[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Move over Acaryas... Make Way for Ken Stuart!
I am getting too busy to carry on in this discussion because frankly I am
finding it to be quite fruitless, and besides I have much more important
services to be involved in. Let me end here with some concluding observations.
1) Ken Stuart denies he is an advaitin. According to him, we are not all one
now, but we do all become one in the end. So basically, Ken's philosophy
(which he claims is visistadvaita) is simply another incarnation of
advaita/mayavadi philosophy. Ultimately, it denies the possibility of having
a personal relationship with God, because it states that we ultimately get
merged back into God at the time of liberation. It is an impersonalist
philosophy.
2) Ken Stuart claims that his philosophy is visistadvaita. Perhaps he read
some advaitin's description of visistadvaita, and decided that, just to be
different, he would call himself a visistadvaitin. Well, the unfortunate
reality is that the real visistadvaitins (the followers of Ramanuja) don't
agree with his philosophy. They don't accept that Shiva is the same as
Vishnu, nor do they accept that the plurality of jivas is only temporary.
So, why does Ken continue to insist that he is a visistadvaitin?
Well, I suppose if I were trying to lend credibility to my own favorite
philosophy, I might try to piggy back it on the name of an already,
established school of Vedanta. But the fact is that this is dishonest. Ken
Stuart is not a disciple in Ramanuja's line, nor does he actually accept
that philosophy. He is simply using the philosophy of other acaryas as a
springboard to teach his own ideas (or maybe his gurus established this
precedent).
3) In fact, Ken does not stop there. At several points, Ken has attempted to
quote other Vaishnava acaryas and scriptures to support his philosophy. His
attitude is not that of a humble disciple, who remains at the feet of the
guru, but rather one who puts his feet on the guru's head in order to outdo
the guru. For example, Ken tries to argue that his philosophy of the souls
merging into one God is compatible with the philosophy of Gaudia
Vaishnavism. But Srila Prabhupada has EXPLICITLY stated in his Gita Bhasya
that the souls remain eternally individual (I have posted the relevant
excerpts). What Ken is essentially trying to do is argue that he has some
kind of higher understanding of the Truth than the acaryas do. But, in order
to lend credibility to his philosophy, he does not want to say that the
acaryas are wrong (this would be sheer hubris). Instead, he simply implies
that his understanding is more complete.
Either way, Ken is still left with the problem of authenticating his
philosophy. The points he is making (on the identity of Shiva/Vishnu, on the
merging of souls, etc) have been EXPLICITLY refuted by the Vaishnava acaryas
(including Ramanuja). So, Ken cannot claim that his philosophy is compatible
with theirs. In that case, what makes him think he is right and the
Vaishnava acaryas are wrong? Ken still has not provided the details of the
parampara that he represents. He has simply been content to argue that there
is more than one authentic parampara. But why should anyone accept that his
parampara is authentic? Srila Prabhupada's parampara is given in BG As It
Is. Where is the information on Ken Stuart's parampara?
If a person cannot provide the details of his parampara when asked, then his
philosophy should be immediately rejected. No genuine acarya would neglect
to record and preserve his disciplic succession; he can only be taken
seriously if he can show how his teachings have come to him from the Lord.
Of course, Ken, in an attempt to stall, might argue that one could lie about
one's parampara. That is possible, but that is also why you have the system
of guru, sadhu, and sastra to legitimate the parampara. At least one can say
for sure that if a person cannot provide the parampara of his spiritiual
tradition, then it follows that there is no way it could have been an
authentic parampara coming from God. Think about it; if your family were
descendents of a great historical personality, would you be lax in keeping
the records of the family tree? Why should it be any less with God?
So, if Ken wants us to take his philosophy seriously, he has to at least
provide the parampara. I certainly won't even consider further responses
until his parampara is provided.
4) Fourth, and final point: I would like to address this ultra-new system of
Vedanta argument which Ken has introduced. It is known as the Why/Why Not
maneuver. Ken's way of making a point is to make some controversial
statement. Then when I show how that statement can't be true by providing a
counter-example, Ken simply asserts that both the statement and its
contradiction are both true. When challenged about how this can be, he
simply says "why not?" and pats himself on the back for his original thinking.
The fact is that in any debate, the burden of proof falls on the person
making an assertion that is not intuitively obvious. Ken says that Vishnu
and Shiva are the same. But the Vaishnava acaryas say otherwise. I have also
shown Ken many places in the scriptures were Shiva is seen as subordinate to
Vishnu, which Ken accepted. But still he ignores the obvious conclusion and
says they are the same, and thinks it rests on me to show otherwise. This is
foolish logic; using that same sentiment one could just as easily "prove"
that all the other demigods are the same as Vishnu. Why does Ken insist that
Shiva and Vishnu are the same when the Acaryas and the scriptures say
otherwise? How is this that Ken can be right and Ramanujacarya and other
greats are wrong? I don't know of any Vaishnavas who insist that we should
all pay homage to the Ken Stuart parampara...
regards,
-- HKS
Follow-Ups:
