Google
Web         Gaudiya Discussions
Gaudiya Discussions Archive » PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
Discussions on the doctrines of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Please place practical questions under the Miscellaneous forum and set this aside for the more theoretical side of it.

Treating scripture as evidence - The fundamental dynamics of evincing



Madhava - Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:54:24 +0530
The scriptures are fairly unequivocal about their being the ultimate evidence in matters of spirituality.

However, evidence serves little purpose if it is not given a meaning, if it is not put into an appropriate context where its relevance becomes evident and the underlying reasons for the truth of the statement shine forth.

As human beings within a world observed through the senses, we are accustomed to depending on sense perceptions and subsequent reasoning deducted from repeated patterns of perceptions. Therefore, when evaluating a teaching that comes from above our realm of experiences, we are by our very nature conditioned to assess the relevance and accuracy of the evidence through examination of its parallels with perception and reason.

Evidence has little meaning on its own; by its nature, it is intended to bring about a change of conception in the hearer. Indeed, if that were not the case, mere silence would suffice, since things are by their nature whatever they are independent of description or proof. As evidence by its fundamental nature exists for the sake of enhancing an individual's understanding, it is only befitting that evidence be presented in such a way as to serve its original intent.

Therefore, as we present the evidence of scripture, we would do well to present it in a way befitting the audience, so as to let it serve its nature. Scriptural evidence must be made relevant to the audience through interlinking it with topics from within their realm of experiences. Though scripture remains valid evidence even without this being done, it serves little purpose inasmuch as it does not illuminate the consciousness of the hearer with the light of increased insight.

Sometimes when we delve deep into the fundamentals of evidence, examining the reasons for its validity and indeed sometimes questioning its validity altogether to provoke insights into its basis, it is perceived as unwelcome, arrogant or even outright offensive. However, I wish we could all come to understand that evidence must be examined and understood to make it serve its original purpose.

The topic is actually a bit parallel with the topic of dogmatism, but I believe it nevertheless deserves a separate thread.
dauji - Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:12:16 +0530
It seems that evidence, if it is to be successfully presented, must appeal to some objective truth—one established by a particular group excepting a respective paradigm. When presenting evidence, citizens appeal to the law; religious persons appeal to scripture.

Giving people some insight into an entirely different framework of thought is the tricky part. Naturally one would need to make scriptural evidence "relevant to the audience through interlinking it with topics from within their realm of experiences"— a bridge, if you will, between paradigms. For instance, I believe this is what Bhaktivedanta Swami attempted to do within his teachings. He presented a philosophy with which his audience was largely unfamiliar, but he appealed to logic and other means that were within the realm of experience of his readers.

Gradually, in this way, concepts that are initially incomprehensible become more accessible.
dauji - Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:39:51 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 10 2004, 12:24 AM)
Sometimes when we delve deep into the fundamentals of evidence, examining the reasons for its validity and indeed sometimes questioning its validity altogether to provoke insights into its basis, it is perceived as unwelcome, arrogant or even outright offensive. However, I wish we could all come to understand that evidence must be examined and understood to make it serve its original purpose.

I think people get a little sensitive when the basis of their reality is scrutinized and questioned. It can be threatening for those not prepared to make such a close examination. It's obvious here how the topic relates to the issue of dogma.
dirty hari - Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:03:21 +0530
I like the way Sridhar Maharaja spoke on this:

QUOTE
Slaves of the Truth

We are slaves of the truth. We are beggars for the pure current of truth that is constantly flowing: the fresh current. We are not charmed by any formality. I will bow down my head wherever I find the river of nectar coming down to me. When one is conscious that the Absolute Truth is descending to him from the highest domain, he will think, "I must surrender myself here."

Mahaprabhu says to Ramananda Raya, kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya, yei krsna-tattva vetta sei guru haya. "Wherever the truth appears, wherever the nectar of divine ecstasy descends, I shall offer myself as a slave. That is my direct concern." Whatever form it takes doesn't matter much; the form has some value, but if there is any conflict, the inner spirit of a thing should be given immense value over its external cover. Otherwise, if the spirit has gone away, and the bodily connection gets the upper hand, our so-called spiritual life becomes sahajiya, a cheap imitation.

When we are conscious of the real substance of Krsna consciousness, the real wealth we are receiving from our spiritual master, then our spiritual life cannot be sahajiyaism, imitationism. We must be aware enough to detect our guru's advice when we find it in another. One who is awake will see, "Here is my guru's advice, I find it here in this man. Somehow or other, it has come here. How, I do not know, but I see my guru's characteristics, his dealings, and behavior in this person." When we are able to recognize a thing for its intrinsic value, then, wherever we find it, we cannot neglect it.
Madhava - Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:12:30 +0530
And silence prevails. Alas, so much groaning over not accepting zAstra as evidence, and now that there is a topic dedicated to examining how exactly we ought to present zAstra so as to allow it to fulfill its intent, there are hardly any comments at all.
vamsidas - Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:05:20 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 11 2004, 01:42 PM)
And silence prevails. Alas, so much groaning over not accepting zAstra as evidence, and now that there is a topic dedicated to examining how exactly we ought to present zAstra so as to allow it to fulfill its intent, there are hardly any comments at all.

Madhavaji,

May I ask for your patience? Some topics require careful consideration, if one is going to offer a response that others may find helpful and/or thought-provoking. I would rather see the quantity of posts decline a little bit, if this would enhance the quality of posts.

Yes, it would be ideal to have both quality and quantity. But if I were forced to choose, I would rather read (and post) just a few well-considered responses, instead of a flood of "me too" or off-topic responses.

Even so, in my next post I'll try to say something useful.
Jagat - Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:32:35 +0530
Me, too. No seriously. I was thinking the same thing. There has been quite a flurry of activity over the last couple of days. And Bangli might have a point--there are other things in life besides Gaudiya Discussions!
Madhava - Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:57:08 +0530
All well, let us take the time and respond in peace. I have opened several new topics which target the core issues that seem to be at the root of the recent disagreements. Whenever the dust settles, let us dispassionately review whether there is all that much that we need to disagree on in the end after all.
Madanmohan das - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:56:36 +0530
In sub-division 9 of Sri Jiva's Tattva Sandarbha it says;

"Now in order to determine the meaning of those topics just alluded to, namely, sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana.........the standard of valid knowledge will be duly decided.
"Since people are subject to four kinds of defects, confusion,etc., and more importantly, since they are incapable of grasping the essential inconcievable nature of the reality, ocular perception will prove unreliable in this realm."

Then he deliberates and concludes the super excellence of the holy Bhagavat as the only perfect and valid testemony (praman) upon which all propositions (prameya) are based.

