Here’s number three:

Q3. Hare Krishna! Please, accept my humble obeisances, Hari Sauri prabhu!

You said “Islam is definitely mayavada as is Buddhism”, but how it can be, if the Lord Chaitanya in the dispute with Abdullah Patani proved that Allah is personality in the Koran? And besides, even if someone worships to impersonal aspect of God, can we call him mayavadi because impersonal aspect is also God?

Ans: While its a fact that a deep reading of the Koran can reveal that God is ultimately the Supreme Person,

800 years old Koran

as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu explained,

the fact is that almost all Muslims are in denial of this.

As I understand it, in the Koran there is an injuction that one should not ascribe mundane characteristics to God, or describe Him in mundane terms. They think it is the greatest offence to speak about God in personal terms–to describe his characteristics and form etc. They think He is so great that He cannot be described and that to describe Allah as a person is to reduce him to ordinary human status or to make him simply a product of our mundane experience or minds.

This is typical mayavada thinking. Thus you will see in Vrindavana and other places in India so many temples where carvings depicting demi-gods or Krsna Himself, or the Dasa-avataras, have been smashed by invading Muslim forces. The faces, hands and feet of these figures have especially been destroyed.

As far as whether a person who worships the impersonal feature of the Lord is a mayavadi or not, that depends on their mentality. There is a difference between an impersonalist and a mayavadi.

Some persons, as they progress in spiritual understanding, come first to an appreciation of the impersonal Brahman. If they are not offensive, they may progress further to Paramatma realization and finally to Bhagavan. This is because each stage has some aspect of bhakti, and because of this Krsna is disposed to reveal Himself more and more. The four Kumaras are examples of this, as is Sukadeva Goswami.

The mayavadis however are those unfortunate souls who, after realizing the all-pervasive aspect of the Lord, stop at that point and claim that God cannot be anything other than impersonal.

They decry the other stages of realization, they decry the spiritual form of the Lord and they interpret the incarnations of Krsna and His many forms as transformations of material nature. They are in fact offensive to the Personality of Godhead and because of this they cannot make any further advancement. In fact, when they leave their bodies they becomes almost non-entities like stones or trees.

So we have nothing against a genuine impersonalist, if they are progressive in their spiritual quest. But we reject the mayavadis outright because they can destroy a person’s whole spiritual advancement with their word jugglery and their envy of the Supreme Lord.

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa

  Read/Write Comments ( 0 )

April 1 2009

Here’s question #3 from the CIS:

“Did Srila Prabhupada ever mentioned in his talks or wrote somewhere that Christianity is mayavada? If he did how should we understand it?” [author not identified]

Answer:

I don’t know of any specific statement from Srila Prabhupada that Christianity is mayavada. If anything, it is not because they worship the personal aspect of the son of God, Jesus.

Islam is definitely mayavada. If you look closely at some of the sculptures in the older temples in Vrindavan, you will see that many of the figures have their hands, faces and other features broken off. This is was the result of Muslim attacks on Hindu temples, especially during the time of Aurangzeb. Many temples in Vrndavana were desecrated such as the Radha Govinda mandira which had its top three floors knocked of by the forces of the envious Aurangzeb.

Buddhism is generally impersonal or sunyavada, although there are some sects that worship a form of Buddha and having a relationship with him on a heavenly planet is their ultimate goal. Judaiism has no personal form of worship.

Here is an interesting letter Srila Prabhupada wrote to an editor of the Los Angeles Times:

Los Angeles
14 January, 1970
70-01-14

Executive Senior Editor
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Sq.
Los Angeles, Cal.
Dear Sir,
With reference to your article in the Los Angeles Times dated Sunday 11th January, 1970 under the heading “Krishna Chant,” I beg to point out that Hindu religion is perfectly based on Personal conception of God or Visnu. Impersonal conception of God is a side issue or one of the three features of God. The Absolute Truth is ultimately the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Paramatma conception is localized aspect of His omnipresence and the impersonal conception is the aspect of His greatness and eternity. But all combined together makes the Complete Whole.

“Dr. J.F. Staal’s statement that Krishna cult is a combination of Christian and Hindu religion — as if something manufactured by concoction — is not correct. If Christian, Mohammedan or Buddhist religions are personal that is quite welcome. But Krishna religion is personal from a time long, long ago when Christian, Mohammedan and Buddhist religions had not yet come into existence. According to the Vedic conception, religion is basically made by the Personal God as His laws. Religion cannot be manufactured by man or anyone superior to man. Religion is the law of God only.

“Unfortunately all the Swamis who came before me in this country stressed the impersonal aspect of God without sufficient knowledge of Personal aspect of God. In the Bhagavad-gita, therefore it is said that only less intelligent persons consider that God is originally impersonal but when He incarnates He assumes a Form. But Krishna philosophy based on the authority of the Vedas is that originally the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. …”
[end quote]

You see from this that the impersonal aspect of God is the one most commonly recognized, and therefore you will find that even so-called followers of the Vedas are mainly mayavada, what to speak of other religions whose literature does not touch upon the personal aspect of God.

Your humble servant,
Hari-sauri dasa

  Read/Write Comments ( 0 )

October 21 2008

This one is from Anuj, who bought a set of my books from me in Atlanta this summer at the Panihati festival.

He’s experiencing a common phenomena that attacks a lot of new devotees:

“For the past few weeks, I have tried to remain fixed in my service to Sri Sri Radha Krsna, but impersonalist thoughts seem to be polluting my mind. I have debated quite extensively with Mayavadi’s online in various religious forums and this has had a negative effect on my spiritual life. My mind seems to be more inclined in accepting Impersonalistic convictions although I am only really satisfied in serving Krsna.

“I keep reminding my self that the great Acharyas including Ramanuja,

Madhva,

Lord Chaitanya

and Srila Prabhupada

all preached against Mayavadism yet the fact that so many people in India and elsewhere are immersed in such impersonalism seems to persuade me that there must be some truth in their philosophy. I really dislike the way in which Mayavadi’s state that the Absolute Truth referred to in the Bhagavad Gita is not actually Krsna in his personal form but rather the Impersonal Absolute within Krsna. I really do want to want to remain fixed in my service to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu but Impersonalism seems to be the stumbling block on my path.”

“Since you were such an intimate servant of Srila Prabhupada, I wanted to ask you how Prabhupada would interact with such impersonalists and the way in which we can best preach to the Mayavadis. Although I have been advised to stay away from impersonalists, I always feel that it is my duty to preach to them. I don’t understand why I get such inclinations but is there any way in which I can remain convinced that Krsna’s personal form is his highest feature?”

Answer:

 As you say, impersonalism is a pollution of the mind. It brings no satisfaction to the soul and that’s why all the big mayavadi’s ultimately come down again to the material platform and indulge in altruistic or humanitarian acts. Although they claim the material realm is mithya, illusion, they are very fond of remaining in that illusion.

 The natural function of the soul is to love. That means three things-the lover, the beloved and the exhange between them.

  Read the rest of this entry »

  Read/Write Comments ( 0 )