Monism in Gaudiya-theology? - Examining the sources

Tarun, feel free to present relevant excerpts from those three books.

People should not be guessing about their works if they haven't read them. Nobody, on any side of the fence.

Tarun and Evakurvan should open a private line of communication and work out their issues before commenting on each others posts in public. Otherwise these threads where both participate are dead ends. Please PM each other and work out whatever it is that you have to work out.

Radhe!

I will try to quote something later in the afternoon.

Sure enough there is plenty of stuff the acaryas say against monism.

Including Srila Vishvanath Cakravartipada, Srila Narottama das THakur.

You can read until the cows come home. It is the realisation that counts. Any realisation worth its salt would need to be integrated. Integration always raises the prospect of non-dualism at some level.

When you post in this topic, please consider the following:

1. Please be clear on the definition of monism and preferably provide an equivalent Sanskrit alternative so we'll have easier time finding relevant content in the texts we study with this in mind.

2. Please do not comment without having reviewed source texts first-hand, or at least do not comment with any degree of certainty. If you don't know, rather than guessing please ask a question. Also, be prepared to present the sources when requested, or at least have a clear reference at hand so we can look them up for you.

Radhe Radhe!

Well, I admit being a big mouth. This will be my last post on the topic of monism (and maybe for a long time anyway), since I realize, that I just wast my time and energy in things not condusive to my bhajan.

I understand "monism" to mean the philosophy of "oneness". The goal of this oneness is to merge in the impersonal brahman.

So I found some lines and here they are:

Srila Narottama das Thakur: (Prema Bhakti Chandrika)

karma-kanda jnana-kanda kebala bisera bhanda
amrta baliya jeba khaya
nana joni sada phire kadar ja bhaksana kare
tara janma adhah-pate jaya

The fruitive worker of karma-kanda and the speculations of jnana-kanda are two pots of poison. If one drinks these two poisons, and then proclaims that they are both as sweet as nectar, he will fall from the human realm and spend a long time wandering in many species of life, eating many abominable things, and enjoying many horrible pleasures.

SRILA PRABODHANANDA SARASVATI
Vrindavana Mahimamrita
1.
21 The materialists, who are strongly attached to the objects of sense gratification, the ascetics, who cannot tolerate even a glimpse of sense happiness, the earnestly endeavouring yogis, the impersonalists, whose minds are merged in Brahman happiness, and the devotees whose minds have entered the lotus flower of Lord Govinda's feet, are all enchanted by the transcendental qualities of Sri Vrndavana.

66 Impersonal liberation is bitter, the objects of the senses shine like a fearful hell, sense pleasures are great flames of virulent poison, all great demigods are insects, and yogic powers are mirages, now that my heart is intoxicated by tasting the sweet nectar of Vrndavana.

2.
97 The blissful impersonal Brahman does not possess even the three most basic forms of variety. In Vrndavana however, the wonder of great variety has reached the topmost superlative of existence.

Srila Sanatana Goswami
Brhad Bhagavatamrita, Part One, Ch.3

47. “As they, having assumed various forms such as birds and trees, eternally serve Bhagavan in Vaikuntha, they seem to mock the souls who have merged in impersonal liberation.”

51. “Aho! The glories of the ocean of the topmost ecstatic mellows (paramananda-rasa)
there are wonderful! The happiness of impersonal liberation cannot be compared to even
half a drop of that blissfulness.”

Part Two, Ch.1

15. There they experience in many ways the happiness of directly serving the lotus feet of
Sri Krishna and, cursing impersonal liberation, they frolic with Him.

Part Two, Ch 2

190. “Those who, due to being tormented by material bondage and being unable to taste
rasa, desire impersonal liberation, greatly praise that mukti, just as those who desire
residence in Svarga greatly praise Svarga even though it is temporary.”

193. “Even though it is unlimited and supremely glorious, the happiness of bhakti is
perpetually increasing, but the happiness of impersonal liberation does not increase; it is enclosed within certain limits.”

200. “Aho! How can impersonal liberation be praiseworthy, when it is condemned by the scriptures and attained by demons who murder brahmanas and cows?”

