More and more Rubbish objections, the Iskcon blogger objects as follows
“The objects one sees in dreams, misperceptions, or hallucinations are intangible. In a dream one may eat a big feast, for example, but upon waking up one will still feel hungry; the feast appears real only while dreaming. Similarly intangible are misperceived or imagined objects, such as a “snake” that is in fact a rope; fear of the snake will persist only as long as the misperception or hallucination continues. This kind of illusory reality (pratibhasika-satta) is inferior to the empirical world and to absolute reality. Nonetheless, the Mayavadis posit that such apparent upadhis can cause Brahman to take on the characteristics of jivas and the ishvara”
If people do not understand what is being told in this let me back track a little on this, Now Advaita proposes 3 realities Absolute reality or Paramartha Satta Transactional reality or Vyavaharika Satta Pratibhasika Satta or apparent reality.
When one realises the absolute reality, the relationship or knower, known and process of knowing disappears, what we see is one Nondual reality.
The Vyavaharika Satta is where we have all the interactions in the waking world.
The Pratibhasika Satta is where we see dreams, delusions, illusions and so on.
The Advaitins propose that just as Pot space and space outside are one, similarly Jiva and Brahman are one. Unfortunately the objection is taking an analogy literally, which makes the objection ridiculous. This is called objecting or refutation. Which is complete nonsense in fact. Now there is one objection which states that the pot and space example does not fit since pot and space are at the Vyavaharika level, but Brahman here is at Paramarthika level and mind and body which are in the place of pots at Vyavaharika level, so how can there be contact between them ? Real or apparent, for which we have already answered that the relationship is that of the knower and known, through this relationship we have the notion of I am this and this is mine. So there is no question of how Vyavahara and Paramartha came in contact. Since we already have the notion of subject and object. Now here the objection taken is that, since the Upadhis being Vyavaharika does not work, let us take the Pratibhasika, if we can take all of this as mere illusion. I will take Jiva Goswami’s verse directly,
upadher avidyakatve tu tatra tat-paricchinnatvader apy aghaöamanatvad avidyakatvam eveti ghaöakashadishu vastavopadhi-maya-tad-darshanaya na tesham avastava-svapna-drishöantopajivinam siddhantah sidhyati ghaöamanaghaöamanayoh sangateh kartum ashakyatvat. tatash ca tesham tat tat sarvam avidya-vilasitam eveti svarupam apraptena tena tena tad tad vyavasthapayitum ashakyam
Translation: If the Upadhis are not existent and merely apparent, then the theory of pots delimiting space and so on does not stand since the pot is itself not existent and merely apparent. In that Siddhanta the Upadhis cannot be actual, they are Maya or illusory. Hence the Siddhanta has to live on the example of the non actual dream example, based on which they have to establish their Siddhanta. Since it cannot be established on the basis of pot and space example, it has to be said that all of it is non existent, so if all is non existent it would infer that by and by nothing can be established.
I have taken the pain to go ahead and look at Jiva Goswami’s verse itself, the refutation is actually stupid, reason being what is being refuted is an example, if I say some one is a lion among men, I do not literally mean that, that person has a tail, teeth, claws etc like a lion. It refers to the courage, charisma and presentation of the person. Similarly the pot or mirror example is only to tell a certain point, here Jiva Goswami goes to pathetic extents and simply extends the examples then refutes examples. Suppose a poet describes that someone’s voice is like a cuckoo, it does not literally mean that, that person is saying koo koo all the time. This is how ridiculous and pathetic Jiva Goswami’s refutation is to begin with. The same thing has passed down to Iskconites, they do the same thing, they do not know what reason or logic is.
Now the dream example of Vedantins is taken as follows
“The impersonalists compare this world to a dream to show its illusory nature—to show that it does not really exist. “
But these people forget that their Prabhupada says the same
“Srila Prabhupada – “This material creation is the spirit soul’s dream”
He says “But it is unjustifiable to equate the dream world (apparent reality) with the external world (empirical reality) in order to reach this conclusion”
Therefore Prabhupada is wrong good.
He continues as follows
“If a person commits murder in a dream he is not punished for it, “
He will be punished in the dream world not in the waking world, similarly if he commits a crime in the waking world he will be punished in the waking world not the dream world. We will take up more objections in the next part by now people must have understood how pathetic the objections are to begin with.
Now we will take up some more pathetic objections , I will put it in the form of points
.1. But a formless, indivisible object cannot have a relation with any upadhi, real or imaginary, and thus it cannot reflect in any medium.
2.In response to this contention, the Advaita monists cite the analogy of a clear crystal that appears red when placed in front of a red flower.
3.Just as the red color, which is formless and partless, casts its reflection on the crystal, so it is possible for Brahman to be reflected in its upadhis.
4.But this is a faulty argument. The red color in this analogy belongs to the flower, which projects its image through the crystal,
5.although in the crystal we perceive only the flower’s color. The color exists simply as the flower’s attribute and cannot sustain itself independently.
6.A flower, moreover, has shape, parts, and attributes. In sum, neither the color nor the flower compares adequately to Brahman. Therefore, like the analogy of the reflected sky, this analogy has also been applied incongruously by the Mayavadis.
Now unfortunately I have never seen such a pathetic argument to begin with. We have explained in the last part how the relationship between the Paramartha Brahman and Vyavaharika body and mind are established.
So the 1st point is already answered. Now the second point is flawed, Advaitins or even Yogis the follower of the Patanjali school use the crystal and Rose example, but here he makes an error stating that the redness of the rose is formless and this formless redness is represented by Brahman, this is how ridiculous and pathetic the argument of this blogger is to begin with. Here the crystal represents the witness awareness or consciousness, just as the crystal is never touched by the colours of various flowers similarly the witness consciousness or Atman is never touched by the various changes of the mind. The Samkhyas and the Yogis go ahead and accepts multiple Purushas who are also merely witness consciousness, but they are multiple in nature. Advaita does not accept multiple witness consciousnesses. Unfortunately we will check more nonsensical objections in the next part. In short he takes an example which is not used by Advaitins to even begin with and then goes ahead and refutes it, this is called straw man argument.