Sri Jiva also explains the four defects thus,
1.Bhram ;confusion
2.pramad ; inadvertance
3.vipralipsa; deception
4. karanapatav; incapacity of the senses.
Baladev the wise further defines;
"Bhram is that understanding due to which one sees something which is not actually there, such as when he sees a person while looking at a tree stump. Pramad is inadvertance or absent mindedness, due to which one does not notice a song sung nearby. Vipralipsa is the desire to decieve, due to which a teacher might conceal something from his student which he himself knows. Karanapatav is dullness of the senses due to which one might fail to correctly recognise an object even though giving it his full attention."
Advaitadas - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:14:17 +0530
QUOTE
Sri Jiva also explains the four defects thus,

1.Bhram ;confusion
2.pramad ; inadvertance
3.vipralipsa; deception
4. karanapatav; incapacity of the senses.
Baladev the wise further defines;

"Bhram is that understanding due to which one sees something which is not actually there, such as when he sees a person while looking at a tree stump. Pramad is inadvertance or absent mindedness, due to which one does not notice a song sung nearby. Vipralipsa is the desire to decieve, due to which a teacher might conceal something from his student which he himself knows. Karanapatav is dullness of the senses due to which one might fail to correctly recognise an object even though giving it his full attention."


That is just what I wanted-to-quote-but-was-too-lazy-to-look-up when I opposed the proposition of tweaking of Rule nr. 1 of the Board rules.

Now that I'm at it, to avoid any (further) degradation of this pristine site, I would like to propose the addition of one board rule:

"Poster shall not promote vices that are generally considered opposed to the spiritual advancement of the Gaudiya, namely intoxications, illicit sex, gambling and consumption or production of non vegetarian food."
How about it, Madhava?
Madhava - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:23:13 +0530
I'll post the suggestion into the thread where the rules are being discussed. Further comments on that should go there.
nabadip - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:32:49 +0530
Shastra are for shastra-wallas, certainly not for people looking for solutions. Shastra requires the luxury of time to study it deeply after knowing the language, and discuss it with a learned friend. The thought that today shastra is the ultimate guide for everyone, is unrealistic. If I have a shastric problem, I'll ask you, Advaitadas, Madhava, Jagat: the experts.

Shastra is used to back up a position. Not for a dynamic life.

It is the same with logic. Dauji is fooling himself if he believes that people became devotees because they were convinced by logic. They were convinced by many other things, but certainly not logic. (They would not have joined if the logic had been served to them by mail, on a distant-learning basis.) Most joined because of the exotic beauty, the kind of life-style, the prasad... exactly what d.h.'s quote of B. R. Sridhar says about Sri Gauranga: truth as divine ecstasy. No thank you to dry learning. wink.gif
Advaitadas - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:44:51 +0530
QUOTE
Shastra is used to back up a position. Not for a dynamic life.


I strongly disagree with that. Just look at Gita 2.62-63, and that is just one of myriads of examples of timeless truths, regardless of time place or circumstances. Shastra lives, forever, and it is reality eternal.
nabadip - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:12:55 +0530
Sure it lives. But not as a gun pointed at people's heads.
Advaitadas - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:20:37 +0530
QUOTE(nabadip @ Jun 16 2004, 04:42 PM)
Sure it lives. But not as a gun pointed at people's heads.

Not everything, but many things are. jatasya hi dhruvo mrtyuh (Gita) - "Those who are born are sure to die." Freedom is an illusion.
Jagat - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:07:58 +0530
I agree completely with Nabadip. In Iskcon the idea was promoted that we were "philosophers" and not "sentimentalists." So we convinced ourselves that our collection of dogmas was a "philosophy."

One of my favorite stories about Ananta Vasudeva was that he criticized Gaudiya Math devotees for memorizing the Gaudiya Kanthahara and simply repeating these verses by rote, without understanding how they fit into Jiva Goswami's edifice of thought. So he spent months making everyone study Bhakti Sandarbha.
Advaitadas - Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:12:56 +0530
QUOTE
In Iskcon the idea was promoted that we were "philosophers" and not "sentimentalists." So we convinced ourselves that our collection of dogmas was a "philosophy."


I object to your equation of shastriya shraddha with this one sect. Are they the only Hindus/Vaishnavas in the world? Should shastriya shraddha be equated with them, especially before an audience that mostly have no other experience with Vaishnavism than Iskcon? That is creating a harmful prejudice! mad.gif
The concept of shastriya shraddha comes from Jiva Gosvami, not from ACBS.
nabadip - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:06:13 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 16 2004, 06:50 PM)
QUOTE(nabadip @ Jun 16 2004, 04:42 PM)
Sure it lives. But not as a gun pointed at people's heads.

Not everything, but many things are. jatasya hi dhruvo mrtyuh (Gita) - "Those who are born are sure to die." Freedom is an illusion.

So is death.
nabadip - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:20:31 +0530
I think what happens here is a hypostatization of shastra as a metaphysical being, as reality ever living versus shastra as a tool in argument, as a fund of written statements from the past and the background of the tradition. Advaitadas ji, you argue on the former line while using it in the second sense, while we others would not disagree with the venerable side that you are talking about, but take shastra in the second sense cited. We all bow to the holy books just in the way we bow to vaishnavas without accepting necessarily their every word and statement.

Let's remember that Gaudiya vaishnavas in general read and hear from the Caitanya Bhagavat in the morning, and from Caitanya Caritamrita in the afternoon, and they relish the stories they hear. They are not sitting there and arguing their heads off.
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:29:44 +0530
That is correct, but I just tried to make the point myself that, apart from a 16th century Bengali setting or a 3000 BC Hindustani setting, which is just the outer shell, there is a universal reality in shastra. Dont identify shastra just with some exteriors attached to it. Perhaps we are saying the same thing in different words?
nabadip - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:34:37 +0530
Not sure. unsure.gif
Jagat - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 02:58:47 +0530
Advaita on another thread:
QUOTE
When logic, experience and tradition are added (all are well within the parameters of bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, and karanapatava, AFAIK), then is that in itself still reasonable evidence to back it up? Who or what will be the arbiter to that?


Where do you draw the line on scriptural authority? For instance, how many bodyguards do you think Ugrasena really had?

tisraH koTyaH sahasrANAm aSTAzIti-zatAni ca
Asan yadu-kulAcAryAH kumArANAm iti zrutam
saGkhyAnaM yAdavAnAM kaH kariSyati mahAtmanAm
yatrAyutAnAm ayuta- lakSeNAste sa AhukaH

QUOTE
Srila Shukadeva Gosvami informed Maharaja Parikshit that he had heard from reliable sources that simply to teach the children of the Yadu dynasty, there were as many as 38,800,000 tutors or acharyas. If so many teachers were needed to educate their children, one can simply imagine how vast was the number of family members. As for their military strength, it is said that King Ugrasena alone had ten quadrillion soldiers as personal bodyguards. (10.90.41-42)


matAntare--

QUOTE
I have heard from authoritative sources that the Yadu family employed 38,800,000 teachers just to educate their children. Who can count all the great Yādavas, when among them King Ugrasena alone was accompanied by an entourage of thirty trillion attendants?

