Monism is without a doubt one of the key concepts in Vedic literature. I would dare to say that without a deep understanding of monism, the personalism of bhakti is bound to be shallow, sentimental and often misunderstood.

The often relentless attacks on any monistic concepts by the bhakti proponents can severely backfire, leading to a movement largely governed by sentiments and emotions, with fluid philosophical definitions of key concepts, easily manipulated by it's leaders.

Lack of philosophical integrity and honesty leads to both misuse of power in the name of devotion, as well as to serious philosophical deviations within the tradition.

Perhaps when Lord Caitanya favoured the Bhagavatam commentary of Sridhara Swami (who was a staunch Advaitin with equally strong devotional leaning) over the new (and, on the surface at least, much more devotional) commentary of Vallabhacarya, there was a message hidden there, along those lines.

interesting article somewhat related to this issue:

Is Jiva Gosvami’s philosophy the same as Sri Caitanya’s?
Dina Dayala dasa (Dario Knez) on Dandavats.com

haha Monism! I have been saying similar since the start but not like that, I don't like how some things are phrased, like how some people apologetically distance bhakti from being a movement governed by emotions in some attempt to look respectable to other people, and other things. Is there a long article about this by Dina Dayala dasa on Dandavats.com, can you paste the direct link please, I can't find it.

http://www.dandavats.com/?p=1041#more-1041

the article does not quite touch on this subject but in a way is related to it

thankyou

wow! so iskcon is finally considering the advaitist perspective and abandoning the teachings of jiva goswami... its about time!

Great points. I also believe that people who are serious about this should make an effort to understand the philosophies that they decry so much. It's one reason why I am now actively looking to purchase a translated commentary on Vedanta by Adi Sankara himself. Since the Acaryas have spent a lot of time pointing out the faults in Advaita/monism, it's only fair to look at things from their point of view.

As a matter of interest, I have recently purchased a translation of Baladeva's Vedanta commentary (Govinda-bhashya) and it's fantastic! Highly recommended! I am now looking into purchasing Sankara's, Ramanuja's and Madhvacharya's commentaries, and I have purchased a couple of Dvaita books already. This might be obvious but the most strongest assault on Advaita has come from Dvaita (Madhvacharya). It's worth taking a look at the works of Madhvacharya, Jaya Tirtha and Vyasa Tirtha in order to properly understand why Advaita/monism is so lame as a coherent system.

But yes, I agree that knowledge of Advaita/Monism is only fair, even if it is just to understand why it is decried so much. A nice Advaitic book might be the Advaitasiddhi of Madhusudana Sarasvati. Is there an English translation of that? Hmmm, time to surf....

Check this out for size: Caitanya, Sridhar Svami and Sankara, Elkman's edition of Tattva-sandarbha.

Apart from all the arguing, some great points were made there.

Brainiac it was stupendous discussing with you nonstop upon my internet debut saying things like Advaitic interpretations of vedic texts are just not logical, or inferior, or bogus or whatever, sorry for the loose paraphrase, but you are not going to understand it from their point of view if you are reading it with the mind to to see why it is "so lame" (haha!), or if you read it through your own notions of what a "coherent system" is - coherency to them could be something else.

Good to see you so enthusiastic about reading Advaita! - in peace - evakurvan.

_____________

"I studied advaita philosophy for about 3 years before Krishna set me straight, but still if I think about advaita, I get bewildered by it and need hurry to the Bhagavad-gita As It Is for shelter. I think I would have been better off as a heroin junkie than a student of advaita philosophy. Not much difference, really."

" Chaitanya didn't just advised not to read Advaitic literature with a view to reading it when one gets more "advanced." He said not to read it, period. Specifically, He said that one who reads it, everything will get spoiled and destroyed (mayavadi-bhasya sunile haya sarva-nasa)."

To answer the topic title, I don't think it is necessary to read one millimeter of Advaita to be a follower of Caitanya, unless one wants to also be a gentleman scholar. Plus if you take GV alone there is enough Advaita in the Bhagavatam and the tattva to go into advaitist catatonia and stupour (like the gopis!?), why would one require yet something more as essential? ... (... well at least not more books) - it's all there ([in my books], like Prabhupada says!! )

there are all kinds of followers... simply put, I do not think you can truly understand and appreciate the personal aspect of God unless you first understand His impersonal features. Even Bhagavatam follows that route.

that does not mean that in some rare cases (perhaps due to past life experiences and advancement) you can just concentrate on the personal aspect and completely avoid the subjects related to monistic understanding. however, as a complete proces, you need both areas to be studied, appreciated, and understood.

oh no! the magic "a" word has been uttered and now this thread will be overrun with a..clowns! the use of such words is almost like uttering a magic spell from Atharva Veda that draws creatures of the netherworld to the surface of the fire sacrifice...

