Can we say Mahaprabhu’s teachings are the culmination of all previous teachings?

Podcast:

Question: Can we say that Mahaprabhu’s teachings are the perfect reconciliation and culmination of all scriptures, philosophies, and teachings of the various Priya Sampradaya Acharyas? Can we say this?

Answer: Of course, we can say that—nobody can stop us from saying it. But can we establish that claim? That is a formidable task. Our Acharyas, at different points in history, have tried to establish this. For example, Bhaktivedanta Swami has spoken about how Mahaprabhu drew from the teachings of the four Vaishnava Sampradayas. Yoga Swami discussed how Achintya Vedanta reconciles the Advaitic and Dvaita philosophies. So, such attempts have been made, and we can also try to do so according to our capacity.

However, it depends on whom we are addressing and the level of substantiation required. At the level of philosophy and especially the history of philosophy, almost every tradition claims a similar status.

This phenomenon is not unique to the Vedic tradition. For example, Islam claims that Judaism and Christianity were previous revelations, but that Mohammed’s revelation of the Quran is the final and perfect one. Similarly, Vidyaranya, a prominent Advaita teacher, tried to show how all schools of thought culminate in Shankaracharya’s Advaita Vedanta. Even within Advaita Vedanta, there are many variations, and he presented his interpretation as the highest understanding.

Saint Augustine, one of the first prominent Christian theologians, re-envisioned Roman history and thought so that Jesus’s teachings—or more precisely, his reading of those teachings—were the highest truth. Such claims are made by prominent teachers in every tradition.

For those well-read in religious history, such claims alone don’t carry much weight because backing them with reasoning and scriptural authority always leads to multiple opinions and interpretations.

The sad reality is that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is highly underrepresented in the overall history of Indian philosophy. Most academic books on Indian philosophy barely mention Gaudiya Vaishnavism, for several reasons:

1. The tradition never had a huge following compared to other schools.
2. Bhakti was often seen as sentimental rather than philosophical.
3. For various historical reasons, the Gaudiya tradition did not become as influential or defining of the Indian religious landscape as other traditions.

Because of these factors, establishing the claim that Mahaprabhu’s teachings are the perfect culmination is a formidable task.

Having said that, we must consider our audience and purpose. Will making this claim attract people to surrender to Krishna in the tradition of Mahaprabhu? If yes, then wonderful—we should make that claim, with the necessary backing depending on how much the audience requires.

But if, among the audience, such a claim cannot be followed up or substantiated, then we may come off as religious supremacists who only claim that their religion is the greatest, potentially causing division and conflict. In such cases, it might be wiser to avoid such statements.

As far as our personal faith is concerned, we certainly accept that Mahaprabhu’s teachings are the highest.

How central it is for us to gain the intellectual conviction or substantiation to take this forward depends on the person. Ultimately, our primary focus should be on remembering Krishna. If this philosophical analysis deepens our conviction to remember Krishna, that is wonderful. Otherwise, it can remain a matter of faith without obsessing over intellectual proof.

It will be the responsibility of the theologians of our tradition—not only past but also contemporary scholars—to engage in the massive intellectual enterprise required to systematically back up this claim.

We can have some simple frameworks or analyses to establish this, but they do not represent the complete understanding.

So yes, depending on our intellectual capacities, particular services, and audiences, we can decide what to emphasize in our presentation of Krishna consciousness.

In my understanding, more important than the claim of reconciliation or culmination of all preceding systems of thought is to focus on:

• The transformative potency of the teachings
• The sweetness of the revelation of Krishna
• The power of chanting the holy names
• The overall accessibility and rationality of the practices and presentation

These are the things that people today look for—what is likely to add value to their lives and inspire them to take to Krishna consciousness.

Thank you.