Meeting with Vyasadeva
- Srila Madhvacarya appears in the Gaudyia Vaishnava disciplic succession as a disciple of Vyasadeva. How this can be if he appeared on the planet thousands of years after Vyasadeva compiled the Vedas?
- He was able to personally meet Vyasadeva in Badrinath (his hermitage in the Himalayas).
- There is the earthly Badrinath, a place in the Himalayas where anyone can go, and the celestial Badrinath, or Badarikashrama, the place where Vyasadeva lives with Nara-Narayana and other great sages, which is inaccessible to ordinary humans.
- The story is that after he wrote his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita (the Gita-Bhashya), he went to the Himalayas to offer his respects to Vyasadeva, the original compiler of the book.
- Staying in the temple of Badrivishal in Badrinath, he presented his commentary on the Gita to the Deity.
- When he read the first line, "I will explain the meaning of the Bhagavad-Gita according to my capacity", the Lord directly interjected.
- The Lord said that although he had the capacity to reveal the full meaning of the Bhagavad-Gita, he should explain only according to the capacity of his students to understand.
- In this way, the Lord hinted at the later appearance of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who would reveal the complete meaning of the scriptures.
- Madhvacarya decided then to go higher into the Himalayas and personally met Vyasadeva to get his blessings in establishing his sampradaya.
- He prepared by observing a complete fast and meditating for 48 days, which became just another of his superhuman feats.
- After warning his disciples that maybe he would not be able to return, he went alone on his journey and eventually reached the celestial Badarikashrama, where Vyasadeva resides surrounded by Rsis.
- Vyasa approved his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, instructed him on Vedic knowledge, and blessed him to write his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra and establish the Madhva Sampradaya.
The Suddha-dvaita philosophy
- Certain philosophies are considered dualists because they believe in the existence of another force separated from God, like in the case of the atheistic Sāṅkhya, where there is the dichotomy of Puruṣa and Prakrti, being both considered independent forces that interact.
- According to the Vaishnava interpretation, this is incorrect, because nothing is independent from God. There is no independent material energy, a devil, or other Gods.
- There is only one Supreme Being who is the source and controller of everything that exists, and there is nothing independent from him.
- The material world is just part of His external potency, the demigods are His servants, the different souls are part of His marginal potency, and so on.
- The philosophy of Sankaracarya is called non-dualism because he rejected the idea of dualism, explaining that there is nothing separated or independent from God or Brahman.
- However, because people at the time were not able to accept the idea of a personal God, Sankaracarya was forced to limit his explanation, transmitting the idea that there is nothing separate from God, without explaining the existence and interactions of His different energies.
- In this way, Sankaracarya denied dualism, but He was not able to explain the whole truth, having to settle on the idea that Brahman is everything and we are all Brahman.
- While this is generally true, because he couldn't enter into the details that balance the idea, he hat to settle into the idea that the material manifestation is illusory and that we are all God.
- Ramanujacarya protested against both dualism and monism, explaining that while everything is God, there are distinctions between His different energies.
- That's why his Visistadvaita philosophy is called non-dualism with distinctions, or purified monism, since his philosophy sits between both, giving a more balanced and complete view of the absolute truth.
- Ramanujacarya explains that God has different energies, emphasizing the difference between sentient and non-sentient, and also between the souls and God. Everything is God, but at the same time, there are distinctions between His different energies.
- This allowed him to explain both the nature of the cosmic manifestation (as being illusory, but not false), the nature of God as a sentient being who has transcendental qualities, and to emphasize the idea of the relationship between the soul and God and devotional service as a process to revive such a forgotten relationship.
- In the process, he also dismissed incorrect interpretations, such as the idea that Krsna assumes a material body when He appears in this material world, or that souls have their origin in this material world.
- Krsna is always transcendental, and souls are part of His spiritual, sentient energy, and are thus eternally connected with the Lord, although such an eternal relationship may be temporarily forgotten when they come in contact with material energy.
- By the practice of devotional service, a soul can reestablish such an eternal relationship and thus be reinstated in his original position.