Well kulapavana, I could excise that part of the bird's anatomy but then where would 99% of Australia's wheat be?

Yeah that was a huge argument wasn't it? Maybe we should have another joust for old time's sake.

But seriously, I'm coming to the conclusion that s far as theological debates go, there is a definite standard and procedure through which discussions take place. Although I knew this theoretically before, it hit me so hard when I saw the 'systematicity' of the Govinda-bhashya. Although my "lame" comment was brought on by my recent readings of B.N.K. Sharma's points about Madhusudana Saraswati's Advaitasiddhi, it was perhaps out of place here, I agree.
I've also come to the conclusion that, following in the footsteps of Vedanta proper (1.1.3 to be precise) it is discussed in many places how the human mind is incapable of understanding God in His totality, and that the indications and hints as displayed in the scriptures are the closest we can come to knowing about God, etc. Perhaps that is why there is so much of a reliance on scriptures shown by the major Vedantic schools in trying to 2prove" the coherency of their systems. It also means that such discussions are more or less on a theoretical level, whereas practicalities are a whole other ball game.


Thanks! I'll have to admit that this was brought on by my readings of Govinda-bhashya. Everything about God that there is to know (as much as we can know anyway) is all set out in a perfect and systematic form for easy understanding. I couldn't help but be impressed and I wanted to know how the 'bigshots' strutted their stuff (Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva).

Also, I remember reading a story about how Prabhupada wanted to build a massive library stocked with a truckload of scriptures including ancient Gosvami literatures. He also said that Advaitic literatures could be stocked in the library if only to enable the HK's to study Advaita as a philosophical system in order to "defeat" it. So he was not opposed to "studying" Advaita either, even if he did have his own agenda with it vis-a-vis defeating it. Nice.

That's great! Out of interest, is the GB you own the edition by S.C. Vasu? And who is the author of the Madhvacharya one? Is it very good and would you recommend it? Also who is the author of the Ramanuja book?

I gone bonkers ordering just about everything I can get my hands on, lol, and my credit card is weeping in a corner.

"a" for angrezi .....

VS with Baladeva V. commentary - Rai BSC Vasu translation
Sri Bhashya (Ramanuja's Tika) - M. Rangacharya translation (3 vol. edition)
Ramanuja on the Upanishads - SS. Raghavacarya
Ramanuja on the Yoga - R. Lester

Madhva's commentary book somehow went AWOL

what i feel is an obvious conclusion about this is that the atibatis were the primary lineage that carried forth mahaprabhu's adoration of advaita

"t" for Talasiga. together we can get some T&A

that's so nice you guys provide for each other's needs

Spotted this on an authentic Advaita discussion forum:


Yay! I'm definitely getting this book! What a coincidence since I was just talking about it on this thread. I got in touch with the guy and he says that it is only available from that place in Chennai for now, although USA residents can contact his son (USA resident) for copies as he will get them soon. Looks like I might have to go the long way around but I'll get this book by hook or by crook!

"b" for babu

I have split off the fascinating "two wings of the bird" stuff into a separate topic:

http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...wtopic=1624&hl=

Classical advaita (by which I mean Shankara's Advaita rather than the derogated Advaita extant contemporary to Chaitanya)
does not posit that Nirguna Brahman as impersonal but as neither personal nor impersonal.

Don't just take my word for it - research yourself.

Two Types of Brahman Realization
by Niscala dasi

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/ODiscOct04_06.html

very interesting article!

Niscala is maintaing her difficult role as both Iskcon critic and apologist I see

often that is the only way to make changes

she is very smart.

This may be slightly off-track, but on the Dvaita.Org forums right now there's a big discussion goin on about Gaudiyas. Basically it is the same old thing, about how Gaudiyas don't have intellectual rigour coupled with a few ad-hominem (and irrelevant) attacks against Prabhupada. Funnily enough, one of the Dvaitins there is an ex-Gaudiya and is apologising for ISKCON/Prabhupada, noting shortcomings where necessary and also appealing for the Dvaitins to have a more balanced presentation of their critiques. Overall an interesting discussion.

Their main mistake (the Dvaitin's mistake) is to think that Iskcon/Gaudiya Math is the sum total of the Gaudiya tradition. It is not. So all of their twisted understandings of Gaudiya philosophy originate from what they see on the Internet in regards to IGM, and know very little about the wider Gaudiya world. Even the ex-Gaudiya Dvaitin is arguing from an ISKCON point of view, in which his points are favourable but ultimately annoying when I consider that there is so much to know about Gaudiya Vaishnavism beyond ISKCON.

So with regards to this article by Niscala dasi, I didn't see even one shastric quotation in the article. Fair enough, her audience consists of devotees and Chakra is a Vaishnava site, but isn't it time that people woke up to the fact that such websites are 'Gaudiya windows to the world' where anyone can get an idea of what 'Gaudiyaism' is all about? Talk about lacking intellectual rigour, it's no wonder the Dvaitins have the objections that they do.