We are continuing with the response to the Bimba Pratibimba Vada objection, here our blogger states the following
“But Shrila Jiva Gosvami is willing to grant the opposition a respite and hypothetically accept their premise that Brahman can reflect in upadhis; in this case all-pervading Brahman must also exist in the upadhis, in which it supposedly reflects. But if the reflected object, Brahman, is already present in the reflecting medium, the upadhis, how will it reflect there?”
Now to back track on this Bimba Pratibimba Vada is stating that just as the Sun reflected in various mirrors appears as many individual suns with respect to the mirror, similarly the all pervading consciousness which is the Brahman of Advaita is reflected in various minds and this consciousness reflected in the mind is called Jiva. The objection is not valid, since it is merely extending the example. As explained previously it is useless to extend examples and argue. However, I will grant this objection and answer it in 2 ways , one is by actually answering with a counter example, second by backtracking on the explanation a bit.
Now let me answer this by extending this example, hypothetically let us imagine that there is light spread throughout space but there is nothing to reflect that light, now as per physics only when light is reflected it is visible otherwise it is not visible. Now let us say we put a few mirrors in space, those mirrors reflect that light and light is visible to us. Now those mirrors are within light and light is pervading those mirrors, still there is no problem in light being reflected in these mirrors. Also since light is pervading all the space in which the mirrors are, it is obviously within the mirrors also, but still reflected by the mirrors. So even though the light which is the reflected object is present in the reflected medium the mirror, there is no problem in the light being reflected in the medium. Similarly here we can take Brahman as light, the mirrors as the minds and the light reflected in the mind as Jivas, so Brahman pervading the minds need not make it impossible for it to be reflected in the minds. Please note that this answer is merely given by extension of the example is still not an apt answer. There can be a further objection but everything is Brahman, the answer is yes, but we do not take Brahman as literally a light and the mind literally to be a mirror, analogy is merely to explain a point. The second way I answer is that, mind simply is the instrument through which the subject is expressed, in Advaita the same subject is present in all the minds, even if we take the subjects to be different, it cannot be denied that the minds act as medium for the subject for experiencing , misery, joy, excitement and so on, hence this objection does not stand.
Now the objections become even more ridiculous as follows
I will put it into points
1.As a mirror cannot reflect in itself, so Brahman cannot reflect in itself.
Ans: The Bimba Pratibimba Vada as proposed here does not even propose that Brahman over here is reflecting something.
Even if somehow it manages to reflect in itself, how will it be possible to distinguish the reflected Brahman from the original Brahman already present in the upadhis?
Ans: We have already stated that the example taken here is wrong, we never stated Brahman reflected anything hence objection is a flawed objection. The objecter might say, mind, Brahman everything is Brahman, so where is the question of Brahman being reflected in Upadhis or minds ? We are also stating it is not the case and none of this duality is the absolute truth, the absolute truth is the Non dual awareness. But this explanation is merely at the Vyavaharika level hence the objection has no weight.
3.The two will be coincident, allowing no basis for distinguishing one from the other.
Ans: They will not be, since this objection is based on mixing Paramartha and Vyavahara.
4.How can the reflected Brahman be singled out to be termed jiva and made to suffer? What was His offense?
Ans: This is a better objection, now the singled out reflected Jiva or Brahman is suffering. The answer given by Shankara or anyone is that there is no suffering even for the awareness in contact with body and mind, reason is that Brahman is witness awareness or consciousness. The witness does not get affected by the states of waking, dream and deep sleep. Then question can be asked who is suffering here, the answer given by Shankara here is that it is to the one who questions. To explain further the apparent conjunction between the witness and the mind and body is asking this question. This conjunction is what is giving this idea of I am this and this is mine. The experiencership and doership, this experiencership and doership is what suffers. This is something very deep and needs to be contemplated upon.
We will take up one more objection
“But a formless, indivisible object cannot have a relation with any upadhi, real or imaginary, and thus it cannot reflect in any medium.”
This is again confusing Parmartha and Vyavahara, in Vyavahara there is possibility for relationship between Brahman ,body and mind. How? since Brahman is the knower, the subject, the body, mind and the world are known or object. So the apparent conjunction between subject and object gives this idea I am this and this is mine. It may be asked how can this be possible, the answer if we are already experiencing I am this and this is mine which is everyone’s experience. Hence when it is everyone’s experience there is no point in objecting how this is possible. We will take up other objections in the next part.
In this article I will take up the objection on Pariccheda Vada of Advaita by an Iskcon blogger who shows the objection by Jiva Goswami, the objections are quite underwhelming but we will still look at them. If time permits I will look at his other derisory objections on Advaita and answer them.
We will take up the objections by Iskcon
They describe in their blog on Paramarthika, Vyavaharika and Pratibhasika as follows
“In Advaita monism, existence (satta) is understood on three different levels—pratibhasika (merely apparent reality), vyavaharika (ordinary, empirical reality), and paramarthika (absolute reality). Pratibhasika existence is perceived in such states as dreams and illusions but ceases when normal consciousness returns”
Then Vyavaharika as follows
“According to the Mayavadis, empirical reality, vyavaharika-satta, refers to our perception of the material world in ordinary waking consciousness”
Paramarthika as follows
“The Mayavadis claim that the paramathika-satta, or absolute reality, is impersonal Brahman, which, unlike the other two realities, cannot be negated by experience and scriptural authority. Just as dreams cease when one wakes, the material world will cease to exist when one becomes Brahman realized. “
Small correction, one does not become one with Brahman one realises that one is already Brahman.
Now they object as follows
“If the upadhis are empirically real, Brahman still cannot be limited by them because pure Brahman is unconditioned by anything else, empirical or otherwise”
Here he means if Upadhis are real from the Vyavaharika view point, then also they cannot limit Brahman.
Now he previously stated the Advaitic position as follows on this.
“According to the pariccheda-vada, the one indivisible Brahman appears divided into many embodied jivas because of various upadhis, just as the one great sky (mahakasha) appears divided by being contained in various pots (ghatakasha).
This theory proposes that no real difference exists between the sky inside a pot and the sky outside. The distinction is assumed only for practical purposes. Once the pot is broken and the apparent distinction removed, the sky inside the pot and the great sky are understood to be one.”
Now he words it as according to Pariccheda Vada the indivisible Brahman appears divided into various Jivas.
