Jump to content


Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

As fallen conditioned souls we are very deeply conditioned by false-ego. One need only to look within to see how most actions we make have some connection to that ego. Sri Caitanya has taught that we must take a low position and consider ourself insignicant servitors of the summum bonum. I would say that is a very beneficial approach for the deeply fallen - a good adjustment of the ego condition. Ofcourse saying that, the personalist can choose to be dominated by ego and cover himself with religious dogma, as Sri prabhu has suggested - when the sadhaka does that, things are very ugly in the name of God, isnt it?


If we at least acknowledge that weakness, in our offence stage, we may be heading toward remedy.


Similar faults can be seen in the neophyte advaitan practicioner. Identifying oneself as the supreme, when infact the conditioning still exists, can draw one away from humility.


The advaitan will often portray vaisnavism as inferior. Now if that is accepted, we can at least acknowledge vaisnavism has some benefit for the very fallen. A rebuilding of the misplaced (enlarged) ego.


I am sure there are benefits for the advaitin practicioner also, which I would be unaware about. Infact early next year, I am hoping to go to India for a short stay. And will be meeting a dear friend, who is deciding to become a buddhist monk. He is well studied in advaita, buddhism, and jainism - an exceptional man whose religion is ahimsa.


In many ways he is more advanced as a spiritual man than myself, and he knows it I feel, but does not say it;). We disagree on many points of philosophy, but when it boils down to it I look for the fruit - and he is a very good man. We often joke that when we both take saffron (god willing) we will embrace and turn a few heads. The buddhist and the vaisnava:).



Link to comment
Share on other sites


But with Hare Krishnas, they are usually either arguing about points that are part of neither tradition or else common to both traditions! by shvu

Yes, I have noticed this too, there is commonality. There is common ground in the area of realization, as we enlighten to some degree. This is the oneness isnt it. This oneness is evident, even as a minute particle.



There is a subtle nuance and beauty in the doctrine of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference. by bija



The differences may arise in the internal bhajan. The internal bhajan should not be reason to condemn fellow beings who are different, in my opinion. The internal is a very sacred part of man. And that is why I think my buddhist/jain friend is so advanced in some ways - ahimsa is his internal bhajan - at the same time he is well founded in harmony with others. A very remarkable person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


i still don't really understand this idea of Mayavadi. Please could someone explain in simple terms?


Jai Sri Krsna.

Thanks to Rocana prabhu, nice article, good points. I often feel like this that all these main piers of Vaishnava philosophy should have been elaborated with much more input like it was usually just repeated.


Darwinism, Western Mayavadi



Aug 1, CANADA (SUN) —
In understanding A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada as a Sampradaya Acarya, one of the main principles to consider is all of the different subjects or aspects of our philosophy that Srila Prabhupada focused on and emphasized. As his followers, we should try to develop the consciousness that everything he states is primarily a seed, and it is our duty, and should be our life mission, to water that seed.


Srila Prabhupada brought us so many aspects of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's Sankirtana Movement that its impossible to list them all. There's no doubt that certain individual disciples have embraced different aspects of Srila Prabhupada's mission, but Srila Prabhupada's emphatic focus on Darwinism appears not to be getting the necessary attention from his followers.


Darwinism in the West can easily be seen as being comparable to the focus of previous Acaryas in India on defeating monism or the teachings of Shankaracarya. Darwinism in the West is a predominant underlying philosophical belief held by not only the masses, but especially by leaders in the West. These philosophical leaders are not just the leaders of the churches or the religions, but are also the scientists who are being backed and financed by politicians and industrialists.


Darwinist philosophy, which has been embraced by world leaders and is being preached and financed by the most powerful men in society, has led to an incalculable and inconceivable amount of humanity's suffering since the time of its conception. It forms the root of Communism as it was presented by the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot, the root of Fascism as presented by the likes of Hitler and Mousollini, and it is the philosophy of choice for many other demoniac leaders. On the basis of this philosophy they have slaughtered millions and millions of people and have put billions more into slavery and suffering.


Just as previous Acaryas have presented to the preachers of Vaisnavism all the relevant and succinct arguments that will help them defeat the teachings of Shankaracarya, which was important and relevant in that culture and in that day and age, so Srila Prabhupada, the most recent Sampradaya Acarya, has presented us with a focus on the philosophy that is putting the masses into ignorance. Darwinism is an atheistic philosophy, and Lord Krsna's pure devotee has given us all the arguments we can use to defeat it.


