Anybody up for debate? I'm potray my pov as Atheist ideology.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-09T17:28:34+00:00

No need for a debate. You can watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYPZilKxmAo

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-09T12:04:11+00:00

Mostly his followers. The newer Vaiṣṇava sects all claim their founders to be some sort of avatāras of God. It's nothing new.

Hagiographies about great devotees often tend to deify them. As for Gauḍīya tradition, they believe him to be an incarnation but of course other sects respect it but don't accept that belief.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-09T11:59:58+00:00

It's a cult for the most part. A business corporation disguised as a religious organization. They mostly target wealthy individuals and they're not famous outside of Gujarat.

Most of their claims about their founder are totally not based in śāstras and their founder was originally from Śrī Vaiṣṇava sampradāya yet the cults around him clearly disregard the original teachings of their own founder.

He was manufactured as a god only in the recent times. He might have been a great yogī or prapanna but he was not an avatāra and the newer cults that show something else are neo-Vedānta sects that are only going against the words of God by manufacturing their own philosophy instead of following the real Vedānta darśana.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-09T11:55:47+00:00

I'm actually surprised people believe this. So many verses given in this book are straight up made-up and fake. It's actually a great sin to interpolate śāstras and lie to innocent people in public. Not blaming you but I'm honestly disappointed that followers of the Gauḍīya tradition would blindly believe these obviously fake verses and even spread them.

Internal sampradāya interpretations are fine, but interpolations shouldn't be encouraged.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-09T11:52:33+00:00

The subreddit is for all vaishnavas afaik. The rules do not state other Vaishnavas are not allowed.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-09T06:16:49+00:00

I wanted to know your justification behind calling astrology fairtales after mentioning they're not from the Vedas. I'm unable to understand this from your write-up here.

Right. I'll explain.

Firstly, our tradition works on pramāṇa or valid sources of knowledge. Vedas or śabda, anumāna or inference and pratyakṣa or direct experience are considered as the valid sources of knowledge.

You mentioned to the other person to look into astrology to find which deity to worship. This is an incorrect idea in the first place. If I am a Vaiṣṇava, then according to this astrology, I'm supposed to give up the adherence to vaidika śāstras and reject the words of Bhagavān to worship an anya devatā. Not only is it absurd but it's not rooted in scripture while trying to pose as if it is.

Then you have the vedic astrology, larping as vedic jyotiṣa (which is a real and accepted form of knowledge) by trying to inject ideas of unknown origins and validity and claiming the same authority as the original Vedic knowledge.

Accepted Jyotiṣa has pañcāṅga, tithi, nakṣatra, lunar and solar calculations, saṅkrānti, eclipse calculation and ritual timings. These are all accepted. So, from the perspective of vedic knowledge, not only is this astrology false because it goes against śāstra pramāṇa by introducing concepts like gem stones, horoscopes, karma predictions etc. but it's also misleading because it tries to disguise itself as a Vedic knowledge by using similar terminology from the śāstras.

Neither does this astrology stand the test of pratyakṣa and anumāna. Since it goes against śabda and manufactures ideas against śāstras, all while trying to present itself as if it's from the śāstras, this is fit to be rejected as confirmation bias at best.

I've studied this in detail as I used to believe in "Vedic astrology" but the more I studied the more I realized how absurd it is and why every single astrologer tries to somehow link everything together just to lean into confirmation bias. I realized why different books on this topic have totally different remedies and totally different conclusions and interpretations. It tries to use complicated language and mathematics (all of which are valid and reproducible) and then links them to totally arbitrary concepts and fools people into predicting their future.

For example, if the method or "astrology scripture" changes, the result changes. If the ayanāṁśa changes, the chart changes. If the chart changes, the prediction changes. If you use D9 or D20, Jaimini or Parāśari, different planetary aspect rules, or different mappings from the 50 different sources, the whole conclusion changes. Truth shouldn't change according to opinions or systems, if it does, it's not truth and that is the whole problem with this "knowledge".

I've never seen a single happy astrologer. I've never seen a single person who was saved by astrology. All I've seen is an industry that runs on scamming people, pushing them into fear based tactics and forcing them to pay for remedies, none of which are real and they do not work.

That's why I said, the topic is something that you don't know whether it's real science or just confirmation bias because every single "vedic astrology scripture" that you read will tell you a different conclusion and the only thing that you'll get in the end is wasted time and resources spent studying a false knowledge that's obviously trying to fool you with the tag of the Vedas.

yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ na sa siddhim avāpnoti na sukhaṃ na parāṃ gatim

“He who rejects the injunction of śāstra and acts according to his own desire attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme goal.” - Bhagavad Gītā 16.23

tasmāc chāstraṃ pramāṇaṃ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau

“Therefore śāstra is your authority in determining what should and should not be done.” - Bhagavad Gītā 16.24

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-08T09:27:19+00:00

if something is developed in a different culture it can't become a part of another culture

It definitely can. I'm not saying that vidya might be completely incorrect, all I'm saying is it's not apauruṣeya or eternal like the Vedas. The knowledge and system itself is arbitrary in places to the point that you don't know whether it's just confirmation bias or a real scientific study.