Now when he clearly states that Jivas appear divided, so when the Advaitic position is that they only appear divided but are not really dividing anything then why does this blogger state that they cannot divide Brahman. When did Advaitins state that Brahman is divided by Upadhis ? So he takes the position correctly but while refuting the Advaitic position he misrepresents it why ? If he is going through so much pain to refute the Advaitic position he ought to take the correct position and do so right ? So the refutation is invalid, as it fails to take up the Advaitic position as it is.
He further misrepresents the Advaitic position as follows
“Thus when Brahman is limited by subtle bodies it becomes the jivas. But when it is limited by vidya it is called the ishvara. “
We never stated that Brahman is limited by subtle bodies, nor did we state that Brahman becomes Jivas, what these people fail to understand is that Brahman is the unchanging reality, if Brahman is unchanging reality then where is the question of it becoming something ? So this seems to be a misrepresentation of Advaita Vedanta. Now the example taken by him is accurate that just as there is pot space and space outside the pot, and the pot space and space outside are always one but appear divided due to the pot, same case with the subtle bodies. Now this person is claiming that the pot actually limits space. This is his level of understanding, people with this level of understanding will challenge Advaita Vedanta ? So his 1st objection is a dud, now let us take another objection of this brainless fellow
Now his second objection is as follows
“On the other hand, if Brahman does not move with the jivas, we must assume that when a jiva is moving from place to place his upadhi constantly delimits new portions of Brahman, simultaneously releasing the previously delimited portions. This reduces Brahman, the absolute reality, to a toy in the hands of its upadhis, a proposal that is also absurd.”
Now this is the most underwhelming objection, I will show my readers how much more underwhelming the other objections are.
Now let me show with an example, suppose we are moving an empty pot in space, does the pot limit new portions of space and delimit it other parts ? If this person answers as yes then his ability to understand things is very much impoverished. This is as childish as saying I have grabbed the space in my hand and pounded it into pieces. So just as pot moving in space does not delimit or limit space, similarly the subtle bodies will not limit or delimit Brahman, and there is no question of Brahman becoming a toy in the hands of Upadhis or subtle bodies by that logic the space around us is our toy, this is how unsubstantial this objection is to begin with.
Now let us take one more deplorable objection
“If it is instead proposed that all of Brahman is grasped by its upadhis, the problem of movement can be solved, but then there remains no Brahman free from upadhis”
Let me answer this with the same space and pot example, can the empty pots ever grasp all of space ? No, do the pots actually go ahead a limit space so there is a bound space and liberated space ? Here also the answer is no. So when this cannot happen on space ? Then where is the question of this happening to Brahman ? Another injudicious objection.
Let us look at one more fatuos objection
“If it is countered that Brahman is not the basis for its upadhis and thus they can move independently of Brahman, this means that even at the liberated level these independent upadhis will continue to exist”
Now let us take the example of space and pot, let us take for granted that space is not the basis of pot for argument sake, even if the pot spaces exist does it bind space ? Now can the pots move independently of space ? Finally can the pots exist without space ? If they cannot exist without space then obviously space is their basis. Hence just as the presence and absence of pots does not affect space how will these subtle bodies affect Brahman ? Iskconites have decided not to apply their intelligence, they just write something without thinking like how a Xerox machine merely copies something and prints it on paper,similar case over here.
There is one more objection on Pariccheda Vada which he has objected based on the Bhagavad Gita, I will answer this based on Bhagavad Gita alone. As it needs to be answered separately.
There is an interesting verse which Iskcon uses, I will use the translation of Srila Prabhupada himself, and give you the gist of what Iskcon wants to state. Following is the verse and translation from the Iskcon website
bhaktya mam abhijanati yavan yas casmi tattvatah tato mam tattvato jnatva visate tad-anantaram SYNONYMS bhaktya—by pure devotional service; mam—Me; abhijanati—one can know; yavan—as much as; yah ca asmi—as I am; tattvatah—in truth; tatah—thereafter; mam—Me; tattvatah—by truth; jnatva—knowing; visate—enters; tat—thereafter; anantaram—after TRANSLATION One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.
Now please notice here, Srila Prabhupada gives a lot of things in the word to word translation, but he forgets to include that part of the word to word translation in the overall translation. Why did Prabhupada do this, this is a big question, let us take another translation, I will use Swami Sivananda’s translation of the same verse
18.55 By devotion he knows Me in truth, what and who I am; then having known Me in truth, he forthwith enters into the Supreme.
Now Swami Sivananda translations this as “enters into the Supreme”, Prabhupada translates it as follows “he can enter into the kingdom of God.” Now question is this, where is spiritual Kingdom or Kingdom of God in the verse itself? Srila Prabhupada himself does not mention it in his word to word translation to begin with. If Srila Prabhupada is presenting Gita as it is supposed to be presented, then why does he keep interfering with the translations of the Gita ? he complains of people changing the commentary on the Gita, but here he changes the translation itself, even Baldev Vidya Bhushan who comes in his lineage does not do this, however Prabhupada has decided to do this, question is why ? The general answer given by Iskcon is that, he wanted to promote more Bhakti,….good, so why did Sri Ramanuja or Sri Venkatanatha not do this ? why only him ? did they not want to promote Bhagavad Gita as a text of devotion ? If people would stubbornly insist that Prabhupada is still right in doing this, then is Srila Baldev Bhushan wrong in not interfering with the translations ? In my experience all Iskconites do is respond to my posts with pure hatred nothing more, other responses are merely a joke, they have no value in order to respond. Fine, inspite of all of this, does this even work for Iskcon? Does this justify their position ? Shri Krishna unfortunately does not agree with them, in the 6th chapter of the Bhagavat Gita Shri Krishna says the following
मूल श्लोकः
सर्वभूतस्थितं यो मां भजत्येकत्वमास्थितः।
सर्वथा वर्तमानोऽपि स योगी मयि वर्तते।।6.31।।
English Translation By Swami Sivananda
6.31 He who, being established in unity, worships Me Who dwells in all beings, that Yogi abides in Me, whatever may be his mode of living.
So notice here “He who, being established in unity, worships Me Who dwells in all beings, that Yogi abides in Me,” this means only he who is established in Ekatva or unity, such a person truly worships Shri Krishna, now you may think, common, I am just using this verse to justify my line of thinking, not so, following is that Shri Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita
मूल श्लोकः
तेषां ज्ञानी नित्ययुक्त एकभक्ितर्विशिष्यते।
प्रियो हि ज्ञानिनोऽत्यर्थमहं स च मम प्रियः।।7.17।
Translation: Among these the Jnani is ever endowed with the Bhakti of oneness is the special one, I am exceedingly the dear to the Jnani and the Jnani is dear to me.
