Sankarite

Expressions researched:
"sankarite" |"sankarites"

SB Canto 2

SB 2.6.20, Purport:

The principles of nirvāṇa, as recommended by Lord Buddha, are also meant for ending the miserable life of material existence. And this process, in the highest degree, is recommended here in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, with clear perception of ideal perfection, although basically there is no difference between the process of Buddhists, Śaṅkarites and Vaiṣṇavites. For promotion to the highest status of perfection, namely freedom from birth and death, anxiety and fearfulness, not one of these processes allows the follower to break the vow of celibacy.

The householders and persons who have deliberately broken the vow of celibacy cannot enter into the kingdom of deathlessness. The pious householders or the fallen yogīs or the fallen transcendentalists can be promoted to the higher planets within the material world (one fourth of the energy of the Lord), but they will fail to enter into the kingdom of deathlessness. Abṛhad-vratas are those who have broken the vow of celibacy.

SB Canto 4

SB 4.21.27, Purport:

According to the Vedic system, one who does not abide by the orders of the Vedas is called a nāstika, or atheist. When Lord Buddha preached his theory of nonviolence, he was obliged to deny the authority of the Vedas, and for this reason he was considered by the followers of the Vedas to be a nāstika. But although Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu very clearly enunciated that the followers of Lord Buddha's philosophy are nāstikas, or atheists, because of their denial of the authority of the Vedas, He considered the Śaṅkarites, who wanted to establish Vedic authority by trickery and who actually followed the Māyāvāda philosophy of Buddha's school, to be more dangerous than the Buddhists themselves. The Śaṅkarite philosophers' theory that we have to imagine a shape of God is more dangerous than denial of the existence of God.

SB 4.28.40, Purport:

There are two types of Māyāvādī philosophers—the followers of the Buddhist philosophy and the followers of the Śaṅkara philosophy. The followers of Buddha do not recognize that there is anything beyond the body; the followers of Śaṅkara conclude that there is no separate existence of the Paramātmā, the Supersoul. The Śaṅkarites believe that the individual soul is identical with the Paramātmā in the ultimate analysis. But the Vaiṣṇava philosopher, who is perfect in knowledge, knows that the body is made of the external energy and that the Supersoul, the Paramātmā, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is sitting with the individual soul and is distinct from him. As Lord Kṛṣṇa states in Bhagavad-gītā (13.3):

CC Preface and Introduction

CC Foreword:

During this period of six years, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu transmits His teachings to His principal disciples. He debates and converts many of the renowned philosophers and theologians of His time, including Śaṅkarites, Buddhists, and Muslims, and incorporates their many thousands of followers and disciples into His own burgeoning numbers. The author also includes in this section a dramatic account of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's miraculous activities at the giant Ratha-yātrā (Car Festival) in Jagannātha Purī, Orissa.

The Antya-līlā concerns the last eighteen years of Śrī Caitanya's presence, spent in semiseclusion near the famous Jagannātha temple in Purī. During these final years, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya drifted deeper and deeper into trances of spiritual ecstasy unparalleled in all of religious and literary history, Eastern or Western.

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 4.60, Purport:

"Love of God" is an epithet for the pleasure potency of the Lord. Therefore devotional service reciprocated between the Lord and His devotee is an exhibition of the transcendental pleasure potency of the Lord.

The potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that always enriches Him with transcendental bliss is not material, but the Śaṅkarites have accepted it as such because they are ignorant of the identity of the Supreme Lord and His pleasure potency. Those ignorant persons cannot understand the distinction between impersonal spiritual bliss and the variegatedness of the spiritual pleasure potency. The hlādinī potency gives the Lord all transcendental pleasure, and the Lord bestows such a potency upon His pure devotee.