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī explains why specifically thirty trillion, rather than an indefinite number of tens of trillions, is stated here to be the number of King Ugrasena's attendants. He does so by citing the interpretational rule of kapiñjalādhikaraṇa, the logic of "referring to pigeons": Somewhere in the Vedas is found the injunction that "one should sacrifice some pigeons." This plural number should be taken to mean not an indiscriminate number of pigeons, but precisely three of them, since the Vedas never leave any matter vague. The rules of Mīmāḿsā interpretation take three as the default number when no specific number is given.


=========

Which is it, 10 quadrillion or 30 trillion? This is just bodyguards, mind you.
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 03:10:37 +0530
Before we start applying our pea brains to this, let us see what the acaryas say in their comments on it. If Jiva, Sanatan, Visvanatha and Sridhara do not add any comments that these figures are exaggarated, then what will our PhD or any other emblem of brain-massage do to understand it?

What I do know is this - acintya khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet. (BRS, Rupa Gosvami)
a-cintya means it can not be confined by thought, something you are clearly attempting to do, which is futile, since thought is limited.
Krishna creates billions of universes through his pores of skin (hope you still believe that one), so can He not fit a trillion bodyguards within one city? Can He or can He not push an elephant through the eye of a needle? How I miss the simple faith of the Indian sometimes.......

Then there is the namaparadha -
shruti shastra nindanam

The edict -
tasmacchastram pramanam te
and
shastra yonitvat

Furthermore, if Visvanatha says three instead of three trillion then the problem is solved. I dont have any tikas of 90.41-42 here unfortunately, otherwise I could broadcast the vision of the acaryas on this issue. If you have them at hand please feel free to post them, I am curious enough.

By the way, if you would insist on these being exaggarated figures I would not call you an apostate for that.....

I hope you do take notice of the bhrama pramada vipralipsa and karana patava warnings, also in relation to your good self.....
Madhava - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:19:59 +0530
On the acintyaH khalu ye bhAvA verse, let's have the whole thing and not just the first line:

acintyAH khalu ye bhAvA na tAMs tarkeNa yojayet |
prakRtibhyaH paraM yac ca tad acintyasya lakSaNam || Mbh 6.6.11

"That which is inconceivable can certainly not be understood through logic. The symptom of something inconceivable is its being beyond the material nature."

The logic here is that since our logical faculties are inherently bound with our perceptions of the world, that which is beyond the world cannot possibly be comprehended with logic bound to this world.

For example, we may not be able to reason why Krishna has a pet puppy dog but not a guinea pig, or why his internal energies function in three divisions.

However, matters which are within this world and not beyond our perceptions, matters of which we have experience, can be subjected to logical examination.
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:44:51 +0530
Furthermore, I would like to ask the non-believers, sceptics and downplayers: 'Where do you draw the line? You dont believe/accept that Ugrasena had billions of bodyguards but you will accept that Krishna danced with the gopis for a night of Brahma and He lifted Mount Govardhana? You will or wont accept that billions of universes bubble from the pores of His skin?" Where do you draw the line and on what criteria? kham mano buddhir eva ca, bhinnna prakritir ashtada (Gita 7.4) 'The mind and intelligence are My separated, material energies' , while 'Yogamayam upashrita (SB 10.29.1)' Krishna danced the Rasa by taking shelter of Yogamaya, the divine illusion. So Yogamaya can create a Rasa Mandal for a night of Brahma and not a billion bodyguards for Ugrasena? Again, where do you draw the line, and with what?
On the other hand, bhakti yoga is not even beginning unless there is faith.
adau sraddha (BRS) 'In the beginning there must be faith'
sraddhavallabhate jnanam (Gita 4.39) 'The faithful attain knowledge'
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:43:34 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 16 2004, 10:49 PM)
On the acintyaH khalu ye bhAvA verse, let's have the whole thing and not just the first line:

acintyAH khalu ye bhAvA na tAMs tarkeNa yojayet |
prakRtibhyaH paraM yac ca tad acintyasya lakSaNam || Mbh 6.6.11

"That which is inconceivable can certainly not be understood through logic. The symptom of something inconceivable is its being beyond the material nature."

The logic here is that since our logical faculties are inherently bound with our perceptions of the world, that which is beyond the world cannot possibly be comprehended with logic bound to this world.

For example, we may not be able to reason why Krishna has a pet puppy dog but not a guinea pig, or why his internal energies function in three divisions.

However, matters which are within this world and not beyond our perceptions, matters of which we have experience, can be subjected to logical examination.

If anything that only confirms my point: prakritibhyah param yacca tad acintyasya laksanam - What is beyond prakriti, or material nature, is defined as inconceivable. Certainly Ugrasena's trillions of bodyguards are not a manifestation of material nature, as all of Krishna's lilas are a manifestation of Yogamaya, who is also known as aghatan ghatan patiyasi - She who makes the impossible possible.
Jagat - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:25:31 +0530
I am so far away from this kind of thinking that I almost despair of going back all this territory that has already been covered. I can only suspend disbelief so far, I am sorry.

In terms of preaching, this is a far greater concern than ganja, for though there may be a great many people who are favorable to ganja, there are far more who will find misguided this wholesale gobbling of wild exaggeration as literal truth in the name of "faith."

And yes, it may well be true that Vaishnavas and Hindus of all stripes accept the same things that Iskcon does. But even though I may have mentioned Iskcon's dread name, I mean them all.

I am not in a position to go over this all right now, but perhaps I may invite you to look Here. I am sorry that I did not edit these pages a little more closely, they are still very much answers to letters on a listserve forum, so things jump around quite a bit. However, most of what I have to say on these matters can be found there.

I should put those articles in some kind of numerical sequence. I think this was the first one Why I am not a Prabhupadanuga.

QUOTE
(1) Shastra cannot be taken as absolute. It is only acceptable where it is amenable to reason. Shastra cannot be taken as universally valid in all domains; it cannot be understood literally in all circumstances. I use the example of the cosmology of the Fifth Canto. Anyone who wants to accept the Fifth Canto literally is free to do so, but I don't think that I will be able to engage in a meaningful conversation with such a person. That Prabhupada expected the devotees to build a "Vedic planetarium" on the basis of this cosmology was a classical example of his chutzpah. On the other hand, as soon as one admits the possibility of scriptural fallibility in this or another particular case, a breach has been made in the armor: one has admitted that scripture is no longer universally infallible.