I have translated Ekabhakti as Bhakti of oneness, since seeing this oneness is what Gita is teaching us, the verse 18.20 clearly give the knowledge of oneness the highest position. So a Jnani ought to have this, also Shri Krishna himself says that the Jnani is himself alone, in the verse 7.18 . This means that true Bhakti is not different from the knowledge of oneness as per Shri Krishna. Shri Krishna also makes this pretty clear in 18.50 as follows
मूल श्लोकः
सिद्धिं प्राप्तो यथा ब्रह्म तथाप्नोति निबोध मे।
समासेनैव कौन्तेय निष्ठा ज्ञानस्य या परा।।18.50।।
English Translation By Swami Sivananda
18.50 Learn from Me in brief, O Arjuna, how he who has attained perfection reaches Brahman (the Eternal), that supreme state of knowledge.
So this is for seeing oneness and not sitting in a room and doing Bhajan to the Murthy of the Lord.
This is not to downplay Bhakti to the Saguna form of the Lord in any way, but this is just to show that the Bhagavad Gita is not stating what Iskcon is trying to state, in fact there is nothing in the Bhagavad Gita that even supports Iskcon’s philosophy. Also Bhakti actually leads you to Jnana as per Bhagavad Gita, following is the verse
मूल श्लोकः
तेषां सततयुक्तानां भजतां प्रीतिपूर्वकम्।
ददामि बुद्धियोगं तं येन मामुपयान्ति ते।।10.10।।
English Translation By Swami Sivananda
10.10 To them who are ever steadfast, worshipping Me with love, I give the Yoga of discrimination by which they come to Me.
As a final nail in the coffin, I would like to show what is this Yoga of discrimination or discernment on the basis of the Bhagavad Gita only, following is the verse
13.3 And, O scion of the Bharata dynasty, under-stand Me to be the ‘Knower of the field’ in all the fields. In My opinion, that is Knowledge which is the knowledge of the field and the knower of the field.
In short I have my argument on the basis of Bhagavad Gita only, nothing else. We can continue to keep giving more and more verses but I believe this is sufficient.
It seems the stupidity of Iskcon knows no bounds, following is what they have stated
“The respective works of Yamunacharya and Ramanuja which quote this passage are Agama-prAmANya and vEdArtha-saMgraha. sāttvikeṣu purāṇeṣu māhātmyamadhikam hareḥ /“
Now does Vedartha Samgraha even quote this ? This is something to be considered. They also have the following argument
“Now losers can say padma puran is interpolated but but wait this verse was quoted by sripad Ramanujacharya ji and Yamunacharya ji in 12th century debates along with the whole host vedantist. And the verse from matsya puran was quoted by sripad Ramanujacharya ji and Yamunacharya in vedant sangrah“
So the claim here is that Vedartha Samgraha quotes Padma Purana. Since Sri Ramanuja is in the 12th century he quotes this in his Vedartha Samgraha. Also some Iskconites claim that the verses quoted in Skanda Purana which talk about Tamasatva of Vaishnava Puranas is later 15th century addition and so on. Now we do not know on what basis they say this, we don’t know, maximum they will say no Acharya quoted it before that. We will not go into why this argument does not work. We will simply examine the claim of Iskcon, in order to make a claim they need to show some basis, Iskcon as usual fails to show basis for it’s claims. 1st thing to be clarified here is that the quotation in the Vedarthasamgraha is from Matysa Purana, not Padma Purana. Also this particular section talks about the Satwika, Rajasika and Tamasika Kalpas. It does not talk about Puranas as such. This problem here is that, Iskconites are desparate to the core, they just heard something, Vedartha Samgraha of Sri Ramanuja has this, they do not bother to give reference or exact verses. Following is what Shri Ramanuja says, please find the screen shot below along with translation.
Vedartha Samgraha Published by Ramakrishna Ashrama Pg no 103
Now the 1st question I have to Iskconites is that in what way does this prove that there is a categorisation of Puranas into Satwika, Rajasika and Tamasika ? There is no classification of Puranas even present in the verses quoted by Shri Ramanujacharya.
2nd question, if the Padma Purana categorisation was present during the time of Shri Ramanujacharya, why did he not quote it in the Vedartha Samgraha itself? I mean the quotation is absent here, in fact in order to prove that Satvatva of Vaishnava related scriptures he takes the help of a Manusmruti quote then the Matsya Purana quote about the various Kalpas. So where is the question of Padma Purana quotes being present during the time of Shri Ramanujacharya ? If they are present why did Shri Ramanujacharya not quote them in his Vedarthasamgraha ? Does this not show desparation as well as the utter stupidity of Iskconites ? Also it is very easy to show that even if the Satwika, Rajasika and Tamasika Kalpas are shown in the Matysa Purana it does not necessarily prove that only Vishnu related scriptures are Satwik, why you may ask, since Bhagavat Gita 18.20 , 21 and 22 classifies the Satwika, Rajasika and Tamasika knowledge. We have also shown that both Vaishnava and Shaiva Puranas actually give Satwika knowledge which is Advaita knowledge. There is one more idiotic and moronic argument which Iskcon uses, they use the verse 13.28 to prove that 18.20 means something else, basically the translation of Prabhupada as follows,
But following are 3 more translations which show this to be completely different.
So does this not prove without a doubt that Iskcon’s arguments are nonsense ?
This is the problem, Iskcon comes up with all sorts of claims and we have to keep debunking them. 1st they said, the Skanda Purana verses quoted by me are not present in Skanda Purana, then when I showed them, they state that this is something later added into it, then they make a claim that Padma Purana verses are quoted by Shri Ramanuja in Vedarthasamgraha.
I want people to understand one thing clearly, stop trusting any claim that Iskcon makes, they are not trust worthy in anyway, they can go down to any pathetic extent. The ways of Iskcon include, lying, personalised attacks, spamming, hitting below the belt and so on. This is what Iskcon’s methods are all about, and also stop calling Iskconites as Vaishnavas, they are Abrahamic slaves nothing more.