- As Srila Prabhupada mentions in his explanation of the Suddha-dvaita philosophy:
"Except for Lord Visnu, anything else, either cosmic manifestation or living entities, are not independent but are dependent on the Supreme Lord. The living entities are qualitative representations of the Supreme Lord. The doctrine that man is made after God is accepted by Madhvacarya. The features of man are an exact reflection of the features of the Supreme Lord. He also accepts that the Supreme Lord expands in multi-plenary-portions, as well as separated portions called jiva-tattva. All the jiva-tattvas, or living entities, are eternal associates of the Supreme Lord to render transcendental loving service to Him. The living entities' knowledge is always inferior or incomplete."
- Madhvacarya emphasized the differences between the souls and the Lord, as well as the differences between the souls and matter, between matter and the Lord, and between one soul and another.
- In this way, He emphasized individuality, and thus put a nail in the coffin of the misguided idea that we are all one and ultimately all God.
- God is eternally a person and we are eternally separated from him. I am different from you, you are different from me, and we are both different from the Lord.
- Just like a son can't merge back into his father, much less merge into his brothers, we can't merge into God or merge into each other. We are all eternally separated individuals.
- By emphasizing individuality, he reinforced the idea of devotional service to the Lord, which is the central part of his teachings, just like in the case of Ramanujacarya and all other Vaishnava acaryas.
- There is no contradiction between the Visistadvaita and Suddha-dvaita philosophies, they just emphasize different aspects of the same Absolute Truth.
- The philosophy of Madhvacarya is called purified dualism because it reconciles the idea of everything being part of the Supreme Lord with the idea of the souls and matter being different from Him.
- His philosophy speaks about a personal God and loving relationships between Him and the individual souls, as well as a distinction between the material and spiritual natures.
- By emphasizing the differences, he positioned his philosophy as diametrically opposite of the monism of Sankaracarya, fighting against the mistaken concept that we are all one.
Dualism?
- Often, the philosophy of Madhvacarya is called "Dvaita Vedanta" in academic circles, and translated as "Dualism". According to the Vaishnava interpretation, this is not entirely correct.
- Dualism is the philosophy of God and the jivas being different in nature which is not accepted by any of the Vaishnava Acaryas, and not even by Sankaracarya.
- The philosophies of all four Vaishnava schools sit in the middle, explaining the delicate balance of God and the jivas being simultaneously one and different.
- The four Vaishnava schools are thus:
a) Suddhādvaita (purified monism)
b) Suddha-dvaita (purified dualism)
c) Viśiṣṭādvaita (specific monism)
d) Dvaitādvaita (monism and dualism)
- To this is added the Acintya-bhedābheda (inconceivable oneness and difference) school of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
The soul is different from the Lord
- Madhvacarya emphasized the distinctions between the souls and the Lord to counteract the monism of Sankaracarya.
- However, at the same time he sustained the souls are not different or separated from God. His philosophy speaks about five differences:
a) The soul is different from God.
b) One soul is different from another (we are all separate individuals).
c) The soul is different from matter.
d) God is different from matter.
e) One material element or object is different from another.
- Although matter and the souls are different from the Lord, they are still completely dependent on Him. The Lord is the Supreme.
- The Lord does not depend on anyone else, therefore he is the Supremely Independent Personality of Godhead, who possesses all transcendental qualities and is completely free from material contamination. As Krsna explains in the Bhagavad-Gita (9.4), "All beings are in Me, but I am not in them".
- Madhvacarya argues that even at the time of dissolution both the material energy and the souls remain separate from the Supreme Lord, and there is no possibility of merging with Him at any stage.
- Although sometimes we say that the impersonalists and demons "merge" into the Brahmajoti, that's just a figure of speech. Even in the Brahmajoti, the soul continues being a separate entity who is just put in the effulgence of the Lord. The proof is that one can indeed fall from the Brahmajoti back into the material world.
- Another subtle point of Madvacarya's philosophy is that although the soul is different from the Lord, the soul is a qualitative representation of the Supreme Lord. How does it work?
- The soul resembles God, but is eternally separated from Him and much less powerful.
- The soul is also different from the Lord in terms of knowledge. The Lord is the possessor of all knowledge, while the knowledge of the soul is inferior or incomplete.