The path of scriptural exegesis is a preliminary path of reason. I see some devotees are now taking recourse to all kinds of non-Krishna conscious authorities like Scott Peck, etc., in order to better understand their own experience and find answers to questions about which shastra is unfortunately vague. But once we abandon the literal reading of the texts, reason again becomes king, usurping shabda. Contradictions are resolved on the basis of reason. Where scriptures are equivocal, certain passages are viewed as allegorical, metaphorical or subordinate to other, more rationally acceptable passages. When for other reasons literal interpretations become impossible, time and circumstance are taken into consideration to allow for relativism a place in interpretation. In all these cases, it is reason, poor maligned, fallible reason, that establishes the hierarchy.

I should point out that I consider that the divine caittya-guru is manifested through the exercise of reason, aided by the help of prayer and meditation and the guidance of insightful predecessors. This is, of course, stated by Krishna: dadAmi buddhi-yogaM.

I will not answer responses to this here, unless you first go and read my responses to other people from the Garuda archives.
nabadip - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:43:01 +0530
There is one way of eulogizing an event described in shastra which is going totally against experienced reality and what the described thing really involves. It is when kings give away thousands of cows to brahmanas. Reader, please imagine for a moment the kinds of troubles you get into when you are gifted with a cow with a calf (a cow in India is always with calf, otherwise impossible). It is a major decision, and a major lifestyle/economic change, whether a poor brahmana can afford to maintain two cows or not (the calf will be cow or bull the following year), and the cow will have to have another baby the following year too, and so on. In a few years time there is a massive cow population in those villages. That is the one side.

On the other side: How does the king transfer the cows from his pastures to the villages? Where does he get those thousands of cows from? Today they are on the king's pastures, tomorrow on someone elses? How can even a king maintain so many cows? If he is capable to give a away thousands, he must have many more. To keep cows is a major logistic feat for anyone, let alone when you have a herd of dozens of them, and unspeakable problems when you talk about hundreds or even, unimaginable, thousands (Texans would know...). How many people get unemployed because of this, or have to change their occupation? Cows lose orientation when they are more than about fourty; in bigger numbers they are in constant panic because they orient themselves in a ceaselessly changing hierarchy.

Reader, I have daily experience with cows. I for myself know that these statements in scripture are written by people who have zero experience with cows. They are poetic expressions, perhaps wishful thinking, that is all.
Jagat - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:52:07 +0530
Precisely: Those parts of the scripture that we are interested in are not those that are scientific truth, but those that are poetic: those that DO express the inexpressible. But these are not to be taken as scientific explanations or literal truth.
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:03:38 +0530
Jagat, in regards to your article 'Why I am not a Prabhupadanuga' - this is not the first but the second time I must object against you lumping in Iskcon-brainwashies with Vaishnavas that have shastriya shraddha. Again, you are creating a dangerous prejudice. I would think that a cultured intellectual like yourself would not engage in blunt generalisations and pigeon-holing like this. Shastriya sraddha and Iskconism are not identical! My points in my previous posts are not from ACBS books, as you know I am the last one to be labeled 'Prabhupada (ACBS) anuga' around here, but on the teachings of Rupa and Jiva Goswamis!
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:36:44 +0530
QUOTE
On the other side: How does the king transfer the cows from his pastures to the villages? Where does he get those thousands of cows from? Today they are on the king's pastures, tomorrow on someone elses? How can even a king maintain so many cows? If he is capable to give a away thousands, he must have many more. To keep cows is a major logistic feat for anyone, let alone when you have a herd of dozens of them, and unspeakable problems when you talk about hundreds or even, unimaginable, thousands (Texans would know...). How many people get unemployed because of this, or have to change their occupation? Cows lose orientation when they are more than about fourty; in bigger numbers they are in constant panic because they orient themselves in a ceaselessly changing hierarchy.


This is called tarka, argumentation, while Rupa Goswami quoted Mahabharat saying: na tams tarkena yojayet 'Argumentation does not apply to inconceivable things.' The same Rupa described that Krishna Himself has trillions of cows. biggrin.gif
sri caitanya mano'bhistam sthapitam yena bhutale so'yam rupah.... wink.gif
Jagat - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:31:11 +0530
If the shoe fits, wear it. This is not the first time that your fundamental position has been compared to that in Iskcon. Therefore you are lumped in. Your only difference with Iskcon is that you think you follow the shastra better than they do. The attitude to shastra as explained by Srila Prabhupada is exactly the same. I find it strange that you are incapable of admitting that.
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:38:39 +0530
QUOTE
This is not the first time that your fundamental position has been compared to that in Iskcon. Therefore you are lumped in. Your only difference with Iskcon is that you think you follow the shastra better than they do. The attitude to shastra as explained by Srila Prabhupada is exactly the same.


Who was there first? Rupa and Jiva or ACBS?

Now I have read your articles, so now you might like to reply to my previous posts? That was the condition of your response, after all?

Funny that Rupa Gosvami says that (BRS 1.2.18-20)
1. Lots of knowledge and lots of faith = uttam adhikari
2. Little knowledge and lots of faith = madhyam adhikari
3. Tender faith = kanistha adhikari.
There is no amount of book knowledge mentioned with the kanistha adhikari.
Does that shoe fit you and your intellectual allies?
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:41:45 +0530
QUOTE
The attitude to shastra as explained by Srila Prabhupada is exactly the same. I find it strange that you are incapable of admitting that.


If you want to know MY reasons for abandoning ACBS, it is well documented in the archives of this site and its raganuga predecessor. But to summarise -
1. He lied to us about raganuga bhakti
2. He lied to us about raganuga bhaktas
3. He lied to us about Varnashrama and Vedic culture
4. He adjusted the whole philosophy to the needs of his cult
5. He has no parampara (I find that less important nowadays, but why take the risk?)
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:05:50 +0530
QUOTE
The attitude to shastra as explained by Srila Prabhupada is exactly the same. I find it strange that you are incapable of admitting that.


Sorry to hop topic here, but I find it wholly contradictory that you, of all men, should say that to me, while for the last 28 months you have been hassling me about being ungrateful to ACBS. When it suits you you reverse the roles... wink.gif
Jagat - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:15:14 +0530
Jiva may have been there first, but you got it from ACBSP. And your hAv-bhAv comes across the same. Maybe that is the genuine Gaudiya Vaishnava mood. If so, what difference does it make whether you are Iskcon or Advaita-vamsa?

But, anyway, let's stick to the issue at hand and we'll no more mention ACBSP.

You read my Garuda articles, but chose not to address any of the points in them.