Previously we have looked at how the Sampradaya argument of Iskcon becomes invalid if we look at the Upanishads themselves. There are other criticisms on the Sampradaya argument of Iskcon, however we will not go into that. Once we quote Bhagavata verses, this will completely remove any doubt on what Upanishad says, and how Bhagavatam is completely inline with what was presented in the previous article.
Let us look at the Bhagavatam verses below
अन्ने प्रलीयते मर्त्यं अन्नं धानासु लीयते ।
धाना भूमौ प्रलीयन्ते भूमिर्गन्धे प्रलीयते ॥ २२ ॥
Translation: The mortal is melted into food, the food is melted into the seed, the seed is melted into the earth, the earth into smell.
अप्सु प्रलीयते गन्ध आपश्च स्वगुणे रसे ।
लीयते ज्योतिषि रसो ज्योती रूपे प्रलीयते ॥ २३ ॥
Translation: In water the smell is melted, the water goes back into taste, the taste is again melted into luminosity, the luminosity is again melted into sight.
रूपं वायौ स च स्पर्शे लीयते सोऽपि चाम्बरे ।
अम्बरं शब्दतन्मात्र इन्द्रियाणि स्वयोनिषु ॥ २४ ॥
Translation: Sight is melted into the wind, wind into the sense of touch, that sense of touch is again melted away into space, space into sound, the rest of the senses are melted into their own causes.
योनिर्वैकारिके सौम्य लीयते मनसीश्वरे ।
शब्दो भूतादिमप्येति भूतादिर्महति प्रभुः ॥ २५ ॥
Translation: That without change oh Sowmya that is again melted into the Mind of Ishwara, whatever has been told, sound
स लीयते महान् स्वेषु गुणेशु गुणवत्तमः ।
तेऽव्यक्ते संप्रलीयन्ते तत्काले लीयतेऽव्यये ॥ २६ ॥
Translation: That mind is again melted into the Gunas of Prakriti, the Gunas go back to the unmanifest state of Prakriti called Avyakta, this in turn is again melted into the changeless.
कालो मायामये जीवे जीव आत्मनि मय्यजे ।
आत्मा केवल आत्मस्थो विकल्पापायलक्षणः ॥ २७ ॥
Translation: Jiva who is of the nature of Maya and in time is merged into the Self which is me unborn. The Self is established in itself. It is without any change what so ever.
Bhagavatam Canto 11 Chapter 24 verses 21-27
Now just notice the verses above, this proves without a doubt that this is very much inline with the Upanishads, it tells about proceeding from effect to cause and ultimately to the changeless Supreme reality. The same methodology that is told in Chandogya Upanishad is again told here in a different way. Notice here that in the 24th verse, Uddhava is addressed as “Sowmya”, the very same way Uddalaka addresses Shvetahketu in the Chandogya Upanishad.
Also what is the main aim of Bhagavatam as per the Bhagavatam itself, following is the verse
सर्ववेदान्तसारं यद् ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वलक्षणम् । वस्तु अद्वितीयं तन्निष्ठं कैवल्यैकप्रयोजनम् ॥ १२ ॥
Reference: Canto 12, Chapter 13 verse 12
Translation: The essence of all Vedanta is the oneness of Atman and Brahman, the reality is Non-dual, to be established in that is Kaivalya, that is the whole purpose here.
So in short the whole purpose of Bhagavatam is to propose the oneness of Atman and Brahman and to be established in it.
This proves without doubt that Bhagavatam whom the Iskconites consider as the King of scriptures is also following the procedure as prescribed by the Upanishads. The Sampradaya argument by Iskcon is proved to be bogus with this.
I wanted to name this article desparation of Iskconites, however I refrained myself from that, Iskcon is absolutely desparate at this point. Also many Vaishnavas especially some Sri Vaishnavas are getting angry if I call Iskconites as Vaishnavas, so I will call them Iskconites only. There is an interesting verse in the Vishnu Puranam 4.1.84 , following is the verse
कलामुहूर्त्तादिमयश्च कालो न यद्विभूतेः परिणामहेतुः
अजन्मनाशस्य सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य सनातनस्य
One can look up this verse in the Vishnu Puranam themselves the claim is that Gita press has got it wrong. Before we look at the Gita press translation let us look at what Iskcon is claiming as shown below
“Now a person is trying to say that in the same verse there come a term सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य and he is breaking it as sadaikmurtera+anamarupasya which is completely wrong and this is the correct anvaya sadaikamūrttera+nāmarūpasya but why this is correct it is because if we look at the devanagari text then it would look like this after my anvaya : सदैकमूर्त्तेर+नामरूपस्य= सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य and if I do it in the opponents way then it would look like this सदैकमूर्त्तेर+अनामरूपस्य but but but if we add these two terms then the word will change like this सदैकमूर्त्तेर+अनामरूपस्य= सदैकमूर्त्तेरानामरूपस्य whereas the original term was सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य(as अ+अ=आ & आ+अ=आ). Hence this proves that Gitapress is completely wrong here.”
Iskcon is trying absolutely hard to prove that the Gita press translation is wrong, however let us look at the compounded word “सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य” actually the split of this word has to be as follows , I will do a Sandhi viccheda or removing the Sandhi completely ignoring the compound word itself and split this whole compound into the component words. It would be as follows
सत् एक मूर्तेः अनाम रूप अस्य
I would not be going into the rules of Sandhi for Panini to confuse my readers, I simply want to show that this is how the split is done, not what Iskcon imagines it to be.
I will take the verse itself and do a word to word translation.
Then I will show the Gita press translation
Let me take the word to word translation
कलामुहूर्त्तादिमयश्च – the parts which are full of Muhurtas , and so on, कालो – time न – is not यद्विभूतेः- whose specialised being परिणामहेतुः – reason for change
अजन्मनाशस्य- without beginning and end सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य – of that form which is existence alone which is without name and form सनातनस्य – of that eternal.
Let me also split a compound here
कलामुहूर्त्तादिमयश्च is split into कला:, मुहूर्त आदि मय: च then post this comes कालो which when removing Sandhi is कालः . Here it means that the Time with it’s various measurements beginning with Muhurta and so on. Let me take the compound सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य again and split it.