- The soul is subordinate and dependent on the Lord. The eternal position of the jiva is one of service.
- The souls are eternal associates of the Lord, constitutionally bound to offer Him loving devotional service.
- Even in this material world, the jivas are completely dependent on the Lord. We depend on the sanction from antaryami (the Supersoul in the heart) not only to perform any material activity but even to think and feel.
- The jiva alone can't do anything alone. As Krsna explains in the Bhagavad-Gita (15.15), "I am seated in the hearts of all living beings, and from Me come memory, knowledge, as well as forgetfulness."
The nine teachings of Madhvacharya are:
a) Sri Krsna alone is the Supreme Absolute Truth, without a second.
b) He is the object of knowledge in all the Vedas.
c) The universe is real, but temporary.
d) The differences between Isvara (God), the jiva (soul), and matter are real (they are not just due to the influence of Maya as believed by the Mayavadis).
e) The jivas are by nature the servants of the Supreme Lord.
f) Jivas can be divided into two groups: liberated and illusioned. In both states, the jivas are eternally individuals.
g) Liberation means attaining the lotus feet of the Lord or, in other words, returning to our eternal relationship of service unto Him.
h) Pure devotional service to Krsna is the only way to attain this liberation. One should thus not seek liberation, but instead seek devotional service.
i) The truth may be known by pratyaksha (direct perception), anumana (inference or logic), and sabda (the Vedic authority).
The chanting of the holy names
- Madhvacarya also argued that Sankaracarya didn't emphasize the main aphorism of the Vedas, the Pranava omkara, emphasizing instead secondary aphorisms, such as "tat tvam asi".
- In this way, Madhvacarya pointed out that Sankaracarya had presented only partial knowledge about the Vedas, failing to present the whole picture.
This is a point Srila Prabhupada explains in detail in the Teachings of Lord Caitanya:
"Praṇava, or oṁ-kāra, is the chief sound vibration found in the Vedic hymns, and it is considered to be the sound form of the Supreme Lord. From oṁ-kāra all Vedic hymns have emanated, and the world itself has also emanated from this oṁ-kāra sound. The vibration tat tvam asi, also found in the Vedic hymns, is not the chief vibration but is an explanation of the constitutional position of the living entity. Tat tvam asi means that the living entity is a spiritual particle of the supreme spirit, but this is not the chief motif of the Vedanta-sutra or the Vedic literature. The chief sound representation of the Supreme is oṁ-kāra." (ToLC 25)
"The principal word in the Vedas – praṇava, or oṁ-kāra – is the sound representation of the Supreme Lord. Therefore oṁ-kāra should be considered the supreme sound. But Śaṅkarācārya has falsely preached that the phrase tat tvam asi is the supreme vibration. Oṁ-kāra is the reservoir of all the energies of the Supreme Lord. Śaṅkara is wrong in maintaining that tat tvam asi is the supreme vibration of the Vedas, for tat tvam asi is only a secondary vibration. Tat tvam asi suggests only a partial representation of the Vedas. In several verses of the Bhagavad-gītā (8.13, 9.17, 17.24) the Lord has given importance to oṁ-kāra. Similarly, oṁ-kāra is given importance in the Atharva Veda and the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad. In his Bhagavat-sandarbha, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has given great importance to oṁ-kāra: “Oṁ-kāra is the most confidential sound representation of the Supreme Lord.” The sound representation or name of the Supreme Lord is as good as the Supreme Lord Himself. By vibrating such sounds as oṁ-kāra or Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, one can be delivered from the contamination of this material world. Because such vibrations of transcendental sound can deliver a conditioned soul, they are known as tāraka-mantras." (ToLC 21)
"The Lord has innumerable incarnations, and oṁ-kāra is one of them, in the form of a transcendental syllable. As Kṛṣṇa states in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.17): “Among vibrations, I am the syllable oṁ.” This means that oṁ-kāra is nondifferent from Kṛṣṇa. Impersonalists, however, give more importance to oṁ-kāra than to the Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. But the fact is that any representational incarnation of the Supreme Lord is nondifferent from Him. Such an incarnation or representation is as good spiritually as the Supreme Lord. Oṁ-kāra is therefore the ultimate representation of all the Vedas. Indeed, the Vedic mantras or hymns have transcendental value because they are prefixed by the syllable oṁ. The Vaiṣṇavas interpret oṁ-kāra, a combination of the letters a, u and m, as follows: The letter a indicates Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the letter u indicates Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, Kṛṣṇa’s eternal consort, and the letter m indicates the living entity, the eternal servitor of the Supreme Lord. Śaṅkara has not given such importance to oṁ-kāra. But such importance is given in the Vedas, the Rāmāyaṇa, the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata, from beginning to end. Thus the glories of the Supreme Lord, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are declared." (ToLC 20)
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu: Acintya-bhedabheda-tattva (inconceivable oneness and difference)
- Both Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya had to adjust their presentations to what could be understood by their students.