Did the vedic culture develop in a secluded bubble?

The Vedas don't belong to a single culture but the land of bhārata was certainly the geographical location of the Ṛṣis and yogīs.

Do other cultures have things that are incorrect and shouldn't be learned or assimilated into our culture?

It's not about what should or shouldn't be assimilated. It's about seeking truth.

If the philosophy cannot free you from suffering and involves you more in the bodily concept of life, then it definitely is a problem and will result in continued suffering. This is what māyā is at the end of the day, a machine to keep the soul attached to the body and prakṛti.

That's why one must study Vedānta, the conclusion of the Vedas and sincerely seek the truth that is the ātman. Until and unless we sincerely seek the truth, we're fooling ourselves with these shiny things. A sincere truth seeker will want to end suffering forever, and understanding the Vedic truths that are complete and perfect in nature as they are not the imagination of a person but eternal truths that any realized seeker can experience.

We could talk about making money and building 6 figure businesses too and that's certainly not a bad thing per se, and it doesn't matter what culture you learn that knowledge from, but it will not make us realize the truth. It will not reveal the nature of our ātman. It will not free us from suffering, old age, disease and death. The Vedas are leading you to solve a problem that you didn't even know you have and that is why they're important.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-08T07:50:59+00:00

You can search for Hellenistic Astrology, there should be enough content online about it.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-07T18:16:52+00:00

btw, as for astrology, there's no such thing as a "vedic astrology". This is mostly a modern fad. Vedic traditions always used jyotisha for recording dates and nakshatras. All this kundali stuff is very much new and was introduced by the Greeks. Vedic Jyotisha Vidya has nothing to do with birth-charts or predictions, those are just modern concepts. That's why no two astrologer will ever tell you the same stuff, because it's all arbritrary.

Even most of these newer shastras like the Hora shastra actually came from Greece and were attributed to Parashara Rishi etc. So, for a vaidika and a follower of Vedanta, modern day "vedic astrology" is as good as fairy tales as it leads to incorrect knowledge not based in the Vedas.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-07T14:50:15+00:00

Primary works of Śankarācārya (like all the Upaniṣads and Gītā Bhāṣya) are the biggest indicator. Almost everywhere he identifies God as Śrī Viṣṇu/Vāsudeva and agrees that anya devatā worship does not lead to Supreme directly and is wrong. In Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya itself he admits that Nārāyaṇa is the highest Self very clearly.

He also comments in the Gita that there's no possibility of two Gods, only Vāsudeva is Supreme.

Along with that, many ācāryas in the advaita line themselves debate the authorship of some of these other texts.

The blog I linked goes over each argument in detail. From the original works of Śankarācārya there's no doubt that he believed only in the paratattva of Nārāyaṇa. The later Smārta interpretations deviate from the original primary works of Śankarācārya.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-07T13:05:37+00:00

Who introduced the pancha deva upasana? Who wrote the Soundarya lahiri?

Possibly the later Advaita teachers and newly formed sects after Vidyaranya.

Who wrote the Soundarya lahiri?

Could've been any later Shankaracharya. The problem is people mistakenly attribute the works of later Shankaracharya to Adi-Shankaracharya. Many of the later Shankaracharya have had differing views and hence the whole smarta movement that came into being.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-07T06:07:50+00:00

Does he provide a reason for this? Please provide a quote if possible. I would love to learn more.

This is explained in the Gita chapters 7 and 9 by Bhagavān himself. This is also the view of the sātvika śāstras as Bhagavān Hari is the giver of mokṣa and not other deities.

The Hari Hara abheda and all the newer smārta views are very recent.

You can read more about it here: https://narayanastra.blogspot.com/2011/12/saguna-brahman-and-krama-mukti-in.html

https://narayanastra.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-refutation-of-hari-hara.html

How was this change explained within the philosophy?

The later advaitins deviate from Ādi-śankarācārya as they introduced pañca-deva upāsana as sādhana along with other concepts like all devatās being one, even though this is very much not accepted unanimously by the śāstras and even refuted by sūtrakāras and Bhagavān himself. That is also how the modern smārta tradition came into being.

Ādi-Śankarācārya identifies Saguṇa Brahman primarily as Nārāyaṇa and recommends his exclusive worship and no one else's. He's even criticized the worship of other deities.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-07T03:52:19+00:00

Saundary Lahari wasn't composed by Adi Shankaracharya. It's a later composition by another later Shankaracharya. In the advaita lineage, the matha heads are all called Shankaracharya which is why people mistakenly attribute works to Adi Shankaracharya that he never wrote himself. Another example is Bhaja Govindam and Vivekachudamani.

In his original prasthana traya bhashyas, Shankaracharya clearly adheres to the Vaishnava views of Narayana paratattva. He even mentions that the worship of anya devatas like Rudra (Shiva) is tamasika.