(1) Shastra changes with time. The Veda is not the Upanishads is not the Smriti is not the Itihasas, is not the Puranas is not the Pancharatra or Tantra. These are all different works coming from different times and places, spoken to different people in different worlds. The world of Mahaprabhu is not that of the Bhagavata Purana. The world of Bhaktivinoda is no longer that of Mahaprabhu. Our world is no longer that of Bhaktivinoda.

(2) Schools are selective about Shastra. One chooses "mahavakyas" that orient one's philosophy. Such as, kRSNas tu bhagavAn svayam, or vadanti tattva-vidas tattvam, or sarva-dharmAn parityajya, etc.

(3) Those who make the selection process are, like ourselves, human beings. We acknowledge that they are special individuals, speaking to time and place, finding eternal verities. Innovators like Rupa Goswami are innovators not because they accepted sabda as they found it, but because they discovered things within their experience and applied their intelligence to them. If truth be known, they manipulated sabda to give us manjari-bhava. Which I am sure you cannot find in the Vedas, Smritis, Puranas, Tantras, Itihasas, Pancharatras. And I am sure you have argued at least once that Radha, or Mahaprabhu's incarnation are mentioned somewhere in the Bhagavatam. Exegesis is the manipulation of authority.

(4) Though for convenience's sake we have separated aitihya from sabda, Jiva conflates them, i.e. "received knowledge" or "knowledge from authority." This is a universal principle. Every student, whether living in Europe or India, in the 21st century BC or the 21st century AD, has to start from a base of received knowledge that he has no capacity to question. Western culture supposedly trains children to have inquiring minds, but ultimately, they too have to go through a long educative process based on acceptance before they arrive at independent thought. We don't encourage a five-year-old to question why 2+2=4. It just is. A high school student is still not in a position to call the theory of relativity into question.

Similarly, everyone undergoes social indoctrination from birth. Nevertheless, Western society has discovered that creativity comes from calling things into question.

A Rupa Goswami or any other true acharya has been creative with his tradition, perhaps using the building blocks that are there within the tradition, being inspired by certain insightful texts and meditating on them to the exclusivity of other kinds of statements (why pick kRSNas tu bhagavAn svayam rather than tat tvam asi, and how to we even go from kRSNas tu to dAsyAya te mama raso'stu raso'stu nityam?)

(5) My feeling, stated before evidently, is that the decentralized acharya system is the genius of Hinduism, because it (in my theory anyway) promotes individual creativity and thus has more capacity for adjustment. But the conflict between innovation and tradition is a permanent one. If the external situation remains static, then the internal one will be less likely to change. But external situations don't remain static. Social pressures slowly build, famines and wars come, foreigners invade and conquer, missionaries from other religions challenge core beliefs, and God help us, sometimes make sense. These pressures require a response, and if traditions are to be preserved, the responses have to be more subtle than appeals to a vague, amorphous authority that, as Nabadip has said, is "metastasized" as something solid, unambiguous and unchanging.

(6) The acharya is accepted as authority as one learns a system of knowledge, or is oriented to a particular thought system. Though the disciple submits to that, pariprasna, or intelligent inquiry is part of the guru-disciple relation. Though the disciple will be formed by this received knowledge, his inherent individuality--experience, personality, nature--will inevitably result in a distinct vision. As such, appeals to authority usually become a substitute for real understanding, which inevitably deviates from some aspect or the other of received understanding.

An effective spiritual master knows his own limitations and knows how to encourage his disciples to develop their own personal capacities and skills in order to realize their own highest perfection.

Furthermore, this is not a call to anarchy, as Braja Mohan said a few days back. It is a call to look for a different basis for community other than a simplistic appeal to authority. There has to be some basis for community, and in our case, tradition will always play a privileged role, but they cannot be the only criterion.

(7) In everything that is stated above, reason and experience play a decisive role. No one accepts any authority unless it resonates with his reason and experience. Even after accepting an authority, one is incapable of excising his reasoning ability or what he sees with his own eyes. Some people accept one guru as infallible authority, for instance, and then accuse him of being a liar. Then they accept someone else as an infallible authority where they ignore their direct experience and suspend their reasoning ability. Or they go on to another guru, and then yet another, rationalizing their actions at each step of the way--rather than accepting scriptural injunctions to submit to guru, to think of him as infallible, to think of him as God, not an ordinary man, etc., etc. What gives anyone the right to call him a liar?

Of course these things are complex, but the point is that direct experience and the use of reason play a participatory role in everything we do, including our relation to sabda. No one accepts sabda in its entirety.

OK, the guillotine has fallen. I stop here.
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:21:31 +0530
I told you on what grounds I disagreed with him. On this issue I have gotten my arguments from -

Bhagavad Gita 7.4
BRS 2.5.93
Subdivision 9 of Tattva Sandarbha
Gita 16.24
Padma Purana {10 namaparadhas}
SB 10.29.1
BRS 1.2.14
Gita 4.39
Vedanta Sutra

Did ACBS write any of these books? They are written by Vyasa, Rupa and Jiva instead.
Ah yes and the Tattva Sandarbha I read only in 1987, 5 years after leaving ACBS.
Now, whether I got this from Rupa and Jiva, from ACBS, from Trini Lopez or Yak & Yeti, lets get down to business -

1. Where do you draw the line with what you will graciously accept as real or exaggarated? b. Or would you consider all of Krishna's lila an exaggaration, or even worse, c. fiction?
2. If you say that reason should prevail over shastra, can you prove this from the Gaudiya Acaryas and what is your definition of reason?
3. What are the acaryas tikas on SB 10.90.41-42? Do they confirm it is exaggarated and that generally the figures in Krishna's lilas are exaggarated?
4. What about the role of Yogamaya vs the limitations of your ability to conceive of transcendental things?
Madhava - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:53:04 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 17 2004, 11:51 AM)
1. Where do you draw the line with what you will graciously accept as real or exaggarated?

An equally valid question would be, do you not draw a line at all? Should a line not be drawn anywhere? If absolutely no line is drawn, it is likely that we are mistaken on several occasions where the author intentionally used exaggeration to eulogize an issue.

Perhaps, instead of arguing along the lines that everything is possible in Krishna's pastimes and all events directly or indirectly related, and that therefore all description should be thought of as literal, we could see how such passages are employed in other Puranas and Itihasas in events that are not connected with the pastimes.

If similar descriptions would be found in such literature (and I strongly suspect this is the case), we could safely conclude that they were a commonly used literary device, a method to express to the reader how truly wonderful something was.
adiyen - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:58:05 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 17 2004, 10:01 AM)
If the shoe fits, wear it. This is not the first time that your fundamental position has been compared to that in Iskcon. Therefore you are lumped in. Your only difference with Iskcon is that you think you follow the shastra better than they do. The attitude to shastra as explained by Srila Prabhupada is exactly the same. I find it strange that you are incapable of admitting that.

Hmmm. That's not how it looks to me Jagat.