How important is this? It is of utmost importance! Srila Prabhupada understand this, and it is the reason that he founded the Bhaktivedanta Institute and was adamant about getting his books into the schools and universities, and his content into educational courses so as to defeat this whole principle of Darwinism.


But today, if one looks at the focus on preaching in ISKCON, it is not in this direction. While the Bhaktivedanta Institute puts some focus on the topic, we know of only one devotee of note who has dedicated himself to preaching in this field, and that is Drutakarma dasa, who gets relatively little support from ISKCON for this extremely important work.


Even back in the days when Srila Prabhupada was preaching to his senior devotees, the conclusion was that Darwinism is essentially defeated by other schools and by science itself, yet today, more than thirty years later, that's simply not the case. Every time you turn on the TV or any other mass media, you hear the great preachers of Darwinism. Today they come in the guise of environmentalists who are championing the causes of global warming and protection of species, or the geneticists who want to clone animals and humans, and who are created genetically modified Frankenfoods for us to eat. Their underlying philosophy is Darwinism, so we can see that in many respects, a new emphasis has added more fuel to the Darwinist school. Regardless, the preachers of ISKCON do not seem to be taking this theme very seriously.


I know from my own experience that preaching against Darwinism using Srila Prabhupada's arguments is not a difficult thing to do. I make a point of bringing up the topic of evolution and try to introduce the basic arguments, and sure enough, people are essentially defeated. Of course, you will find that by preaching this anti-Darwinist message you will likely be labeled as a kook or fanatic by those who have been so indoctrinated into believing it is the absolute truth. The challenge is that you're exposing yourself to criticism as a religious fanatic even though no one can defeat your arguments. This essentially means that Darwinism has become a religion in its own right, and that Darwin's speculations have become a religious doctrine that is now unquestionable. This is all the more reason why our ISKCON preachers must aggressively target Darwinism in their preaching efforts.


So this poses a great challenge to preachers of Krsna consciousness. We often hear about Srila Prabhupada's controversial statements on such topics as women and the moon landing, Vedic astronomy, and so forth, but from my point of view, the whole Darwin aspect of what Srila Prabhupada had to say is far more important than these other issues. Yet compared to the attention put on issues of feminism, gender, and the like, Darwinist philosophy has essentially been ignored or sidelined as the focus of our attention.


In the earlier days of ISKCON there was a serious school of preaching taking root within Srila Prabhupada's movement. A few books were written by Sadaputa dasa (Dr. Richard L. Thompson), which are very valuable in and of themselves, yet we don't hear about him personally preaching the material. His books are quite academic and the contents need to be distilled into something more approachable by the general public, and even by the devotees. The material should also be updated so it's current with today's science and social issues. Yet there is no concerted effort on behalf of the leaders that I'm aware of to give intelligent devotees like Sadaputa prabhu the resources required to do these things. Such devotees should be leading the charge towards presenting a Krsna conscious position on Darwinism that can be adopted and utilized by all the preachers.


In summary, I would just like to say that along with all the other causes the devotees have embraced, such as varnasrama and building holy sites, and all the new age adaptations of Krsna consciousness, the fight against Darwinism should not be forgotten. In fact, unless we take it seriously, I don't think we will make any significant headway in presenting Krsna consciousness as the alternative in the world today. Newcomers to Krsna consciousness who have any real intelligence will have to be convinced that Darwinism is an atheistic, bogus philosophy presented by demons. Let's keep in mind that Lord Caitanya decreed that his followers should not even associate for even a moment, what to speak of listen to impersonalist philosophies presented by the Shankar school. So how does that translate into hearing Darwinism being preached and spoken? I think from a Western contextual point of view, it's on an equal if not greater level.


We have a long way to go before we can take the seed that Srila Prabhupada has presented in terms of the importance of defeating Darwinism, and make a concerted effort to address the issue in as many ways and circumstances as we possibly can.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thing is that within the pdf file they have a script installed to display the Sanskrit fonts. When transforming this pdf into txt, the sanskrit isn't anymore displayed properly but instead for example like this, Çaìkaräcärya, what has to be corrected into Sankaracarya. Since there're in almost every sentence Sanskrit fonts and the book has 167 pages it takes at least 3 h to correct all the Sanskrit fonts of this pdf file into txt format.

Here are the first 15 pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The Supreme Godhead is the supreme...we are small/tiny sparks of that summum bonum. In a previous post you have said this above statement (that I have put in quotes)...do you really believe that? Do you really believe that you are the supreme?