216. “Therefore the happiness of bhakti, which is attained by the sweetness of the mercy of bhakta-vatsala Sri Bhagavan, is superior to the happiness derived from the samadhi of impersonal liberation.”

217. “The happiness of impersonal liberation is completely opposed to the happiness of bhakti. The happiness of mukti is perpetually uniform whereas the happiness of bhakti is variegated, remarkable, saturated with the glorious playful sweetnesses of Sri Krishna and beyond the inference of those who don’t know the science of bhakti.”

222. “Although the ignorant should not try to penetrate the exalted rasa of the soft lotus of bhakti with the hard thorns of logic, to delight those new sadhakas who are still attached to the conception of impersonal liberation by convincing them to enter the path of bhakti, we have put forth these arguments.”

Part Two, Ch 3

111. “Those who are rasika, who are expert in relishing the divine bliss of bhagavad-bhajana, reject this impersonal liberation. Understanding it to be an impediment to your real welfare, you should also reject it.”

Part Two, Ch 4

51–2. Without personal experience of it, no one can understand it. Only this much can be said, that immediately upon receiving darçana of Vaiku√†ha or anything related to Vaikun†ha, the happiness of impersonal liberation is rendered insignificant, as if by its own volition it vanishes out of shame.


Sure, I again did something wrong, or quoted wrongly, or whatever.
Feel free to correct me. I am still learning to become a better person.

So much.
Ciao

Radhe
Tarunji

The appropriate term for this is advaita which is nicely translated as non-dual which is preferable to monism.

Madhava, try to moderate so that the topics remain civil rather than moderating content. The latter borders on censorship.

Evakurvan is entitled to express her hunch, others are entitled to ignore her or to challenge her. The important thing is civility. If the content in her posts is deemed to be lacking or inadequate that is her responsibility.

I trust you are supplementing the Indian diet with some vitamin B complex tablets.
Bananas are a good antidote to the excessive salt used in Indian cooking.

That's an excellent way to start off the topic; providing a definition of monism. Although. is it imperable for a definition of monism to be provided, or should a definition of monism be provided as the GosvAmIs understood it, since this is about monism in GauDIya theology?

Monism is not good because in every instance where nonduality is spoken of anywhere in actual sanskrit it is most always spoken of via negation. You do not say oneness or monism but you say abehda and advaita. I think this relates to a subtlety about the phenomenological meaning of those words that is lost when you translate them otherwise.

Understanding why you say advaita and abheda instead of some other word like 'oneness,' is a doorway through which to understand something crucial about so-called monist traditions. That something crucial is their self-conscious awareness of the impossibility of sheer nonduality proper. This point is often missed about advaita when trying to read things alone. I feel this point is missed by many people, not just Gaudiyas. Anyway this thread is not going to be about what advaita really means to advaitans. I have talked about that amply in the bheda abheda thread.

I am looking forward to hearing more about the nonduality and abheda within the Gaudiya tradition.

When I orignally brought this up though, it was in another context, and in relation to this comment by adiyen.



Contrary to this point by Adiyen, it appears the popular understanding is that the Gaudiya link with the other Vedantic traditions is pretty much cut and dry. At least as far as Advaita goes. It appears obvious to many that Gaudiya spurns Advaita. However, adiyen's comment here seems to problematize that belief. He says that the question is left open and inconclusive, and posits the point : How do we really know that Gaudiyaism is not Advaita? Obviously he does not mean Gaudiya is Advaita, as in the formal school Advaita, but Advaitanesque. Meaning, Non-dualistic. This is what is meant by monism. I believe this defines the term, and trying to define it further would lead to comparing apples and oranges.

I am aware that broaching adiyen's point would be a bit too controversial for now, and it is not really the main focus of this thread. Because of this I think it would be better to explore its precise focus for now, and leave the rest for some other time and other topic.

However, I expect that everyone agrees that the tradition in question is named 'Advaita' and preaches 'monist' concepts. Getting back to how the GosvAmIs treat monism in the theology that they formulated, it is just not as simple as that regarding subtle definitions. The GosvAmIs spend a significant amount of time decrying monist concepts such as the acquisition of jJAna being superior to bhakti, attainment of sAyujya-mukti, and so on. It is not that they directly come out and say 'Advaita is a load of rubbish!' They take a particular idea and politely explain how that idea is untrue or how it can be superseded.