- Apart from them, there are also Visnusvami and Nimbarka, the founder-acaryas of the other two Vaishnava sampradayas: the Visnusvami-sampradaya (later the Baladeva-sampradaya) and the Nimbarka-sampradaya
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu built on top of the foundation created by them, giving the ultimate conclusion of the Vedas.
- As we studied, in his Sri Navadvipa Dhama Mahatmya, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu took two principles from each of the four Vaishnava Sampradayas and incorporated them into his own Sampradaya, revealing thus the Vaishnava philosophy in its fullness.
Vishnusvami - Suddhadvaita-vada (purified monism)
- The philosophy of Vishnusvami is called Suddhadvaita-vada (purified monism) and his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra is the Sarvajna Bhasya.
- This is the oldest of the four commentaries. It explains that the souls are parts and parcels of the absolute truth, one with Him, but at the same time separated, just like sparks coming from a fire.
- The material world is manifested from the energy of the Lord and is thus not false. Just like bars of gold can be molded into different ornaments and later melted back into bars, the material world is created by the molding of the Lord's eternal energy.
- The Lord has no material qualities, but at the same time is full of eternity, knowledge, and bliss.
- He is omniscient, omnipotent, Supreme, the bestower of the fruits of action, and the cause of all auspiciousness.
- The Lord can never fall under the influence of Maya, but being very small, the jivas can.
- When they so do, they forget about the Supreme Lord and are covered by ignorance. The goal of life is to attain uninterrupted contact with the Lord in Vaikuṇṭha, from where there is no return.
- This supreme goal can only be achieved through the practice of devotional service.
Suddhadvaita and Suddha-dvaita
- Although the names sound the same, the philosophy of Suddhadvaita of Vishnusvami is different from the Suddha-dvaita Madhvacarya.
- The philosophy of Vishnusvami is purified monism, and the name comes from the words Suddha Advaita, and the philosophy of Madhvacarya is purified dualism, and the name comes from the words Suddha Dvaita.
- Due to the rules of the Sanskrit language, Suddha Advaita is written as Suddhadvaita and Suddha Dvaita as Suddha-dvaita.
- The word "vada" means simply "doctrine", or "philosophy", so we can say Suddha-dvaita-vada, Suddha-dvaitavada, or simply Suddha-dvaita philosophy, the meaning is the same.
Nimbarka - Dvaitadvaita-vada (monism and dualism, oneness and difference)
- The philosophy of Nimbarka is called Dvaitadvaita-vada (monism and dualism, oneness and difference), and sits between the non-dualism of Sankaracarya and the purified dualism of Madhvacarya.
- The philosophy of Nimbarka is described in the Parijata Saurabh Bhasya, his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.
- According to him, the concepts of unity and differentiation between the Lord's energies are equally true, just like waves and the ocean or the sun and its rays.
- Both matter and souls are considered parts of God, although at the same time separated from him.
- According to him, the cause of bondage for the soul is contact with karma (material activities), which in turn results from ignorance.
- The process of salvation is through the uninterrupted worship of the Lord, and the ultimate goal is the realization of the eternal nature of the soul.
- The most important characteristic however is the worship of Radha and Krsna in a swakiya mood (conjugal love in marriage), with emphasis on sambhoga (union).