CC Adi 7.114, Purport:

Why the daivī-māyā, or illusory energy of Kṛṣṇa, takes away the knowledge of the Māyāvādī philosophers is also explained in the Bhagavad-gīta by the use of the words āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ, which refer to a person who does not agree to the existence of the Lord. The Māyāvādīs, who are not in agreement with the existence of the Lord, can be classified in two groups, exemplified by the impersonalist Śaṅkarites of Vārāṇasī and the Buddhists of Saranātha. Both groups are Māyāvādīs, and Kṛṣṇa takes away their knowledge due to their atheistic philosophies. Neither group agrees to accept the existence of a personal God. The Buddhist philosophers clearly deny both the soul and God, and although the Śaṅkarites do not openly deny God, they say that the Absolute is nirākāra, or formless. Thus both the Buddhists and the Śaṅkarites are aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ (SB 10.2.32), or imperfect and unclean in their knowledge and intelligence.

CC Adi 7.133, Purport:

Unfortunately, the Śaṅkarite interpretation has covered almost the entire world. Therefore there is a great need to present the original, easily understood natural import of the Vedic literature. We have therefore begun by presenting Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, and we propose to present all the Vedic literature in terms of the direct meaning of its words.

CC Adi 17.272, Purport:

At the end of His twenty-fourth year, at the end of the fortnight of the waxing moon, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu left Navadvīpa and crossed the river Ganges at a place known as Nidayāra-ghāṭa. Then He reached Kaṇṭaka-nagara, or Kāṭoyā (Katwa), where He accepted ekadaṇḍa-sannyāsa according to the Śaṅkarite system. Since Keśava Bhāratī belonged to the Śaṅkarite sect, he could not initiate Caitanya Mahāprabhu into the Vaiṣṇava sannyāsa order, whose members carry the tridaṇḍa.

Candraśekhara Ācārya assisted in the routine ceremonial work of the Lord's acceptance of sannyāsa. By the order of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, kīrtana was performed for the entire day, and at the end of the day the Lord shaved off His hair. On the next day He became a regular sannyāsī, with one rod (ekadaṇḍa). From that day on, His name was Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. Before that, He was known as Nimāi Paṇḍita.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 6.168, Purport:

Although the Buddhists are directly opposed to Vaiṣṇava philosophy, it can easily be understood that the Śaṅkarites are more dangerous because they accept the authority of the Vedas yet act contrary to Vedic instruction. Vedāśraya nāstikya-vāda means "agnosticism under the shelter of Vedic culture" and refers to the monistic philosophy of the Māyāvādīs. Lord Buddha abandoned the authority of the Vedic literature and therefore rejected the ritualistic ceremonies and sacrifices recommended in the Vedas. His nirvāṇa philosophy means stopping all material activities. Lord Buddha did not recognize the presence of transcendental forms and spiritual activities beyond the material world. He simply described voidism beyond this material existence.

CC Madhya 6.169, Purport:

Factually, the devotional service of the Lord is described in the Vedānta-sūtra, but the Māyāvādī philosophers, the Śaṅkarites, prepared a commentary known as Śārīraka-bhāṣya, in which the transcendental form of the Lord is denied. The Māyāvādī philosophers think that the living entity is identical with the Supreme Soul, Brahman. Their commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra are completely opposed to the principle of devotional service. Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore warns us to avoid these commentaries. If one indulges in hearing the Śaṅkarite Śārīraka-bhāṣya, he will certainly be bereft of all real knowledge.

CC Madhya 17.96, Purport:

Actually Vedānta philosophy is meant for the devotees because in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15) Lord Kṛṣṇa says, vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham: "I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas." Vyāsadeva is an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, and consequently Kṛṣṇa is the compiler of Vedānta philosophy. Therefore Kṛṣṇa clearly knows the purport of Vedānta philosophy. As stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, whoever hears Vedānta philosophy from Kṛṣṇa is actually aware of the real meaning of Vedānta. The Māyāvādīs call themselves Vedāntists but do not at all understand the purport of Vedānta philosophy. Not being properly educated, people in general think that Vedānta means the Śaṅkarite interpretation.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 2.12 -- New York, March 7, 1966:

So here is an authority, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Authority. His authority, authorityship, is accepted by all over the world. In, in our India there are five different disciplic succession of authorities, just like the Śaṅkarites, followers of Śaṅkarācārya, and Vaiṣṇavites. Generally, they are two: Māyāvādī, impersonalists; and personalists. The personalist school, philosophers, they are divided into four: Rāmānuja-sampradāya—that means followers of Ācārya Rāmānuja; Madhvācārya-sampradāya, or the followers of Madhvācārya; Nimbārka-sampradāya, followers of Nimbārka Ācārya; and Viṣṇu Svāmī-sampradāya. They, their conclusion is the same. Although they are four in number, their conclusion is the same. And another sect is Śaṅkarite sampradāya.

Lecture on BG 8.21-22 -- New York, November 19, 1966:

And where you shall do, what you shall do there? Some philosophers think that that spiritual atmosphere must be impersonal, impersonal, void. There are some philosophers, they think like that, that "There is. We accept the spiritual atmosphere." The impersonalists, Śaṅkarites, even the Buddhists, they also, some way or other, they accept that there is the voidness. But the Bhagavad-gītā does not disappoint you in that way. That voidness philosophy has created atheism. Because, just try to understand clearly, I am spiritual being. I want enjoyment. That is my life. I want enjoyment. But as soon as my future is void, I must be inclined to enjoy this material life. Therefore they simply discuss this voidness impersonalism, but they enjoy as much as possible this material life. Simply armchair philosophical discussion. But as soon as we see their behavior, they're too much attached with the material enjoyment. So that is simply you can enjoy some speculation. That's all.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.39-47 -- San Francisco, February 1, 1967:

Formerly there was no such animosities between the Hindus and the Buddhists. They were practically on the same platform, but philosophically they were different. Just like the Māyāvādīs, the followers of Śaṅkarite, they are still Hindus. They are not out of it. Similarly, Buddhists also were considered as Hindu. But when Buddha religion was completely driven away from India's boundary, then now it is considered another sect. So the Kāśī Māyāvādī means both the Buddhists and the followers of Śaṅkarites.

Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.149-171 -- San Francisco, March 18, 1967:

They have no information of the spiritual energy. They are called Māyāvādī. So chiefly the impersonalists and the void philosophers, they are called Māyāvādī, because they have no other information. They want to simply negate, nullify, but they have no positive information, so they are called Māyāvādī. So the Śaṅkarites... Śaṅkarites, of course, they give positive information. Brahma satya jagan mithyā. They say that this world is false and Brahman is reality. But because we want reality in variety, therefore impersonal philosophy, although we take it as a matter of sectarian philosophy, it does not appeal to the heart because by nature we want enjoyment. And whenever there is question of enjoyment, there must be variety. Variety is the mother of enjoyment.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

The discussion was going with Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, a follower of the Śaṅkarite philosophy. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu has given Vedic evidences that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His form, transcendental form, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, but His form is not material. That is the opinion of Śaṅkarācārya. Nārāyaṇa para avyaktāt: "Nārāyaṇa, He is transcendental to this creation." So in... With reference to this material creation, He is impersonal. But when we speak of the spiritual world, He is a person, sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (Bs. 5.1). Ṣaḍ-aiśvarya pūrṇa, pūrṇānanda vigraha yāṅhāra.

Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971:

With rose, some green foliage, some grass, inferior quality, it looks very beautiful. So when there is question (of) ānanda... Because Kṛṣṇa has got form, sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha (Bs. 5.1), eternal, cit, full of knowledge, and full of ānanda, bliss. Ānandamayo 'bhyāsāt, Vedānta-sūtra says. The Lord is ānanda-mayo. This māyā-prātyaya, there is controversy between the Śaṅkarites and the Vaiṣṇavas. They say that māyā-prātyaya... This prātyaya, from Sanskrit verbal root, is affixed in two cases—when there is excess and when there is transformation. So either cases, the ānanda, or the blissful nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is extensive, unlimited. Prācurya. Prācurya means extensive. So ṣaḍ-aiśvarya pūrṇānanda vigrahaḥ yāṅhāra. Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that one who has got transcendental form, full of ānanda... Hena bhagavāne tumi kaha nirākāra. And you think of such Personality of Godhead as impersonal, how it is possible? Without being person, there cannot be ānanda anubhava. Just like we are persons. We can feel pains and pleasure.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Thomas Henry Huxley:

Hayagrīva: His understanding was the understanding of the Sankarites, that the ātmā is imprisoned in the body. When the man is enlightened and sees apparent reality as mere illusion, the bubble of illusion will burst, and the freed individual ātmān will lose itself in the universal brahman.

Prabhupāda: Then that does not mean that the ātmā becomes the paramātmā. Just like a drop of water, you put into the sea, it mixes with the sea. It is not mixing. Now suppose it is mixing, but that does not mean that the drop of water has become the sea. He is mixed with the seawater, but that, that does not mean he is the sea. He was not sea before, and after dropping him in the sea, he remains as what he was, but he is mixed up in the sea. Just like an airplane is flying, you see, and going higher and higher, and going very high you do not see. That doesn't mean the airplane is lost. You do not see. So these Sankarites' proposal is defective. Just like a green bird enters a tree but you do not see the bird anymore. You simply foolishly think that he has become one with the tree. But that is foolishness. He keeps his individuality, but your defective eyes cannot see him anymore. The Sankarite theory is like that, a defective understanding, that the individual soul merges into the Supreme. He keeps always his individuality. The foolish man cannot see how he has merged or existing.

1973 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation with Sanskrit Professor, Dr. Suneson -- September 5, 1973, Stockholm:

Prabhupāda: Prakṣepātmikā.

Pradyumna: "...śakti, the power to throw the living entity in the ocean of material existence, and āvaraṇātmikā-śakti, the power to cover the knowledge of the living entity. The function of the āvaraṇātmikā-śakti is explained the Bhagavad-gītā by the word: māyayāpahṛta-jñāna. Why the daivī-māyā, or illusory energy of Kṛṣṇa takes away the knowledge of the Māyāvādī philosophers is also explained in Bhagavad-gītā by the use of the words āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ, which refer to a person who does not agree to the existence of the Lord. The Māyāvādīs, who are not in agreement with the existence of the Lord, can be classed in two groups, exemplified by the impersonalists Śaṅkarites of Vārāṇasī and the Buddhists of Saranātha. Both of them are Māyāvādīs, and Kṛṣṇa takes away their knowledge due to their atheistic philosophies. Neither of them agree to accept the existence of a personal God. The Buddhist philosophers clearly deny, clearly deny both the soul and God, and although the Śaṅkarites do not openly deny God, they say that the Absolute is nirākāra, or formless. Thus both of them are aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ (SB 10.2.32), or imperfect and unclean in their knowledge and intelligence."

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

Morning Walk -- April 5, 1974, Bombay:

Prabhupāda: No, no. No, no. He has accepted Kṛṣṇa, sa bhagavān svayaṁ kṛṣṇaḥ. He has accepted. You have read, Bhagavad-gītā. He has accepted.

Dr. Patel: Yes, I have read it.

Prabhupāda: Then why the Śaṅkarites will not accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead? (break) ...destructful question that Vedas and Purāṇas...? No. Śaṅkarācārya accepted. If you are real follower of Śaṅkarācārya, you accept Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Indian man (2): Śaṅkarācārya also accepted Śiva also. Śiva and Kṛṣṇa is non-different.

Dr. Patel: No, don't say that. (Hindi) (laughter)

Prabhupāda: They worship Viṣṇu. They worship Viṣṇu.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation with Professor Francois Chenique -- August 5, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm):

Prabhupāda: That attitude will help him. That humbleness, that "I cannot follow," that will help.