As per Madhava's request for references, let us do that. The Bhakti-rasAmRta-sindhu of RUpa GosvAmI discusses the insufficiency of mokSa and the difficulty of attaining pure devotion in 1.1.33-37. And then:







It is pretty obvious that RUpa GosvAmI does not denigrate the attainment of mokSa per se, as that would be impossible. The language and references used clearly demote the Advaitic idea of mokSa. These are clear-cut points of view that show how monism and its ideas are not looked upon very kindly in the GauDIya tradition. I also trust that the commentaries of JIva GosvAmI and MukundadAs GosvAmI elaborate nicely on these verses.

Personally I like the way that the BhAvArtha-dIpikA is quoted. 'Owzat?

It is very difficult to sort through all this because it is so chock-o-bloke full of assumptions about Advaita. First the idea that it is jnanic and emotionless, bhaktiless and about mental speculation. Second when you throw around concepts like moksha without understanding what they really mean to Advaitans. No, moksha does not mean to merge into the 'impersonal brahman,' or brahmajyoti as you understand it to mean in the context of iskcon terminology. I do not want to bother with clearing misconceptions about Advaita here, this thread isn't about that. And it isn't about critisizing Advaita based on a coarse understanding of it. It is about speaking on the Nondualism within Gaudiya. Please refrain from using jarring terms like Monism.

Advaita = Nondualism.

Do you know the first time I congregationally chanted the Holy Name was when I was a kid and that it was with a group of Advaitans chanting a very emotional and devotional sankirtan? Are you aware that Advaitans relish the passtimes of Radha Krishna? I don't see how a basis for conversation can be formed when the Advaitan critiques that are being presented are based on unsubtle understandings of Advaita. This thread is not supposed to be about that. It is supposed to be about the non-duality in Gaudiya and i will leave it at that.

While I am not an Advaita-vadi myself (despite my name ) I must say that one of the worst translations of the word 'jnana' I have ever seen is 'speculative knowledge', as if advaita vadis are on the mental platform or so....

Then I suggest that you get in touch with RUpa GosvAmI and ask him why he wrote those verses in his 'encyclopaedia of bhakti'.


Well anyway, everyone knows that every tradition has a different definition of mokSa. So why don't you tell us what mokSa means to Advaitins? Or not, if this thread isn't about that? This is not a discussion about ISKCON terminology; this is a very real philosophy called 'Advaita'. Secondly, it is not I who is talking about mokSa, it is RUpa GosvAmI. If you're serious about disscussing this topic then I would appreciate it if you stayed within the premises of this topic so that we can discuss the subject as it arises within the GosvAmI literature.


Very well, even though they essentially mean the same thing.


Yes I am aware. I studied Advaita and Advaitic scriptures under the directions of Advaitin-initiated monks when I was younger. Ever read ZaGkara's VRndASTakam? They can do whatever they like in my view, but their understandings are different and are not relishable for GauDIyas.


That's funny. We were all under the impression that this thread is about Monism in GAUDIYA theology as per the title. Thus, references from the GosvAmIs' literature was requested so that we can examine them on the basis of that claim.

I am sorry to add this very controversial point here, but I think it will clarify my previous post a bit. I will refrain from engaging in such controversial topics after this. I will resume maybe in a long while after the dust has settled. I really -am- interested in Nondualism within Gaudiya and I do not want this thread to get derouted into a fight about what Advaita is.

Everyone knows Mahaprabhu was an initiated Shankarite, as was his favourite Bhagavatam commentator Sridhar Swami. Mahaprabhu also attracted many Vedantins and Shankarites. The Bhagavatam itself actually indicates that the Gopis were Advaitans who sought union with Brahman by the path of bhakti. The whole Iskcon idea of a 'personal God' is actually what the Christian missionaries taught (Scottish Churches College). Even other Vaisnav groups do not teach this. It is foreign to Hinduism, as is the Protestant zeal of the iskcon 'converts'.

p.s. I mean this with all due respect to iskcon and full affection for ACBSP

p.p.s. If you would like the Bhagavatam passage I can possibly provide precise numbers in the future. But better to not get caught up in this debate now.

I used the term 'monism' tongue-in-cheek style in the post that this thread is based on. This is where Madhava got the idea to call this thread that. I suggest it be changed to non-dualism if we want to be serious.

Please do not base your understanding of Advaita on what Sai Baba taught you or whatever other sources you seem to be getting your understandings from. Reading the texts does not mean you are 'one' with the teachings (joke!). I am aware you dislike Advaita due to your sour experiments in it that led you to have a "mini-spiritual breakdown," as you have already publically revealed in your profile.



I assume it is ok to paste this since it is in your profile for everyone to see.

I am sorry about that. Maybe Advaita is not for you. Try to be open-minded that Advaita could be more than what you learned it to be. Do not let your axe to grind against it cloud you from listening to anything else.

Hit-and-run, eh?


He was not an initiated ZaGkarite. He was initiated by Izvara PUri.


Really? Then please explain the 'personalist' ZrI VaiSNavism and TattvavAda, to name just two schools. But if you do that, we will go off-topic.


Ok, please do that.

Can someone give me the sanskrit for 'personal God.' There is no such term in all Hindu/vedic literature and tradition.

My understanding of Advaita has nothing whatsoever to do with Sai Baba. My understandings of Advaita have come from the initiated disciples of the Jyotir-math ZaGkarAcArya. Too bad I no longer have all those zAstras. Funny joke.

Edit: Since you've now added an extract from my public profile regarding my 'falling out' with Advaita, I should add that it is an extremely good point about Advaita's inherent inconsistency. The whole philosophy is beset with contradictions at every turn and is thus not a viable philosophy to live by.


Sure, I'm open-minded. But then, this is like "been there done that" for me since I've studied it already, so unless you are someone really special, it's gonna be a tough project to convince me (or everyone else?) that its something 'more' than what a ZaGkarAcArya can say.

P.S. Nobody is fighting. We are discussing. Goodnight for tonight. Peace.

Anyway, we are all going to stick to the topic of discussing 'nondualism' in the writings of the GosvAmIs and other AcAryas of the GauDIya tradition. I will try and look up Tattva-sandarbha and some other texts tomorrow.

This thread was started with Evakurvan's hypothesis below being quoted:


Tarunji disagreed and commented something like: "I can quote plenty that the Gosvamis have said against monism."

I am not qualified to argue for or against Evakurvan's hypothesis, since I have little familiarity the Gosvamis' original works. But I wish to point out that the original topic got derailed then and there.

Evakurvan's idea was not that the Gosvamis' do not attack the advaita philosophy.

Her idea, as I understood it, was that if one were to examine the Gosvamis' own teachings on and descriptions of bhakti, one could find in them some content where duality or "distinctness" recedes into the background and where the experience of nondistinctness or oneness is in the foreground.

It is perfectly possible to postulate that such content is there in the works of the Gosvamis', and that their writings simultaneously contain attacks at, or criticism of, Advaita philosophy.

But if such content is there, one won't find it by searching for what the authors say about Mayavada, Advaita, etc. It won't be found on the level of labels. It would be included in descriptions of bhakti concepts, perhaps without being named, between the lines, and to recognize it there one would need to first have one's own experience of nonduality/nondistninctness.

A crude example to illustrate the possibility: a text may say nothing of sex, or may even attack sex, and at the same time have erotic overtones.

I have understanding for the Gaudiyas' unwillingness to even look for "monist" content in the Gosvamis' works. But in fairness to Evakurvan, let's be clear that her hypothesis cannot be disproven by quoting what the Gosvamis said about Advaita.

I agree with Talasiga that this is about experience, and that an integrated experience will have both oneness and distinctness aspects to it.

Do you know any good psychics that could be helpful in such an endeavor? This reminds of a story my friend told me. He is working on some Demotic material from ancient Egypt. Once, he encountered a psychic who claimed to be able to establish contact with the dead. He then told her something like this: "I am working on some old texts from ancient Egypt and I am having problems understanding them. Could you put me in contact with the scribe so he can explain the material to me?" Needless to say, the psychic did not comply with this request.