It would be as follows however this time I will give word to word meaning
सत्-reality or existence एक- one alone मूर्तेः- of that form अनाम – without name रूप- without form अस्य- of him.
The word मूर्तिः is generally form, however specifically here it means essence. For example, स्वरूप literally means ‘own form’. But for example we say प्रेमस्वरूप , it will mean full of love or essentially love. Similarly सदैकमूर्त्ते: would be which is essentially of that mere existence alone. Obviously if the verse wants to indicate it to be existence alone it will be without name and form hence अनामरूप without name and form. I think this would be enough for my readers to grasp it. So the translation of 4.1.84 would be as follows
“Time which consists of Muhurtas and so on, is not the cause of change for the Vibhutis of that One essential reality without beginning and end, without name and form and eternal. “
The Gita press translation is as follows .
Hindi Translation of Gita Press English translation of H.H Wilson
Any student of Samskrutam who is familiar with Sandhis or conjunctions in Samskrutam will clearly understand that Iskcon is wrong here.
But however if Iskcon still feels that it is still correct over here, then they face one problem here, the reason being that Srila Prabhupada follows the same kind of split of Sandhi or conjunction.
Following is the verse from Iskcon’s own website
Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 11, Chapter 13 and verse 24.
now for the compound गृह्यतेऽन्यैरपीन्द्रियै:, Prabhupada splits it as follows in his word to word translation as shown below
gṛhyate — is perceived and thus accepted; anyaiḥ — by others; api — even, indriyaiḥ — senses
Please find the screen shots below
Now let us look at the argument of Iskconites again, they state the following
“सदैकमूर्त्तेर+नामरूपस्य= सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य and if I do it in the opponents way then it would look like this सदैकमूर्त्तेर+अनामरूपस्य but but but if we add these two terms then the word will change like this सदैकमूर्त्तेर+अनामरूपस्य= सदैकमूर्त्तेरानामरूपस्य “
But there own Prabhupada is not agreeing with them, why ? Since he has split the compound गृह्यतेऽन्यैरपीन्द्रियै: as follows
gṛhyate or गृह्यते , anyaih or अन्यैः , api or अपि and indriyaiḥ or इन्द्रियैः
So as per the logic of Iskcon Prabhupada should have split अन्यैरपि as simply अन्यैः and पि, instead of अन्यैः and अपि .
Why did Prabhupada use ‘अ’ over here ? So in short this goes very much against the Sanskrit rules which Prabhupada used here. So in short if we are wrong here, then Prabhupada also did something wrong here also. Yet as we know Iskcon, they are least bothered, they will simply say the same thing and will be absolutely stubborn, which is fine, this world has variety of people in it Iskcon is one of them.
There is an argument by Iskconites that, the knowledge received by Sampradaya alone is correct, any other means of knowledge is not accurate and is subject to change. The argument used by Iskconites is that, for logic there are 2 processes, one inductive and the other deductive. So inductive logic requires people to make observations then make a general rule, for example all men are mortal, but question can be asked how do you know that all men are mortal, the answer that will be given in the inductive process is that since we do not observe any exception to the rule, the Iskconite responds to this stating that this might be the case, however it does not rule out the possibility of an unknown person being immortal. But if we take the deductive process, that as per this rule all men are mortal, for example some scripture says this, then job is done. The scripture is supposed to have been given by an all perfect person, hence such knowledge is infallible, as this comes from an unbroken tradition of teachers the knowledge is perfect. This is in short the argument of Iskconites on the Sampradaya, very well presented, there is however a flaw in the argument.
Please find the screen shot below referencing Prabhupada’s own words on the inductive and deductive processes
Book Raja Yoga Chapter 5
A similar argument was attempted by Charvakas, towards the Nyaya philosophers, but Buddhists broke this argument. Buddhists stated that, cause and effect are always related, it is always noticed that for a specific cause there is a specific effect, for a mango seed you get a mango tree only, you do not get a Guava tree. Similarly to establish something to be true, we simply need to invoke the relation of cause and effect. Now why am I stating all of this, since Iskcon is stating that we need to simply adhere to a particular tradition to have perfect knowledge, and that this has to be accepted at face value without any questioning since all questioning is a product of inductive process as per them. This is a totally wrong assumption, there is also another reason, the Upanishad uses this relationship of cause and effect to explain the reality. Now we have another method called Anvaya and Vyatireka, what this means is that if the cause is there the effect is there, this is Anvaya, if the cause is removed the effect is also absent, this is Vyatireka. Now if we take the example of pot and clay, if the clay is present, the pot is present, if the clay is absent the pot is also absent. Hence investigation is done in this manner, this completely eliminates Prabhupada’s argument of inductive and deductive processes. Many scientific laws use this same principle as well. Now then, a question may be asked, if a suggestion is being made to discard the Guru and Sishya Sampradaya and even discard the Shastra altogether. That is not being suggested here, we are simply stating that Shastra as such is not asking you to blindly believe what it says, Shastra is not telling you not to verify what it says. But ofcourse without Shastra the investigation becomes impossible. The Guru also has a very specific function over here. We will check on that as well. Now if we look at the Chandogya Upanishad it says the following
4. Where else, except in food, can the body have its root? In the same way, O Somya, when food is the sprout, search for water as the root; when water is the sprout, O Somya, search for fire as the root; when fire is the sprout, O Somya, search for Sat [Existence] as the root. O Somya, Sat is the root, Sat is the abode, and Sat is the support of all these beings.
Chandogya 6.8.4
Now let us understand what is being said here, the seeker is adviced to go from the effect to the cause, here the Upanishad says food is the effect of water, water is the effect of fire and finally fire is the effect of ultimate reality.
What does this actually even mean, here food means something solid, water means liquid,so solidity has come from liquidity, liquidity comes from gaseous state that comes from particles and particles inturn come from vibrations these vibrations inturn when stopped resolve into space that space again resolves into existence (mere unqualified existence) as per the Upanishad. So a question may come, what is the function of the Guru here. Now the Guru in the Upanishad is not telling to do Bhajan of Krishna or Devotion of Krishna , then that you will go to Goloka post death, that is not what the Guru is stating here. The Guru is guiding his disciple to understand reality. Here the Guru is Uddalaka and the disciple is Shvetahketu who is his son. Now let us look at the verse from the Upanishad below
1. Uddālaka said, ‘Bring me a fruit from this banyan tree.’ Śvetaketu replied, ‘I have brought it, sir.’ Uddālaka: ‘Break it.’ Śvetaketu: ‘I’ve broken it, sir.’ Uddālaka: ‘What do you see inside?’ Śvetaketu: ‘There are tiny seeds, sir.’ Uddālaka: ‘Break one of them, my son.’ Śvetaketu: ‘Sir, I’ve broken it.’ Uddālaka: ‘What do you see in it?’ Śvetaketu: ‘Nothing, sir’.
