sentiment—because the rascals think, "Oh, he is just a rascal like me, and if this rascal can be accepted as God, then so can I."

< Prev		Next >