The greatest spiritual accomplishment would be absolute surrender at the lotus feet of Krsna, becoming the ground for him to tread on.

The people who have done so (like the Goswamis and the guru-parampara) are the ones who originally differentiated Gaudiya Vaisnavism from other paths and who consistently point out the supremacy of bhakti and the flaws of other paths. Of course the distinction between them and ordinary sadhakas is that they did so without any tinge of material ego involved; it was their bhava that motivated them.

Fault finding is a hindrance but my whole point (which I thought was rather non-abrasive) is that the typical Perennialist stance is inaccurate and therefore misleading, and that my saying so was not a fault, but a progression towards a realistic assessment. After all, there are differences, and if we are to navigate in the world and progress spiritually—and try to assist others—we have to use our head.

I see things a little differently. I don’t think that the perennialist stance is ‘inaccurate.’ It is more incomplete, from a GV perspective.

We have heard the analogy of brahman realization being like the sun rays and that paramatma and bhagavan realizations are happening at a more intimate level within the sun planet, interacting with the sun god.
Sticking with a geographical analogy, compared to post-modernism, perennialists and GV are at least in the same continent. They just share a different zip code.

So I feel that GV agrees with perennialist paradigm to the degree that we both agree that spiritual life is related with the ‘sun.’ We just disagree on the *aspect* of the sun we are focussing on.
So in that sense, both the perennialist paradigm and GV share a common philosophical vocabulary when we are talking about detachment from the material world. It is because we share a very close common vocabulary that a lot of Gaudia Vaishnava acharyas offer many warnings that it might by confusing to distinguish how the two are different.
But in our modern era that is primarily dominated my materialistic nihilism, let us not lose sight to how much they are similar.
I doubt that perennialists and GVs will differ much in both admitting that our nature is spirit and not the body. Where we differ is more about how we express as the ultimate nature of our spiritual nature.

GV and perennialist paradigm have more similarities than differnces. Looking at the dominant nihilistic and materialistic philosophies that are dominating many aspects of modern life, it is in the best interest for both GVs and perennialsts to strategically seek common ground to fight a common enemy, materialsim, which is threatening to gobble up both. Let us be aware of the differences, but not lose sight of the larger focus and co-operation needed by engaging in divisive hair-splitting.

Even a small spiritual sect of GV cannot maintain co-operation in this world with say 10,000 people so it is hard to imagine room for zillion personalities having proximity to krsna and knowing each other.

I think we have to take responsibility for the damage done by others and rectify their mistakes. It is impossible to dissociate yourself from people who have represented your tradition. That is just my personal opinion and I know most people don’t agree with it.

I was not speaking in a historical context and frankly I don’t think it is wrong for Vaishnavas to be so opposed to monism if their motives are not self-assertion and they can articulate the philosophy underlying it, such as all the prominent Vaishnava acharyas have done. I know there are those out there who bash monists because of a need for an us-and-them faith boost, but should others have to stay silent on their behalf?