Well, woudln't they be reincarnated many times over by now? I suspect the psychic, if legit, would be referring to recently deceased people who are wanting to contact friends and relatives. I try to keep an open mind about such things.

A person who believes in reincarnation might argue in this way. But, I do not think that reincarnation is a given in this equation. Besides, even if we accept reincarnation, then what would prevent a psychic from accessing previous memories and impressions belonging to an entity that is now in a new body?


My friend, too, had an open mind. He reasoned, "If this person can help me to make sense of the material, then I am willing to accept it." Instead, the psychic got angry and accused him of ridiculing the whole thing.

Dhyana, that is a good point I wanted to make but figured better just leave it, close readers will realize it.

Also I guess there is no harm in seeing quotes that speak against advaita as a side note, though it's not really the essence of the thread so better not. Everybody already knows advaita and buddhism/voidism is critisized, there is no need to prove that.

Izvara

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITpolytheistic.htm

Can somebody explain this:

radha-krsna aiche sada eka-i svarupa
lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa

Well, I might have taken his comment in the same way as the psychic did. It is unlikely that someone who died so long ago is available for communication as most mediums describe what they do--it's more about who on the other side wants to talk to us, not who we'd like to reach. That is most likely to be recently deceased people who are still attached to others still here. I don't think that most psychics would pick up something from someone so long deceased, and I think that the psychic felt this was obvious. (As we often think what we know in our field of expertise should be more obvious to others. Or at least, I do.)

Maybe there is a psychic somewhere powerful enough to do what you suggest, I can't say, but I think it is unlikely.

Yes it would be cool if we could ask the Goswamis directly for their opinion.

And while we're at it, the framers of the U.S. Constitution. There's that pesky wording of the right to bear arms to contend with. And what did they mean by the religion clause? Oh, well. We have to struggle along with our own interpretations.

In which case I suppose it would be better if Evakurvan or somebody else who is knowledgeable in the GosvAmI lierature would provide some references from them in order to show how "monistic" ideas could be found. I'm sure this is a reasonable suggestion. Otherwise I am at a loss to understand how this topic could be substantial if we were to investigate Evakurvan's "personal hunch."

And I spent so much time digging up references all day too!

Kishalaya's query is an interesting one, and one that I think is typical of the proper focus for this discussion. May I have the reference for that verse please, so I can see it within its context?

Here's a spontaneous thought: The only instances of "monism" that I think occur in the GosvAmI literature is where sambhoga is discussed. This means 'union' in the context of Radha and Krsna's meeting, as opposed to Radha's intense grief when 'separated' from Krsna. I guess it would be funny to see an Advaitin take advantage of this to show how there is "monism" or "nonduality" in the GosvAmI literature! I've seen worse misinterpretations..

Gaurasundara i am not trying to take advantage of anything or act like gaudiya is advaita. That would be foolish. This is basically the same sort of question like exploring the 'abheda' in gaudiya thought. Many answers have been made in the bheda abheda thread that would be just as relevant in this thread. I find it a better starting point though to use the term nonduality as opposed to abheda, because it seems a lot of people associate abheda as being nothing more than the external energy of krishna and then ignore it. When in my humble opinion i think there is reason to see it as meaning 'nondual' or 'non-distict,' as opposed to reducing it in that other way.


Yes Gaurasundara that example you gave would be one example and I have thought of it and I believe posted on it before. Maybe quotes would be good.

Gaurasundara I have zero knowledge of Goswami literature, this is why I am here in this thread to learn about it. I am not here to fight with you by insidiously inserting false nondual elements into gaudiya. I did not even start this thread. Please halt these sort of ideas! I feel you do not understand my points but that is okay. Here is another flower -->--o

Kishalaya,

Advaitans use the term ishvara too, when talking about worshipping a deity for the purpose of meditating on merging with It.

jiv jago! jiv jago! gauracanda bole!

p.s it is not my style to always say 'in my humble opinion,' because i feel that sort of thing is always implied anyway, but i am saying it here anyway to avoid turmoil . Really i feel more arrogant saying things like 'in my humble opinion,' than I would feel if i were to just totally omit it. I should make this my new signature!