Different philosophical views
- In this way, all four Vaishnava acaryas wrote their commentaries on the Vedanta Sutra explaining their philosophical views.
- Although different in certain points, they all describe how the soul is on the one hand one with Krsna and on the other hand different from him, and thus the basic conclusion is the same.
- The soul is one with Krsna because is part of his spiritual potency, but at the same time, the soul is eternally an individual, who can't ever merge back into Krsna. The soul can only be temporarily put into His effulgence.
- This is the basis for the concepts of devotional service and spiritual rasas since there is no question of relationships with oneself. Relationship implies two, and therefore the distinction between the Lord and the soul is essential to establish the eternal relationship between them.
Srila Prabhupada mentions the four Vaishnava commentaries on the Vedanta Sutras in his purport to CC Antya-lila 2.95:
"The philosophers known as kevaladvaita-vadis generally occupy themselves with hearing the Sariraka-bhasya, a commentary by Sankaracarya advocating that one impersonally consider oneself the Supreme Lord. Such Mayavada philosophical commentaries upon the Vedanta-sutra are simply imaginary, but there are other commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra. The commentary by Srila Ramanujacarya, known as Sri-bhasya, establishes the visistadvaita-vada philosophy. Similarly, in the Brahma-sampradaya, Madhvacarya’s Purnaprajña-bhasya establishes suddha-dvaita-vada. In the Kumara-sampradaya or Nimbarka-sampradaya, Sri Nimbarka establishes the philosophy of dvaitadvaita-vada in the Parijata-saurabha-bhasya. And in the Visnu-svami-sampradaya, or Rudra-sampradaya, which comes from Lord Siva, Visnu Svami has written a commentary called Sarvajña-bhasya, which establishes suddhadvaita-vada.
A Vaisnava should study the commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra written by the four sampradaya-acaryas, namely Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami and Nimbarka, for these commentaries are based upon the philosophy that the Lord is the master and that all living entities are His eternal servants. One interested in studying Vedanta philosophy properly must study these commentaries, especially if he is a Vaisnava. These commentaries are always adored by Vaisnavas. The commentary by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati is elaborately given in the Adi-lila, Chapter Seven, text 101. The Mayavada commentary Sariraka-bhasya is like poison for a Vaisnava. It should not be touched at all. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura remarks that even a maha-bhagavata, or highly elevated devotee who has surrendered himself unto the lotus feet of Krsna, sometimes falls down from pure devotional service if he hears the Mayavada philosophy of the Sariraka-bhasya. This commentary should therefore be shunned by all Vaisnavas."
Acintya-bhedabheda-tattva and the Govinda-bhasya
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu perfectly adjusted the Visistadvaita-vada, Suddha-dvaitavada, Suddhadvaita-vada, and Dvaitadvaita-vada in His Acintya-bhedabheda-tattva philosophy, stating that the soul is inconceivably simultaneously one with and different from Krsna.
- The soul is one in terms of quality, being made of the same spiritual substance, but is different in the sense of quantity and also in the sense of being eternally a separate individual.
- The word "acintya" (inconceivable) has a very deep meaning, stating that a conditioned soul can't ascertain the nature of the absolute truth by just mental speculation and philosophical debate.
- To attain the truth, one has to go through the authority of Vedic knowledge, transmitted by pure devotees. One has thus to understand the truth not by his own capacity but by receiving it from transcendental sources.
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu also emphasized the importance of Srimad Bhagavatam, establishing it as the natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.
- Srimad Bhagavatam explains that all religious principles and the cultivation of knowledge culminate in the understanding of love of Godhead.
- Even Srila Vyasadeva himself was dissatisfied after compiling all the Vedic knowledge. Seeing him in this situation, his spiritual master, Narada Muni, ordered him to write a new treatise, exclusively describing the glories of devotional service and the pastimes of the Supreme Lord.
- Only by fulfilling this order through his work on the Srimad Bhagavatam did Vyasadeva attain satisfaction.
- This proves that only by practicing devotional service without motives and without being hampered by material conditions can one find true satisfaction. This is the highest principle of spiritual understanding.
- Although Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, when young, was fond of philosophical debate and was recognized as a great Pandita, He changed after being initiated in the chanting of the Maha-mantra.