Advaita is arguing that shastra represents a pure idealism, of Berkley proportions.

ACBSP's fundamentalism was, how to say, perhaps far more naively literalist, especially since he had not studied Gaudiya scholars as Advaita has.

***
How can your temporal concerns touch such an 'Other', grounded on the consensus of pious scholarship?

By definition his 'Shastra' is beyond it all, even if the written texts are not.
Madhava - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:03:25 +0530
If Krishna says, "Priyaji, your face is truly the moon of my endless nights, and it shines like a thousand suns on the sky," are we to visualize the face of Radha in the place of a moon in the sky, Krishna sitting there endlessly and staring at it, the environment illuminated as if a star just went supernova right above His head? That would be the literal reading, if absolutely no poetic devices, such as metaphors, exaggeration and so forth, were allowed to be taken as anything but literal facts. And if we are allowed to interpret them, then the line is drawn.
adiyen - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:10:35 +0530
Just a further point. ACBSP was quite happy to borrow a lot of christian teachings and adopt them into his, to fill the gaps where the Gaudiya teachings were perhaps deficient from his perspective. Eg 'personal versus impersonal', something I have not read from any other Gaudiya, or indeed from any Hindu before him.

Advaita is far more aware of the need to stick exclusively to just what Rupa and the tradition teach and no more, 'personal and impersonal' be damned.

As far as I can see, ACBSP's idea of Gaudiyism as he expresses it is a very odd hybrid, while the teachings as Advaita represents them are far more unexpected and new, therefore obviously authentic and profound.

It is my belief that some of the old-timer explorers of Gaudiyaism like Jagatji spent so much time linking what they knew from ACBSP to what they came to learn about broad Gaudiyaism,

that they more-or-less missed the radical disjuncture, the need to start all over.

It may just be an accident of history that Advaitaji was in a better situation to see this radical break.

As they say about the famous violin school, if you are a novice, no problem, if you think you already can play the violin, big problem.

I may be completely wrong and out of line. I am equally distant from both of you, but I have had this intuition growing, and at least it may help to break the impasse here. Hope so!
Jagat - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:21:07 +0530
QUOTE
1. Where do you draw the line with what you will graciously accept as real or exaggerated? b. Or would you consider all of Krishna's lila an exaggaration, or even worse, c. fiction?


That is to be negotiated. I accept the principle of an eternal world with a human God engaged in loving relationships in the five rasas, in madhurya rather than aisvarya. mAdhurya bhagavattA sAra. I don't take the historical truth of anything in the Puranas as being particularly reliable or necessary to my faith.

QUOTE
2. If you say that reason should prevail over shastra, can you prove this from the Gaudiya Acaryas and what is your definition of reason?


No. But Bhagavat-sandarbha 30,53,62,85,87, KrishnaS 98, 115, 152 state that vidvad-anubhava is pramana.

I would define reason as the attempt to understand and systematize our experience. Received knowledge naturally plays a role in that, but it cannot ever be anything more than a guide.

QUOTE
3. What are the acaryas tikas on SB 10.90.41-42? Do they confirm it is exaggarated and that generally the figures in Krishna's lilas are exaggarated?


No, they only discuss the numbers. Our acharyas tend to be literal, I am afraid.

QUOTE
4. What about the role of Yogamaya vs the limitations of your ability to conceive of transcendental things?


My understanding will always be limited. That is not the point. I want things to make sense, not to hide behind a wall of dogmatic acceptance of poetic exaggerations as historical truth or a cosmology that has nothing to do with a pragmatic world view.

I am sorry, but I have to leave this for a few hours. I really have to accept the "reality" principle.
Jagat - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:25:19 +0530
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 08:28 AM)
Advaita is arguing that shastra represents a pure idealism, of Berkley proportions... By definition his 'Shastra' is beyond it all, even if the written texts are not.

Your interpretation of Advaita is acceptable to me, though I wonder whether it is to him. We are idealists, so Knowledge exists in ideal form. But if its manifestations in the world are not the Perfect Word of God, like the Quran, then is not all seeking for truth an attempt to find that Knowledge. With the help of God within and the Guru without?
braja - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:30:52 +0530
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 08:40 AM)
Just a further point. ACBSP was quite happy to borrow a lot of christian teachings and adopt them into his, to fill the gaps where the Gaudiya teachings were perhaps deficient from his perspective. Eg 'personal versus impersonal', something I have not read from any other Gaudiya, or indeed from any Hindu before him.


I have a large tome sitting in front of me entitled "Theistic Vedanta." It's Christian influence appears to be quite minor. Christ gets two references in some 900 pages but no credit for influencing the Vaisnava philosophers represented therein.

That most of Hinduism does not care to draw a distinction between saguna and nirguna brahman, given the influence of Sankara and others, is not surprising. That someone would suggest that the distinction is an idea foreign to Gaudiya Vaisnavism is.
Jagat - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:31:06 +0530
I would be interested to see you elaborate on that inspiration. I feel that my break with ACBSP has been pretty radical. I don't think that either Advaita or I have any favored standing in those circles, though I may still have one or two friends due to a slightly better diplomacy.

Additional comment: There are, however, many in the Iskcon world who share many of my perspectives, though they generally keep in the background due to the dominance of Puritanism. Some of these voices occasionally come to the fore, such as Ananda Das of Victoria, BC, who recently came out on Chakra to argue a perspective on guru infallibility that was pretty radical for Iskcon. I feel close to these devotees, even though I am not in their "party."
adiyen - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:32:36 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 17 2004, 12:55 PM)
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 08:28 AM)
Advaita is arguing that shastra represents a pure idealism, of Berkley proportions... By definition his 'Shastra' is beyond it all, even if the written texts are not.

Your interpretation of Advaita is acceptable to me, though I wonder whether it is to him. We are idealists, so Knowledge exists in ideal form. But if its manifestations in the world are not the Perfect Word of God, like the Quran, then is not all seeking for truth an attempt to find that Knowledge. With the help of God within and the Guru without?

Well I think Advaita is implicitly arguing an idea of shastra embedded in a particular tradition.

It is Gaudiya Shastra, interpreted by Gaudiya Tradition. The two are really inseparable in Advaita's perspective.

Studying shastra as Texts is like dissecting dead bodies, or severed limbs, to find life.

Surely this does not exclude different interpretations in other traditions, though I think Advaita might argue that these are also only apparent differences. I wouldn't go that far.
Madhava - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:37:52 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 17 2004, 07:13 AM)
If anything that only confirms my point: prakritibhyah param yacca tad acintyasya laksanam - What is beyond prakriti, or material nature, is defined as inconceivable. Certainly Ugrasena's trillions of bodyguards are not a manifestation of material nature, as all of Krishna's lilas are a manifestation of Yogamaya, who is also known as aghatan ghatan patiyasi - She who makes the impossible possible.