Don't worry dear. No one is accusing anyone of ulterior motives. We are all just discussing together.

I guess you're not! I pity the man, dear.

p.s. I wanted to add a flower emoticon here for full effect. But it seems I lack the computer skills. How do you people figure out how to make all these weird cartoons!

Never mind, I found it. The preceding two verses are also quite curious:





I kinda get the feeling that the consideration is of tattva rather than rasa, as the next verse explains how Radha and Krsna (rasikally) appeared as Caitanya to teach prema-bhakti. In this context, I fail to see what the problem would be since the appellation of Krsna as 'zaktimAn' implies the upper hand as it were, which is is in consonance with doctrine of how God (Krsna) is 'ekam advitiyam', One without a second. Kishalaya's verse has a parallel in verse 56: rAdhA-kRSNa eka Atma dui deha dhari' - anyonye ye rasa AsvAdana kari'. This is the same reason explained: lIlA-rAsa AsvAdite dhare dui-rUpa.

There is tattva, and then there is rasa. In tattva, everything (even Radha) originates from Krsna since Krsna is AdIzvara and so on. When considering tattva, we find:


The rules all change when it comes to rasa:


As for how Radha takes precedence in a rasika consideration, the answer is given in verse 94: rAdhikA karena kRSNera vaJcita pUraNa - 'Radhika is the fulfiller of Krsna's wishes'. And one verse later: jagat-mohana kRSNA, tAGhAra mohinI - 'Krsna is the enchanter of the universe, yet She is His enchanter.'

Just some random explorations..

to re-write here soon.

There is certainly non-duality there. It is not without a reason that our theology was coined acintya-bhedAbheda-tattva. The existence of unity (abhedatva) is not under debate.

The crux of the controversy is in proclaiming abheda as superior and the original state of the Absolute. Moreover, the controversy is over the reality of the bheda-aspect; the question is whether the bheda is real or false.

Those are the questions to be faced.

The bheda is real.

Why would the abheda be superior to it? It's not.

I don't think anyone is placing Nonduality as more ultimate and superior.

Looking back at the verses which I've quoted (and many more in that section of the text) it does look very Vedantic to me. I just wonder if you have any references as to why Krsna would like to indulge in lIlA? It is very hard for me to put into words so I hope you can understand. And more specifically, the why and how of Krsna appearing to be 'under the influence' of His own zakti as it were, or is that part of the rasa-rules too?

A google search points to CC Adi 4.98

Context (courtesy DirtyHari):

radha-purna-sakti, krsna-purna-saktiman
dui vastu bheda nai, sastra-paramana

mrgamada, tara gandha-yaiche aviccheda
agni, jvalate-yaiche kabhu nahi bheda

radha-krsna aiche sada eka-i svarupa
lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa

If tattva is like "Everything (or rather Radha) is Krishna" and rasa is "Krishna takes numerous (two) forms to enjoy rasa", then is it that Krishna is enjoying Krishna. Of course I see a lot of stress on things like "bhead nai" "eka svarupa". But is there something like "Inspite of the abheda, there is bheda in tattva between shakti and shaktiman which allows for the existence of rasa". Unless there is something like this I find the whole shakti shaktiman scheme looking like Krishna is shaktiman, and he is also shakti and he is playing with himself.

That is what I am trying to say - that even the most uncompromising of the advaitins have a place for "personal God" in their philosophy. The "personal God" is as much real as a jIva withing the vyavahAric platform - within mAyA.

I said this before, I will expand on it here.



My objection is to using the colonial english term Personal God as though it has some inherent obvious meaning within Sanskrit language.
It is a borrowed term. It is biased. It adds undertones to the theology that are not obviously there.
Words like dvaita, sa-vishesh, sa-rupya, do not have the baggage of Personal God.
For example sa-vishesh. Meaning with variation. That could very well mean like grain in wood, Waves on the sea, just as it could very well mean other things. Sa-rupya meaning with form, ie manifest rather than invisible. Once you start using personal god, you begin to go away from exploring the meaning inside those words, and get into a whole other set of connotations.

