honestly, fuck this guy. you aren't going to win anyone to krishna consciousness by being an asshole.

this book just gets more and more awful

hmmmmm

@Mr_NutterButter

he's big on saying "God never changes so we can't become God", but that's not the purport of true monists. we simply believe that everything is God aka all is pure consciousness, including us, and temporary conditioned existence in samsara is due to maya.

take that mimamsakan

man i forgot that the bhagavata purana is written like this

this author is so insufferable

what a silly thing to call a high blunder! he is overplaying his hand here regarding sankara. i haven't read enough sankara but yes sankara would have believed in an unmanifest material creation that precedes manifest material creation. this is just pradhana, the essential undifferentiated root of prakriti which is co-eternal with purusha (purusha and prakriti are one, but lets be a dualist for a bit. samkhya 101). and if he said krishna transcends the unmanifest (sankara believed that nirguna brahman, attributeless and non-dual, is the ultimate true form of Brahman but he did certainly believe in a personal God/Ishvara and wrote quite stirring hymns and stotrams to Vishnu, Shiva and Devi. he just viewed a personal God as God viewed through the influence of maya, hence the term "mayavada". i don't believe this, i don't believe God is ultimately impersonal, i believe He is both impersonal and personal and transcends the duality of both.) sankaras just stating the obvious here. imo Krishna is God, He is Lord of and transcends pradhana which still lies as a potency "within Him" when the universe ceases to exist. just because sankara viewed Ishvara (a personal God with qualities and with a role of creating, maintaining, and destroying the universe) as a product of mayas illusion upon the jiva doesn't mean he should have necessarily viewed the root of material nature (also a product of maya, but then everything except Para Brahman is seen as maya in advaita vedanta) as on par with Ishvara. in other, somewhat reductive words, krishnas form is made of the most good "matter", but his being transcends it, being Para Brahman (as seen through the lens of maya). to explain further, sankara believed that Krishna and other avataras have bodies made of sattva guna, the view criticized by the author. this is in line with his belief that Ishvara is an illusory view of nirguna brahman conditioned by sattva guna.

i honestly don't see why viewing Gods being as transcendent and his form when he descends as material is so offensive. in guna theory, Gods form is still very special, because all matter is either a combination of gunas or in the case of the flesh human body, mostly composed of tamas guna with some rajas and sattva. only akasha (ether/space/sky, often compared to Brahman, i can explain why if youre curious) is mostly sattvic, and Gods form is said to be entirely sattvic, despite it being physical and tangible (when He wants it to be). so clearly, Gods form is special! why the outrage???

this is so silly. "God LITERALLY is a cowherd boy dark like a beautiful monsoon cloud with a peacock feather on his head". God has no "true form!" He/She takes many forms, whether created by Himself to educate humanity about His nature or in forms approved by Him that are dear to His worshippers.

i find this view of final beatitude to be incoherent. "being fit for liberation means realizing identity with Brahman" (strange for a madhvavada, because madhva said only vishnu is Brahman). this is true. however, he goes on to say that after identity with Brahman is realized, through devotional service (bhakti/seva), one attains eternal residence in vaikuntha/goloka, where one merely "associates" with God, ie is separate from Him. so are we Brahman, or separate from Brahman? also, note how he says "they don't fall down" and also "if they fall down".

sorry everyone without this very specific belief, you merely *think* you are liberated. sorry Buddha, Sankara, etc.

for real though, some vaisnavas get so offended when you say avataras bodies are composed of sattva-guna and not "Brahman stuff". this is why calling avataras "incarnations" like in christianity is inaccurate. (sorry christians! your flesh isn't exalted anymore, but it will be in Vaikuntha). of course, Brahman is formless and transcends form, it is Gods will and His amazing qualities and amazing lack of qualities that give His form spiritual potency, not it being made of Brahman-stuff. call me a mayavada, i don't care.

"shunyavadas and mayavadas btfo" i guess. here you see that many vaishnavas are like many christians who say "if you don't believe in a personal God, you aren't a monotheist and won't go to heaven". but of course, this isn't true. saguna brahman and nirguna brahman are both Brahman, Brahman is partless and non-dual. not being like human beings who are solely "personal" as well as comprising both sat and asat, sarva and shunya is simply part of what makes God so wonderful. but yes, its easier to reach God through bhakti of saguna brahman than through jnana of nirguna brahman.

"the material universe is an expansion of God"

"the material universe is a contraction, covering and discretization of God"

more bs, Durga is not just Adi Parashakti but the Supreme in full, Tripura Sundari. She is the Shakti but she is Shaktimam as well, and pure Purusha. and one worships the Devi to both material and spiritual aims. (it is said that one worships Mahadeva to spiritual aims primarily, but in truth, one can pray to God for anything) also, "internal potency" is a silly construction, God has no inside and outside.

@vaartis @lain

this guy is treating God like a straight man. jivanmuktas don't have "sex feelings", and have no need for sex because they have no infatuation or attachment and dwell in infinite bliss. God is the greatest yogi, so of course He/She doesn't have "sex feelings" either. when God engages in romance and sex as an avatara, it is to teach about union with God. what the fuck is this sampradaya teaching???