I do not think the issue here is of whether we believe that Yogamaya can accomplish this or that. Certainly all of us who are theists at heart agree that God can accomplish any feats, bending the fabric of time and space at His sweet will.

The discussion is whether such scriptural passages truly intend to declare that such a feat was being accomplished. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it was necessarily done. For example, why on earth would Krishna wish Ugrasena to have quadrillions bodyguards around him? I mean, I know He's fond of protecting His devotees, but isn't that a bit overkill?
braja - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:48:30 +0530
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 08:40 AM)
As far as I can see, ACBSP's idea of Gaudiyism as he expresses it is a very odd hybrid, while the teachings as Advaita represents them are far more unexpected and new, therefore obviously authentic and profound.

"Unexpected and new, therefore obviously authentic and profound" is quite a leap of logic, especially when discussing traditions and hybrids.

QUOTE
It is my belief that some of the old-timer explorers of Gaudiyaism like Jagatji spent so much time linking what they knew from ACBSP to what they came to learn about broad Gaudiyaism,

that they more-or-less missed the radical disjuncture, the need to start all over.



As another neutral, I have to suggest that once again larger issues are being introduced unnecessarily . The question is whether sastra is evidence, whether something is taken literally. I agree completely with Jagat's assertion that the literalism of ACBSP is generally the same as that of Advaita and furthermore is of the same nature as all Gaudiyas and most Hindus till recent times.

If ACBSP were initiated in the Advaita-vamsa, he would profess exactly the same degree and manner of faith as Advaita-ji is now. To introduce other ideas, such as ACBSP's standing or an analysis of Jagat, is to cloud the issue, IMO. No one can hear ACBSP and not believe that he was 100% convinced of the literal truth of scripture (by way of his guru). His conviction was contagious and you'll see it today if you visit dipika.org and see Hari Sauri speaking about the "blasphemous vomit" of somene suggesting that ACBSP could err.

Perhaps in contact with rasa sastras that type of faith is less noticeable--and certainly less dangerous (i.e. it primarily affects oneself and not the governance of organizations or the world!)--but it is the same basic faith. Such faith is what is prescribed by sastra itself and by the tradition. AFAIK, it is not until Bhaktivinoda Thakura that we find someone willing to take a different angle, to entertain the notion that things may not be what they seem.
adiyen - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:57:27 +0530
QUOTE(braja @ Jun 17 2004, 01:00 PM)
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 08:40 AM)
Just a further point. ACBSP was quite happy to borrow a lot of christian teachings and adopt them into his, to fill the gaps where the Gaudiya teachings were perhaps deficient from his perspective. Eg 'personal versus impersonal', something I have not read from any other Gaudiya, or indeed from any Hindu before him.


I have a large tome sitting in front of me entitled "Theistic Vedanta." It's Christian influence appears to be quite minor. Christ gets two references in some 900 pages but no credit for influencing the Vaisnava philosophers represented therein.

That most of Hinduism does not care to draw a distinction between saguna and nirguna brahman, given the influence of Sankara and others, is not surprising. That someone would suggest that the distinction is an idea foreign to Gaudiya Vaisnavism is.

Yes, yes. We've been thru this before.

A quick sketch. Jagat, you keep trying to place Gaudiyaism in a bigger context. But for this you rely solely on texts, many of which were first introduced to you in very Christian terms.

'Krishna is God'. Really? What does that mean?
'Love of God'. A central concern of New testament studies.
'Spiritual Body'. A term taken directly from the letters of St Paul, not found any where in any Hindu tradition.

The idea that Goloka is a form of Heaven, just better organised. Really? How did such an idea emerge out of the Hindu tradition? In fact the texts indicate a nondual state of moksha, eg the sages had to be born on earth to get the Lord's bodily association. The Vaishnav version of moksha differs from the jnani in that bhaktas aspire to merge into the Lord's body, just as in Veda and Gita's Purusha. See the Alvars. They become part of the Lord's body or paraphernalia.

I've been talking about this here and there for ages haven't I?

Advaita's only context is the Gaudiya tradition itself. Therefore he is more anthropologically sensitive to differences which the very textual approach tends to overlook.

It's the difference between an anthropological understanding and a textual understanding. Especially a textual understanding emerging from a strong unconscious Christian bias (et tu Brajaji!).
adiyen - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:05:06 +0530
Braja, for me this is existential. You too perhaps, so we may be at loggerheads over this for ever.

But just an example. When I attend a meeting of our local Iskcon branch with my Hindu wife, she and I are continually amazed at how remote the whole tone is from genuine Hinduism. How it is like a Baptist revival meeting, Alleluiah brother! Chant louder brother! The Word of God, brother! The Holy Book, brother. We are all sinners! (Totally alien to Hindu tradition, as anyone not under Iskcon influence will tell you, but some of the younger Hindus are very susceptable to this Christianised Hinduism, no doubt becaues of western influence).

I mean why did Iskcon start with Gita, the 'Hindu Bible' (which almost no non-Brahmin Hindu had ever read before Gandhi read an English translation in England and discovered it).
adiyen - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:13:24 +0530
QUOTE(braja @ Jun 17 2004, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 08:40 AM)
As far as I can see, ACBSP's idea of Gaudiyism as he expresses it is a very odd hybrid, while the teachings as Advaita represents them are far more unexpected and new, therefore obviously authentic and profound.

"Unexpected and new, therefore obviously authentic and profound" is quite a leap of logic, especially when discussing traditions and hybrids.

Braja,
Why do you always put words in my mouth? You have previously tried to catch me out in this way. Who said I was merely arguing logically? No 'therefore I intuit' if you want to be picky. To hell with logic and such sophistry. Try to understand, otherwise it is just dry and empty argumentation.
braja - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:20:46 +0530
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 09:35 AM)
Braja, for me this is existential. You too perhaps, so we may be at loggerheads over this for ever.


Oh, no problem. I am a conservative so I will always fight these modern liberal attacks on Gaudiyaism. laugh.gif

Besides which, I just wanted to force you to make statements which Advaita could not agree with. There is a ruthless streak in some of us softies. wink.gif

(I've probably pulled out too early but actually have to get some work done today.)

More on the examples--"spiritual body", etc.--later.

QUOTE
But just an example. When I attend a meeting of our local Iskcon branch with my Hindu wife, she and I are continually amazed at how remote the whole tone is from genuine Hinduism. How it is like a Baptist revival meeting, Alleluiah brother! Chant louder brother! The Word of God, brother! The Holy Book, brother.


No doubt but that does not mean that the texts or practices themselves were Christian. If the influence of language and culture is so profound, then Advaita, as a European, is much more "contaminated" than ACBSP or any other Indian would be when presenting sastra in English. Samskars run deep.