The word person in Greek originally means mask: the character temporarily adopted by an actor in a drama. Like srijiva's avatar! Actors wore masks - with all the Shamanistic implications of becoming possessed. So even 'person' is impersonal and not a good word for what the devotees are trying to express. Why not find a better word for 'personal' god in the Vedic literature, instead of just borrowing a Christian-Anglo term with an ancient pedigree, and having it be such a hugely defining point of pride. Ishvara is not a word that inherently has those connotations. So, what would the actual sanskrit word be?

Wow and just as I typed that a new post appeared in 'devotional essence lost in translation.' Maybe this should be for there. This is all I have to say about that anyway I'm not a sanskrit scholar.

Vaisnava carane dandavat

What about nirvisesavad and sunyavad? these are terms implying something abhorent to devotees. And it is that in the advaitavad that makes a point of contention. It was with a view perhaps to reconcile the contention that simultaneous distinction and non-distinction (bhedAbhed) has been called acintya or incomprehensable and inconcievable. But all these propositions are beyond intelectual capacity and are to be known through the disciplines of nine-fold devotion. Enough philosophising for a practicle application of bhakti sadhana, which itself gives rise to anubhuti or anubhava which means divine insight. Otherwise there is no end to debate and no beginning of bhakti sadhana.
The special mercy of Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu has been called by Sri Svarupa Damodara as amandada daya non-evil producing mercy, which causes samyacchAstra vivAdaya an end to the scriptural wrangling and rasadayA
an awakening of rasa-appriciation. And moreover cittArpitonmAda it confers upon the mind/heart divine madness of ecstacy.

well that's my Sunday morning sermon
In the best possible humour

Actually I just wanted to make a link to that thread but ended up quoting this bit of Jagat's. In case you're wondering it is an analasys of the verse alluded to above.

If Madhava or someone tells me what to do I can make the link and delete this post which is included in the thread I wanted to link.

My whole point was that sunyata, which is the tattva central to 62 percent of Buddhists, is misunderstood by many gaudiyas as meaning emptyness proper, no taste, no flavour, the proclamation that all things are inherently empty or void. My point was, in the sunyata thread that is now closed, that -yes,- these terms do imply something abhorent to devotees, and that I see why. It is reasonable to scorn Buddhist Voidism, like I have heard so many Gaudiyas do, from so many branches, live and in text. This does not exclude raganugas, as some might like to think it is just an 'iskcon thing.' Iskcon is not the convenient receptable for all that one might be uncomfortable with, lumping anything skeletal inside the iskcon closet, embarassed to be associated with such a 'close minded cult,' because one is so much more sophisticated than that. My attempt to discuss the meaning of sunyata here should be telling.

What I wanted to add about sunyata however, but could not really expand on because the thread is closed as being irrelevant, is that this is a bit of a strange situation. It is strange considering the fact that the buddhist teaching of sunyata does not mean all those things that some Gaudiyas seem to think it means. It is an incomplete understanding of sunyata. I made a thread to speak about that and I consider this very pertinent to Gaudiya Theology. What we espouse in our tradition is just as relevant to us as that which most of us abhor in another tradition. Sometimes we abhhor some thing so much, that we stop at an elemental incomplete understanding of it, and go on to abhor it based on that. I ask these posts remain and that I resume this topic at some point in the Theology section.

Whether there is enough material in Gaudiya literature that discusses Buddhist Voidism or not, is not a crucial factor by which to decide whether this topic should be censored as irrelevent. Religion is a living thing, many of the living adherents of Gaudiya have these ideas about Sunyata today, right here on this board and elsewhere. And that alone is reason enough to not be censored from discussing it. The irreleventia of one, is the burning gnaw of another.

There is not much difference between the hindu "Izvara" and the English colonial or the semitic "personal God". May be the hindus explicitly gave God two eyes, two/four hands, two legs etc. Anyway in both the conceptions, God resides in heaven and controls the world and punishes/rewards the people etc. etc. Also some hindu traditions like the gauDIyas have a good deal of "personalism" meaning "building human relationships" with God.