- Instead of working to establish a sampradaya by writing His commentary on the Vedanta Sutra and challenging representatives of other schools, He concentrated on delivering this pure love of Godhead to people and teaching them the ultimate purpose of the Vedas: the process of devotional service.
- The task of writing books describing the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy in detail was given to the Six Goswamis of Vrindavana, who wrote a great quantity of literature, culminating with the Ṣaṭ-sandarbha, the six theses of Srila Jiva Goswami.
- In these six theses, the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy is very well explained according to the authority of the Vedas. Prabhupada gives a short summary of the six theses on his purport to CC Madhya 1.43.
- However, there was no specific Gaudiya Vaishnava commentary of the Vedanta Sutra until about three centuries ago, when an incident with followers of the Ramanuja sampradaya showed its need.
A Gaudiya Vaishnava commentary on the Vedanta-sutra
- The Ramanandis filed a complaint to the king of Jaipur arguing that since Gaudiya Vaishnavas didn't have a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, their sampradaya was not bonafide and thus they didn't have the right to worship the deity of Radha Govinda Deva.
- They argued thus that the worship of the deity should be given instead to representatives of the Sri Sampradaya.
- The king was himself a Gaudiya Vaishnava. He sent a messenger to Vrindavana informing the devotees of the challenge.
- At the time, Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura was too aged to travel, and apart from that he had made a vow not to leave the Radha-Kunda. Thus, he sent his disciple, Sri Baladeva to debate with them.
- Sri Baladeva met with the Ramanandis and presented very powerful arguments, establishing the Srimad Bhagavatam as the natural commentary of the Vedanta Sutra, composed by Srila Vyasadeva Himself.
- The Ramanandis were silenced by his argumentation, but they still refused to accept anything other than a direct commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.
- Determined to write a commentary to face the challenge, Sri Baladeva prayed to the deity of Sri Govinda to be empowered to write it. That night, the Lord appeared to him in a dream and told him he would personally dictate to Him a commentary that no one would be able to refute.
- Sri Baladeva began to write and completed the Sri Govinda-bhasya in just seven days. The Ramanandis were so impressed with his presentation that they presented him with the title Vidyabhushana (the ornament of knowledge).
- They also asked to be accepted as his disciples, but Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana politely refused, arguing that the Sri Sampradaya is one of the oldest sampradayas and is highly respected, and it would therefore be an offense on his part to do so.
- Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana received the mission of writing the Govinda-bhasya to reveal the full meaning of the Vedanta-sutra, according to the Acintya-bhedabheda-tattva philosophy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
- Srila Vyasadeva wrote the Brahma Sutras or Vedanta Sutras as a conclusion of the whole Vedic literature, and thus by properly understanding the commentary of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, we can properly understand the Vedas.
- In the process, we can learn to defeat all kinds of philosophies that try to cover the meaning of the scriptures with imaginary interpretations.
- Studying the Govinda-bhasya is important for all followers of Mahaprabu since it teaches the logical process by which the correct meaning of the scriptures can be understood.
- It is not just a book that contains blocks of information that one should memorize, but a book based on a flow of arguments and counterarguments on different passages of the scriptures that gradually explain the proper process of understanding the real meaning of the Vedas.
- Nowadays we frequently get involved in battles of quotes, with followers dividing into groups and using different sets of quotes from Srila Prabhupada or from different scriptures to sustain their points of view. This process is not new.
- For thousands of years, philosophers in India had been arguing based on the scriptures, sustaining their thesis with different passages from the Vedas. However, just as today, this process proved inconclusive.
- Different philosophic schools appeared, centered around diverse interpretations of the scriptures, and the same verses from the Upanishads could be used to sustain that Good is impersonal, that God is subservient to Karma, that there is no God, and so on.
- Even before the start of Kali-yuga, six different schools based on the Vedas already existed, and Vyasadeva had to refute them in the process of compiling the Vedas.
- One can't understand the correct meaning of the Vedas without following the proper process. This process, explained by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, is also the key to properly understanding the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.
An introduction to Vedanta Philosophy from the Vaishnava Perspective #4