The next verse is as follows
तं होवाच यं वै सोम्यैतमणिमानं न निभालयस एतस्य वै सोम्यैषोऽणिम्न एवं महान्यग्रोधस्तिष्ठति श्रद्धत्स्व सोम्येति ॥ ६.१२.२ ॥
2. Uddālaka said: ‘O Somya, the finest part in that seed is not visible to you. But in that finest part lies hidden the huge banyan tree. Have faith in what I say, O Somya
Chandogya 6.12.1-2
So here the Guru is telling the Sishya to look analyze and then understand that from the most imperceptible from the most subtle comes the gross. From the unseen subtle parts of the seed comes the huge banyan tree. Even so, from the unseen subtle cause comes this whole universe is what is being told here.
So this is what the Guru is telling the Sishya, this is the methodology used by the Guru.
2.—And as someone may remove that person’s blindfold and say, ‘Gandhāra is this way; go this way,’ and the intelligent man goes from one village to another, asking his way and relying on the information people give, until he reaches Gandhāra; similarly, a person who gets a teacher attains knowledge. His delay is only as long as he is not free of his body. After that he becomes merged in the Self.
Chandogya Upanishad 6.14.2
Now the Upanishad talks about a Rich man kidnapped from his house and thrown into a deserted place, later a merciful man comes and removes the blindfold from the man and this Rich man being intelligent asks other people passing by for the way to his country Gandhara. Similarly the seeker in order to know the reality uses his intelligence and takes the help of the teacher.
Hence the Upanishad says आचार्यवान् पुरुषो वेद – through the teacher know it. It also uses the word “मेधावी”, meaning being intelligent. So what is the student supposed to do, he is supposed to investigate go from effect to cause with the help of the Guru and Shastra.
This is the actual Sampradaya or tradition meant by the Veda. This is the actual Vedic method, not some rubbish of only 4 authorised Sampradaya and so on. This is not based on some commentary or speculation this is being talked base on the Upanishad alone.
तद्विज्ञानार्थं स गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत्समित्पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम् ॥ १२ ॥
12. Let a Brahmin having examined the worlds produced by karma be free from desires, thinking, ‘there is nothing eternal produced by karma?; and in order to acquire the knowledge of the eternal, let him Samid (sacrificial fuel) in hand, approach a perceptor (preceptor?) alone, who is versed in the Vedas and centered in the Brahman.
The next verse is
तस्मै स विद्वानुपसन्नाय सम्यक्प्रशान्तचित्ताय शमान्विताय ।
13. To him who has thus approached, whose heart is well subdued and who has control over his senses, let him truly teach that Brahmavidya by which the true immortal purusha is known
Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12-13
The Upanishad clearly tells that one approaches a Guru and then questions and investigates to find out the reality. The same process is used as told in the Chandogya. This is the tradition as per the Upanishad.
So now I am also presenting the tradition based on the Upanishad alone, not even based on the commentary simply the verses of the Upanishad itself. Not only that following is the verse from the Katha Upanishad.
अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद ॥ १४ ॥
14. What thou seest other than virtue and vice, other than what is made and what is not, other than the past and the future, tell me that
Kathopanishad 1.2.14
Here Nachiketa is telling Yama “यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद” That which you see, tell me that. So here the Guru should have been himself realised and he is supposed to give the same realisation to the disciple.
What must the Guru see, following is what the Isavasya Upanishad says
यस् तु सर्वाणि भूतान्य् आत्मन्य् एवानुपश्यति ।
सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥ ६ ॥
6. And he who sees all beings in himself and himself in all beings has no aversion thence.
Isavasya Upanishad verse 6
This is the vision the Guru has. The Sishya gets the following vision post having been instructed by the Guru
हा३वु हा३वु हा३वु । अहमन्नमहमन्नमहमन्नम् । अहमन्नादोऽ ३ हमन्नादोऽ ३ हमन्नादः । अहं श्लोककृदहं श्लोककृदहं श्लोककृत् । अहमस्मि प्रथमजा ऋता ३ स्य । पूर्वं देवेभ्योऽमृतस्य नाआआभायि । यो मा ददाति स इदेव मा ३ वाः । अहमन्नमन्नमदन्तमा ३ द्मि । अहं विश्वं भुवनमभ्यभवा ३ म् । सुवर्न ज्योतीः ॥ १० ॥
10. Oh! Oh! Oh! I am food, I food, I food! I food-eater, I food-eater, I food-eater! I am the combining agent, I the combining agent, I the combining agent. I am the First-born of the existence! Prior to gods, the centre of the immortal. Whoso giveth me, he surely doth thus save. I, the food, eat him who eats food. I the whole being destroy. Light, like the sun!
Taittiriya Upanishad 3.4.10
So this is the realisation the Sishya gets, I am everything. This is the true Sampradaya based on the Upanishads itself. Now the function of the Guru is for facilitating this realisation for the Sishya. Guru becomes the means to know this experientially. Hence Upanishad says आचार्यवान् पुरुषो वेद – know this through Acharya. Since without Acharya experiential knowledge is not possible. Hence Sampradaya, it must consist of such visionaries.
This proves without doubt that the Sampradaya argument used by Prabhupada and others has no meaning whatsoever. Although this refutes Prabhupada’s theory of Sampradaya, to make this more effective we will take the verses from the Bhagavata Puranam itself and show how Bhagavata Puranam is inline with these teachings. Since Iskcon considers Bhagavatam to be the King of scriptures, we will show actually what the King wants to say.
Iskcon, has done a very good job, in trying to defend their categorisation of Puranas, they state that Adi Shankara, in his Sarva Vedanta Sara Samgraha says the following
श्रुत्या सत्त्वपुराणानां सेवया सत्त्ववस्तुनः।
अनुवृत्त्या च साधूनां सत्त्ववृत्तिः प्रजायते।।370।
Translation:, Hearing of Saatwik Puranas, consuming Saatwik substances, by following Saints, the Saatwik thoughts and deeds are born and increased.