Bhūgarbha: He says he has a tendency more of a jñānī, and his training has been according to Śaṅkarite and also Buddhist lines. But still he appreciates very much bhakti, and he is very happy to meet the devotees, and at the same time he's very depressed to meet all these intellectuals who know so many things but cannot understand anything.

Prabhupāda: Without becoming jñānī, nobody can become bhakta. Without knowledge, if one has become bhakta, he's sentimentalist. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, find out this verse. Samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām (BG 18.54).

Room Conversation on New York court case -- November 2, 1976, Vrindaban:

Prabhupāda: That Bhavan's Journal, he did not dare to publish my statement. Everyone is combined to kill Kṛṣṇa. Everyone, all over the world. God... "There is no God," the scientists, these philosophers, the politicians, everyone. This is the only movement talking of God. Nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādī. Everywhere, impersonalists and zero. There is no God. The zero-vādīs, they are little frank but these rascals, nirviśeṣavādīs, God has no head, no tail, they are dangerous. Zero-vādīs, they call him zero, that's alright. That is, we can understand, they admit. But these rascals, zero, nirviśeṣavādīs, "Yes, there is God, but He has no head, he has no tail, he has no hand, he has no leg." Then what he has? They are greatest cheater. More dangerous than the śūnyavādīs. That is the version of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Vedinam mayima bhogda hoila nāstik, vedāśraya, nāstikavāda bhogda ki hodi. These Buddhists, they do not care for the Vedic injunction. We can understand. But these Śankarites they take shelter of the Vedas and they say, "There is no form of God." And that is being followed (by) the so-called Hindus. All the invitees in that meeting, Bajaj meeting, they are all nirviśeṣvādī.

1977 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation -- November 2, 1977, Vrndavana:

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Bhavānanda: Purport: "Factually the devotional service of the Lord is described in Vedānta-sūtra, but the Māyāvādī philosophers, the Śaṅkarites, prepared a commentary known as Śārīraka-bhāṣya, in which the transcendental form of the Lord is denied. The Māyāvādī philosophers think that the living entity is identical with the Supreme Soul, Brahman. Their commentaries on Vedānta-sūtra are completely opposed to the principle of devotional service. Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore warns us to avoid these commentaries. If one indulges in hearing the Śaṅkarite Śārīraka-bhāṣya, he will certainly be bereft of all real knowledge. The ambitious Māyāvādī philosophers desire to merge into the existence of the Lord, and this may be accepted as sāyujya-mukti. However, this form of mukti means denying one's individual existence. In other words, it is a kind of spiritual suicide. This is absolutely opposed to the philosophy of bhakti-yoga. Bhakti-yoga offers immortality to the individual conditioned soul. If one follows the Māyāvādī philosophy, he misses his opportunity to become immortal after giving up the material body. The immortality of the individual person is the highest perfectional stage a living entity can attain."

1947 to 1965 Correspondence

Letter to Mr. Bailey -- Allahabad 2 October, 1951:

The Ramakrishna mission although it does not come out of the above six schools of philosophers—generally they prefer to call themselves as Sankarites or belonging to the Mayavada school. Interpretations of Vedanta made by them are neither Mayavada nor Satvatta. They have their own interpretation different from the Vyasa school of philosophers.

Other Acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhva etc and lately Sri Caitanya—all belong to the original Vedantist school by direct disciplic succession.

1972 Correspondence

Letter to Atreya Rsi -- Nairobi 26 January, 1972:

You speak of impersonalism. We welcome all impersonalists to come because if they are real impersonalists they will see that our Society is perfect and complete. Ramanujacarya is considered to be very stalwart acharya simply because he completely defeated the impersonalism of Sankaracarya. And even to this day in India, especially in the south, the followers of Ramanujacarya and Sankaracarya engage in talks and always the Sankarites are defeated. But most of the so-called impersonalists of today are rogues.

You may adopt this principle, that whatever conditions increases your facility to preach this Krishna Consciousness Movement should be accepted. If we accept this all of these discouragements etc. . . will disappear.