ISKCON's Hari Parshada Attacking Acharyas Update

krishna1008: ISKCON ICC Attacks Srila Prabhupada's Rasa

JND: This member of ISKCON's Shastric Advisory Council (Hari Parshada Das) thinks Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya explained impersonal brahman in their Vedanta Sutra bhashyas, and that's why he says they show jnana mudra.
This person is clueless. How can ISKCON keep such people as "scholars", who think that Ramanujacharya explained about the impersonal brahman and not about Bhagavan Sriman Narayana.

[PADA: Explains why Urmila wanted Hari Parshada Dasa's name removed from a blog, she hand picks these foolish half-wits to be the leaders of ISKCON's scholarly community. And even she knows, they are clueless.]

Brahman of the Vedanta Sutra is the absolute truth Sri Hari, and that is what all Vaishnava acharyas have explained in their Vedanta commentaries.

Srila Prabhupada states very clearly that the Vedanta Sutra commentaries by vaishnava acharyas such as Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya are not about impersonal brahman, but about devotional service to the Lord:

"Besides Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, there are commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra composed by all the major Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, and in each of them devotional service to the Lord is described very explicitly. Only those who follow Śaṅkara's commentary have described the Vedānta-sūtra in an impersonal way, without reference to viṣṇu-bhakti, or devotional service to the Lord, Viṣṇu." - Srila Prabhupada purport to Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi Lila 7.106

For his further evidence against the use of jnana mudra he posts a cartoon drawing of Ramanuja saying he should be shown like this, not with jnana mudra, when Ramanuja's OWN BODY is showing jnana mudra in his samadhi at Sri Rangam.

So which to believe? The cartoon drawing Hari Parshada Das shows us, or Ramanujacharya's own body?

Its funny how first he explains that Ramanujacharya showed jnana mudra because "he was explaining impersonal brahman", then a few seconds later says actually Ramanucharya should be shown as a devotee with folded hands as per the cartoon, and not with jnana mudra. He can't even figure out what argument he is defending.

Srimad Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, given by the same author, Srila Vyasadeva. The vaishnava acharyas who preach the message of the Bhagavatam are teaching the highest conclusion of Vedanta. This is the meaning of the name "Bhaktivedanta", they have presented the devotional conclusion of Vedanta.

Anyone who has read Srila Prabhupada's books will be aware that the Vedanta Sutra begins with the aphorism athato brahma jijnasa, "now therefore let us inquire into brahman", followed by the identification of who that brahman is, "janmady asya yatah", from whom everything emanates. The Srimad Bhagavatam begins at this point, explaining who is that person from whom everything emanates (Bhagavan Vasudeva):

oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
janmādy asya yato ’nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ
tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ
tejo-vāri-mṛdāṁ yathā vinimayo yatra tri-sargo ’mṛṣā
dhāmnā svena sadā nirasta-kuhakaṁ satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi

The "brahma" of the Vedanta Sutra's first aphorism is none other than Bhagavan Sri Krishna (Sri Vasudeva) as stated clearly in the first verse of Srimad Bhagavatam. It does not refer to the impersonal brahman as Hari Parshada Das claims.

In the following quote (lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.25), Srila Prabhupada says, "All the Vaiṣṇava---Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya---they are also Vedāntist. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is Vedāntist. We are also Vedāntist. It is not that Vedānta is the monopoly of the impersonalists":

"Now, the most authentic śāstra is Vedānta. Vedānta is accepted by all classes of men. Because without accepting Vedānta, nobody will be bona fide. Generally they think that the impersonalists are Vedāntists. Generally they think; but that's a wrong conception. They... All the Vaiṣṇava---Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya---they are also Vedāntist. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is Vedāntist. We are also Vedāntist. It is not that Vedānta is the monopoly of the impersonalists. 

"No. Now, the Vedānta, in the beginning it is, the first sūtra is, athāto brahma jijñāsā: so to inquire about Brahman, the Absolute. Now, the next answer is janmādy asya yataḥ [SB 1.1.1]. Brahman, the Absolute Truth, is that from whom everything emanates. Janmādy asya yataḥ. Now, this janmādy asya yataḥ is explained in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Therefore Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is explained by Vyāsadeva himself. Vyāsadeva is explaining Vedānta-sūtra in his book, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Bhāṣyaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām. Śrī Vyāsadeva says, "This is the real comment, or bhāṣya, of Vedānta-sūtra, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." Therefore Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava, Gosvāmīs, they did not write any comment on the Vedānta-sūtra because they accept Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. 

"So why they should write again? But still, when there was such question raised in Jaipur that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava has no commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, at that time, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, he wrote Govinda-bhāṣya on Vedānta-sūtra. But still, Vedānta-sūtra does not mean to understand impersonalism. No. That's not the fact." - Srila Prabhupada lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.25

[PADA: First of all, the ISKCON ICC already promotes a guru parampara that contains illicit sex with men, women and children, and maybe cats. And their acharyas have been found engaged in drinking vodka, having sex with half dozen disciples, taking LSD, offering hash hish to the shalagram and etc. So now they are attacking the bona fide acharyas by saying they are bogus, and tinged with mayavada. In other words, pedophile acharyas are bona fide, bona fide acharyas are bogus. That is their end game all along since 1978.]