Iskcon uses this quote to justify that, Adi Shankara accepted Saatwika Puranas. Therefore if Adi Shankara accepted Saatwika Puranas, we also ought to accept that there are Rajasika Puranas, and Tamasika Puranas, if for Adi Shankara all Puranas are Saatwik, then why should he specifically state, Saatwika Puranas. Now the way I generally answer such things in my articles is in a very different way. I take the argument and statement as it is, without changing anything, without even stating that this is my explanation for it, I answer it from the text itself. For example Bhagavat Gita verses, I used the Bhagavat Gita verses themselves without actually giving much explanation. Here also I will take the work of Adi Shankaracharya by the name of Sarva Vedanta Sara Samgraha and explain it.
Let me further explain Iskcon’s argument here, remember I take the strongest arguments of Iskcon and refute them, if I have not refuted something which Iskcon has stated, it means I do not find the argument worth refuting. Suppose we ask Iskcon, how do you know that only categorisation of Vaishnava Puranas as Sātwika in Padma Purana is alone correct and Adi Shankara is referring to that categorisation ? Iskcon will state that, since in the Vishnu Sahasranamam Shankara points out that using Satwa Janardhana takes the function of maintenance as Vishnu, therefore Vishnu is Satwa and since Vishnu is Satwa, naturally Puranas relating to him ought to be Saatwika. This is the argument of Iskconites. Pretty sure I have not misrepresented their arguments in anyway. Now let us answer this argument of theirs using
Let us use the Sarva Vedanta Samgraha alone to answer this properly.
Following is what Adi Shankaracharya describes as Shuddha Satwa
प्रत्यक्प्रत्ययसंतानप्रवाहकरणं धियः।
यदेषा मध्यमा शान्तिः शुद्धसत्त्वैकलक्षणा।।98।।
Translation: One whose thought current continously dwells on the idea of the inner self getting middling peace know that to be of the nature of Shuddha Satwa.
So Shuddha Satwa means dwelling continously on the inner Self. Ok then probably concentration on the deity Vishnu is Satwa and not Shuddha Satwa yes ? No, since this is what Adi Shankara states
विषयव्यापृतिं त्यक्त्वा श्रवणैकमनस्थितिः।
मनसश्चेतरा शान्तिर्मिश्रसत्त्वैकलक्षणा।।99।।
Translation: Leaving the functions of the senses with the mind and focusing on only listening of the inner self, the mind gets peace less than the middling one. Know that to be mixed Satwa.
So Satwa here does not mean Vishnu for Shankara, so even if the categorisation of Puranas are accepted then also there is no guarantee that this means Vishnu related only. Satwa is when the idea of the inner self is continously maintained. Hence Puranas which talk about this are Saatwika Puranas, not that they are Vishnu related.
Let us look at the words of Adi Shankara from this perspective,
श्रुत्या सत्त्वपुराणानां सेवया सत्त्ववस्तुनः।
अनुवृत्त्या च साधूनां सत्त्ववृत्तिः प्रजायते।।370।
Now let us look at the compound सत्त्वपुराणानां, if you look at the other translations they will translate it as Saatwika Puranas, but it does not really make any sense when looking at it from the perspective that Shankara considers as Satwa, let me give the word to word translation
Word to word translation: श्रुत्या-hearing , सत्त्वपुराणानां – Saatwik Parts of Puranas, सेवया- consuming , सत्त्ववस्तुनः – Saatwik foods, च- and , अनुवृत्त्या -following , साधूनां – Of Saints, सत्त्ववृत्तिः – Saatwik thought, प्रजायते- is increased.
So translation is “Hearing the Saatwik Parts of Puranas, consuming Saatwik foods and also by following Saints (in their conduct). Saatwik thought is increased.”
Hence Sātwik part here indicates Advaita knowledge or Advaita related knowledge, Adi Shankaracharya confirms the same in Bhagavat Gita 18.20,
Translation: That knowledge, which is directly the right knowledge, which is of the nature of Non dual self, know that to be Sātwika.
Swami Gambhirananda translates as follows
“Viddhi, know; tat, that; jnanam, knowledge, realization of the Self as non-dual, complete realization; to be sattvikam, originating from sattva”
So Saatwika knowledge is knowledge of Advaita for Adi Shankara that is very clear over here.
There is one small argument which Iskconites use here, following is how it is
“Adi Shankaracarya explained the name ‘Kesava’ in Vishnu Sahasranam Bhasya as one who controls Brahma Vishnu Mahesh.
Adi Shankaracarya in his Vishnu Sahasranama Bhasya, 10th verse, quotes Mahābhārata Harivamsha-3.89.8-9 and says—
harirekaH sadA dhyeyo bhavadbhiH sattvamAsthitaiH || omityevaM sadA viprA paThata dhyAta keshavam ||
“Hari alone is to be meditated upon by you all, who are established in sattva Guna. By the pranava mantra (“Om”) you must always recite and meditate on Keshava.””
Now I can also give another explanation like this, let me quote how the Bhashya explains the name Rudra in the Vishnu Sahasranaama,
“रुर्दुःखं दुःख हेतुं वा विद्रावयति स प्रभुः । रुद्र इत्युच्यते तस्माच्छिव: परमकारणम् ” इति लिङ्गपुराणवचनात्
Translation :He who destroys रु which is misery or cause of misery , such a Lord is called Rudra and hence Shiva the ultimate cause so it is said in the Linga Purana.
So I use this to prove that since Adi Shankara does not leave the word “परमकारणम्” meaning Ultimate cause, Adi Shankara accepts Shiva alone to be ultimate cause in the Vishnu Saharsanaamam.
But frankly speaking both arguments are ridiculous. Since in the Vishnu Sahasranaama Bhashyam, enough quotes are taken from the Puranas to show the oneness of Shiva and Vishnu. Yet Iskconites and Vaishnavas conveniently ignore this. We need to understand that mostly if Iskconites or Vaishnavas give some kind of quotation, it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. If you want to ignore it that would be best, otherwise you can explore it properly see the context and truth of it.
Answering ISKCOn 