Dear Bija, When the supreme Godhead is within and without you(here YOU has been understood by most of the people as the AhamBhaav or Ahamkaar or EGO where as it is refererred to as your pure self which is within you. Yes, I do really believe. Experiencing is believing.




(To the original poster of this thread) - statements such as this are the potential fruit of mayavadi teaching.


Your narrow thinking and focus on books of an organisation has made you say this. Speak on your own experiences. I have tried to explain Maaya. Read is as "Bija" and not as "Bija affiliated to XYZ organisation". The more rational you are, the more you are craving for truth. If you are satisfied, so be it. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think the term mayavada is used to indicate the view that the world is real but is not perceived as it truly is. The Buddhist idea is shunyavada, which indicates that nothing is real because nothing is permanent. Everything is in a constant state of flux and transformation and there is no changeless reality. This absence of an absolute reality leads to the idea of shunya.


Shankaracharya is sometimes accused of being pracchana-baudha, a hidden Buddhist, and he certainly makes use of Gaudapada's teaching in the Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad. Gaudapada was a Vedantist but his writings display extensive Buddhist influence. However, a fundamental difference between Shankara and Buddhism is the former's view that Brahman is real and unchanging. He thus differs from the Shunyavada.


The famous statement brahma satyam jagan mithya reveals this distinction. In Shankara's view the world that we perceive is wrongly understood due to illusion. We perceive the rope but we think it is a snake; the world is Brahman alone but we mistakenly see the infinite varieties of existence. The world is real but the world we perceive is not because of our misidentification. It is this misidentification that is referred to by the word maya in the mayavada.


Most Vaishnavas (and Shaivites) hold to the view that the world as we perceive it is real, but it is only one part of the absolute reality. We cannot perceive the atman and we cannot perceive God; we perceive one part only but still that part is real. So Vaishnava teaching is sometimes designated as a satyavada as is Samkhya, which also teaches that prakriti and purusha are real (as does the Bhagavad Gita).


It is quite easy to detect elements of an advaita-vada in the Upanishads (sarvam khalv idam brahma, ayam atma brahma etc) but the mayavada is less apparent and the Shvetashvatara would appear to deny such a view. The mayavada seems to first appear in Gaudapada's Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad. This is taken up by Shankara as it is deemed to be a necessary inference from the advaita vada.


That has been my understanding of why advaitins are sometimes referred to as mayavadins, but perhaps I am not quite clear on the point and others may be able to enlighten us further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Sathya that is not the correct understanding. There are numerous meanings of the word mayavada that is used by vaisnavas to explain and refute advaita-vada. Kimfelix has explained the Vaisnava view point nicely here.


All that comes from Krsna is Krsna in a higher sense, it is all his energy...the gaudiya understanding is simultaneous one yet different. There are numerous schools of thought.


Please read the book I supplied to understand the origin of the word mayavada. This word is a sensitive subject matter so I am not comfortable elaborating in more posts...the book is clear on the words origin and meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

well.mayavad is another name of advaitabad or the philosophy of monism as preached by sankracharya.it would be incorrect to say that he formulated it.for history shows that it existed since the dawn of the vedas but got obscured in the prolonged buddhist age.it was shankaracharya who revitalised it in its present form.there are three concepts to be dealt with in any spiritual practice-god,nature,living beings or jivas.theory of dualism says that there is no link or relation between these three,qualified dualism(vishistadvaita or achintya bhedaabhed) says that they are same in quality but not in quantity.whereas monism says that they are one inseperable whole that we call god(brahman)now question arises that if everythng is god then why cant we percieve it.this is explained with the help of theory of maya or illusion . the most common example given is when we stamp on a rope in a dark room we might think it to be a snake.but the next moment we realise that it is a rope.but consider that fraction of second when you were actually thinking it to be a snake.it was a true snake in all reality for that few seconds,isnt it?similarly although the cosmos is essentially brahman we, under illusion take it as something material.according to this veiw,everything is brahman,there is no existence of anything else.so when a seeker manages to reach that perfected state of conciousness he loses his identity in the blissfull brahman,which is called moksh.actually it is a highly complex philosophy that cannot be explained in one day.modern particle physics n latest theories of cosmology has prooved advaita to be true(read tao of physics by fritjoff capra).but understanding it requires a very high intellectual capacity and practising it as a spiritual discipline should not be recomended.its practise is not for common masses who should stick to bhakti-the easiest way of attaining god.but never proceed to learn about it from iskcon or suchlike organisations for they will surely misguide you,because their doctrine dont support advaitism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...