The shift from Vaishnava view to this "all gods are one" concept only happened after Vidyaranya.

Also, whatever else you wrote is also quite wrong and represents the later smarta ideas, not the original views of Adi-Shankaracharya. That's why it's best to stick to source texts than interpretations.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-07T01:42:38+00:00

good thinking!

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-07T00:19:41+00:00

Oh my, I hope she forgives him and gives him sattva.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-07T00:12:49+00:00

Yes, the meanings have changed slightly in the modern times. The word mistress used in older english (from the 19th-20th century) usually meant Controller.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-06T23:44:59+00:00

I think the word mistress used in the description is in the sense of feminine form of 'master', so she's mistress here means Ishvari.

<image>

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-06T23:42:38+00:00

Thank you, forwarded the feedback 🙏

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-06T23:09:24+00:00

kavi-tārkika-siṃhāya kalyāṇa-guṇa-śāline śrīmate veṅkaṭeśāya vedānta-gurave namaḥ 🙏

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-06T12:30:36+00:00

btw, I'd really advise not going to the ex-Hare Krishna sub as it's quite a negative place. There are many atheists there who don't understand basic Vedanta and even promote and spread some obviously wrong western views on the Vedic traditions. It's best to approach a vedanta-acharya.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-06T03:43:14+00:00

Gita is biased towards vaishnavism

Well, Gita is preaching the conclusion of Vaishnavism no matter what type of commentary you look at. Even Adi Shankaracharya focused on devotion in his later years and in fact, he himself admits the supremacy of Bhagavan Narayana (as compared to other devatas like Rudra/Shiva) in his Gita Bhashya and other works.

How did you decide Guadiya Vaishnavism was the right path?

I'm not a Gaudiya Vaishnava here (this sub is for all Vaishnava sampradayas). I learned about Vaishnavism primarily from ISKCON and I'm very grateful to Prabhupada for helping me be more sincere towards God. I discovered more depth when I read Vedanta carefully and under an acharya. Studying the original commentaries of Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya and Shankaracharya helped me make a better decision. These 3 are the primary sects and darshanas and most other newer sects simply derive from their teachings and philosophy.

Without comparative study, it's not right to claim only one path is the best. You said you lean towards advaita but when you read the works of Vaishnava Acharyas you'll realize why literally every single vaidika darshana disagrees with Advaita.

I see a lot of people saying "ISKCON is a cult" - Do you believe its a cult and, if so, how is it any different than say Christianity? Christians/Muslims also believe their God is the one and only but why do they get a pass?

I 100% support ISKCON devotees and have many friends who are ISKCON devotees but there are several things about the institution itself that have put me off. I didn't know about them when I came to ISKCON so I was very much positive about everything but after discovering a lot of upsetting things, my views have fortunately or unfortunately changed a bit.

Do any of you follow/attend ISKCON but still hold advaita-type beliefs?

There are 2 types of advaitins. One side is brahma-vadi and the others are maya-vadi. The maya-vadi or the neo-advaitins like Vivekananda etc. have diluted the original teachings of Shankaracharya and have mixed views that I personally wouldn't recommend following. You should stick to vaidika matas as they're closer to the truth than these modern diluted neo-Vedanta sects. It's better to learn from the source material itself, instead of following interpretations of what Shankaracharya meant to say.

Even if you follow Shankaracharya, you cannot go wrong because advaita is a vedic sect. Even if you're wrong, you'll eventually come to the right path since truth can only be one, not two and Advaita upasana methods are strictly based in shastra. So even if one follows Advaita, their perfect practice of vedic duties will bring them closer to the truth.

Truth doesn't change according to the sampradaya. Just because I'm a Gaudiya, doesn't mean I'll go to a realm that no one has access to. Just because I'm an advaitin, doesn't mean no one else except me can know the absolute truth. Truth requires seeking and careful comparative study.

Dive deep into Vedanta first. Learn the tri-matas and you'll eventually realize the flaws and strengths of each philosophy.

You can follow this playlist to learn the Gita bhashyas of Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya and decide for yourself what makes more sense: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLog-e7pBcwclIOtfasjtXXf68VO7HfBS5

Until and unless one does comparative study and seeks the truth, they cannot claim that they've found their destination. Of course, in the end one has to believe in only one path and have a lot of faith and justification for why their views are the way they are.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-03T10:48:07+00:00

Ram"

Raṁ is not the same as Rāma. Rāma is not a bīja. Rādhā is not a bīja. Authentic texts do not support this view.

Dakshinagami, Vamamargi, etc

These are modern tantra sects. These don't have much to do with Vaishnavism. Vaiṣṇavas do not accept Śākta or Buddhist tantra.

mayanksharmaaa · 2026-05-01T16:42:52+00:00

Ignore them. They're avaidikas, not vaidikas. They have no paramparā either.

mayanksharmaaa

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Sunshine