I am going through a chrisis in my life right now. And in particular, I try to rationally think out the right course of action, but then it does not turn out good for me.
So I was walking (in the forest) and saying - I don't understand myself. I am trying to fix up things, for myself, and it turns out I don't like it. How can that be?

-- And then it kind of hit me. It is obvious. The realisation of what I have heard hundreds or thousands of times -- I am not my intelligence, and not my mind.
If I was my intelligence, I would understand myself. But my self is separate. I am not my rational, reasoning thoughts. They are a function of my intelligence and mind.

So to make this shorter, and go directly to the connection.

The self is situated in the heart. The intelligence and mind are tools, but are separate from the self. Bhakti is something of the heart, not of the intelligence. We can enhance our intellectual understanding a lot. We can improve our thinking, our clearity, our knowledge, but if we do not bring the understanding to the heart, it just makes the gap between the self in the heart and the intelligence bigger. If we don't bring the heart with us, it is not bhakti, but jnana, or just useless speculation. It is a thing that we will loose at the time of death. Bhakti is not ephemeral, but eternal.

So for some persons, enhancing philosophical understanding can be good for bhakti. But I think that for many, it just makes the gap between the heart and the intelligence bigger, and thus it is negative for bhakti. For an "advanced" soul, with a good connection between the intelligence and the self, advanced philosophical understanding can be beneficial, but for the neophyte, it is just another stone, that makes you sink deeper down into material conciousness.

But then, on the other hand, we proceed in our path in existence by taste. We follow our taste. We want to lick different things. So if we want to lick into advanced Indian philosophical knowledge - better do it, and get over with it. Just beware the warning too much licking of impersonalist philosophy, when you are not ready for it, will kill bhakti (actually, cover over the heart. But then, a person who want to taste that, does not care, and do it anyway.

Bhakti means to follow the heart. A path of the heart. Not emotion, not thinking. Those things are external, and can be a help, or even a symptom, but is not the path.
The heart means the self.

So now when I have agitated some enough, let's go to monism.

Bhakti means to enhance the connection between the heart and the intelligence/mind. When doing that, one finds that it is a two-way connection. It is just not that we learn things rationally, and benefit at our self of it, but the self can also give understanding the other way around, by tapping into "universal" knowledge. When the soul develops, that reverse connection grows.

The bhakta approach is to enhance the connection, and listen carefully to the soul, and then you just understand, without having to read it in many books. The knowledge comes from the soul to the intelligence. Learning, in the material realm, is only needed to interpret that knowledge. If you don't do it, you can't thnkg about it, can't speak it, you can just experience it. If you learn a lot of different philosophical concepts, you can speak about the knowledge coming from the soul, express it for big assemblies, in for scholars, in lectures. If you are not so learned, you can maybe not express it, and we get the example of the non-scholarly bhakta, dismissed because s/he can't explain vedanta, but who is rich on devotion in the heart.

Understanding brahman can not be done by intellectual speculation. It has to be done at the level of the soul. But intellectual speculation is a tool that can be used to help understand the exploring of the soul. So knowledge about monism can be a help, for some, but is not needed for bhakti. Actually, it is essentially not the bhakti path.

What path many contemporary ISKCONites (and others) are on, maybe is a question. Maybe only bhaktas by name, not by essence?

It is a pity that outsiders see mostly Iskcon as representing gaudiya thought , which turns it progressively into the laughing stock of hindoo transcendentalists .

But what the other gaudiyas , who are not part of IGM ?
They become just as exclusivist , puffed up as Iskconites and the like .
Hiding between unaccessible protected forums .
So it becomes a vicious circle :
The iskconites trumpeting wierd siddhanta , that brings amusement to the assembled dvaitins , vedantists and avadhutas ; whereby the alternative vaishnavas hide behind protected forums , where there would be a more balanced , profound discussion , but it will never see the public light .

Thus it becomes a vicious circle , and sorryfully the prophecies about Gourang-yuga-prema-dharma will never come to fruition .... Boohoo... ( Not even the dvaitins can be convinced of the supremacy of Gaur ...)

PS : A very nice example of this mis-balance can be found currently at Jyotidham :
There is a link to an extremely interesting polemic discussion from the core heart of gaudiya practices , its historical evolution and/or deviation , but as usual it is restricted to a special sub-forum only accessible to members with a pukka siddha-pranali lineage , so sorryfully the moderating board of Jyotidham could not copy and paste , or link to , or even be able to view this interesting discussion .

Well , ok , SNAFU .

~~~All will stay the same and the dvaitins will continue believing in the intellectual inferiority of gaudiyas .

Good appetite .