As I've said earlier, I believe the only difference is the area of interest: if Advaita or other person with literal faith was delving into the realms of varna-asrama, temple management, social issues, etc., I think the similarity would be more clear. And I do not mean this by way of put down. As evidenced here, I have my own areas of incontravertable faith in regard to sastra and fully accept that sastra and the tradition demand the type of faith exhibited by Advaita and other stalwarts. Quite frankly, I don't even see a problem with that. It's the sign a genius to keep opposed ideas in ones head at the same time.

QUOTE
I mean why did Iskcon start with Gita, the 'Hindu Bible' (which almost no non-Brahmin Hindu had ever read before Gandhi read an English translation in England and discovered it).


Any references for this? Sure seems that there have been a lot of pre-Gandhi commentaries on the Gita.
adiyen - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:27:14 +0530
QUOTE(braja @ Jun 17 2004, 01:50 PM)
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 09:35 AM)
Braja, for me this is existential. You too perhaps, so we may be at loggerheads over this for ever.


Oh, no problem. I am a conservative so I will always fight these modern liberal attacks on Gaudiyaism. laugh.gif

Touche!

rolleyes.gif
braja - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:40:21 +0530
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 09:43 AM)
QUOTE(braja @ Jun 17 2004, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE(adiyen @ Jun 17 2004, 08:40 AM)
As far as I can see, ACBSP's idea of Gaudiyism as he expresses it is a very odd hybrid, while the teachings as Advaita represents them are far more unexpected and new, therefore obviously authentic and profound.

"Unexpected and new, therefore obviously authentic and profound" is quite a leap of logic, especially when discussing traditions and hybrids.

Braja,
Why do you always put words in my mouth? You have previously tried to catch me out in this way. Who said I was merely arguing logically? No 'therefore I intuit' if you want to be picky. To hell with logic and such sophistry. Try to understand, otherwise it is just dry and empty argumentation.

Not always. Ooops. tongue.gif

Seriously, the reason I do that (sometimes) is that you often play quite loose and fast with both people and ideas that are dear to me but at the same time you don't seem to follow through and openly state your conclusions nor allow an examination of your premise. I am open to any kind of discussion but when someone drops in, says "That's Christianity" and then takes shelter of svadharma or silence, part of me screams, "Prove it!"

Maybe if you wrote an editorial on your core beliefs so I can clearly see your position, I'd be able to move on....No, probably not. It is existential, as you say. Our pet beliefs and interests will always overlap--and besides that, we're neighbours at heart. (Tell me that you feel repulsed at chants of "Ozzie, Ozzie, Oi Oi Oi" and I'll find someone else to debate with.)

flowers.gif
Madhava - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:13:22 +0530
Let's have all considerations on Christian influence on modern Gaudiyaism and Hinduism in a separate thread to keep this one on track.

Christian influences in modern Gaudiyaism
dauji - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:01:57 +0530
QUOTE(nabadip @ Jun 16 2004, 04:02 PM)
Dauji is fooling himself if he believes that people became devotees because they were convinced by logic. They were convinced by many other things, but certainly not logic. (They would not have joined if the logic had been served to them by mail, on a distant-learning basis.) Most joined because of the exotic beauty, the kind of life-style, the prasad... exactly what d.h.'s quote of B. R. Sridhar says about Sri Gauranga: truth as divine ecstasy.  No thank you to dry learning. wink.gif

I'm not sure if many individuals joined Iskcon convinced solely by logical arguments. From my personal perspective, worshipping a blue teen-aged cowboy initially seemed the furthest thing from "logical."

However, in regards to Madhava's comment, "Scriptural evidence must be made relevant to the audience through interlinking it with topics from within their realm of experiences," I do think that ACBS attempted to appeal to the sense of logic of those readers unfamiliar with the material he was presenting and thus convince them of certain concepts. For instance, he reasoned that one could "logically" deduce the apparent existence of an animating force beyond the corporal body.
Advaitadas - Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:28:14 +0530
I have been out for a while, so I will just respond to all of you at once.
First Jagat:

Jagat: (1) Shastra changes with time. The Veda is not the Upanishads is not the Smriti is not the Itihasas, is not the Puranas is not the Pancharatra or Tantra. These are all different works coming from different times and places, spoken to different people in different worlds. The world of Mahaprabhu is not that of the Bhagavata Purana. The world of Bhaktivinoda is no longer that of Mahaprabhu. Our world is no longer that of Bhaktivinoda.

A: That is true, but I was thinking more specifically in the context of the GV, that follow the Gosvamis extract of the essence of shastra. This is where time stops, whether it progresses and how, does it matter?

Jagat (2) Schools are selective about Shastra. One chooses "mahavakyas" that orient one's philosophy. Such as, kRSNas tu bhagavAn svayam, or vadanti tattva-vidas tattvam, or sarva-dharmAn parityajya, etc.

A: Correct. Hope it can meet with your approval.

Jagat 3) Those who make the selection process are, like ourselves, human beings. We acknowledge that they are special individuals, speaking to time and place, finding eternal verities. Innovators like Rupa Goswami are innovators not because they accepted sabda as they found it, but because they discovered things within their experience and applied their intelligence to them. If truth be known, they manipulated sabda to give us manjari-bhava. Which I am sure you cannot find in the Vedas, Smritis, Puranas, Tantras, Itihasas, Pancharatras.

A: No successor acarya has declared the Gosvamis to be human beings. This is your judgement only. They are accepted as 6 manjaris in Vraja. It is a transcental reality and spirit knows no beginning and no end. Rupa Gosvami was Rupa Manjari, that is clear, and he revealed something timeless, he did not innovate anything. It is very clear from the Stavavali and Stavamala.

Jagat: And I am sure you have argued at least once that Radha, or Mahaprabhu's incarnation are mentioned somewhere in the Bhagavatam. Exegesis is the manipulation of authority.

A: No not really, but - sorry to bore you - the Gosvamis have done so. What is the point of this?

Jagat: 4) Though for convenience's sake we have separated aitihya from sabda, Jiva conflates them, i.e. "received knowledge" or "knowledge from authority." This is a universal principle. Every student, whether living in Europe or India, in the 21st century BC or the 21st century AD, has to start from a base of received knowledge that he has no capacity to question. Western culture supposedly trains children to have inquiring minds, but ultimately, they too have to go through a long educative process based on acceptance before they arrive at independent thought. We don't encourage a five-year-old to question why 2+2=4. It just is. A high school student is still not in a position to call the theory of relativity into question.

A: This is a material example.

Jagat: Even after accepting an authority, one is incapable of excising his reasoning ability or what he sees with his own eyes. Some people accept one guru as infallible authority, for instance, and then accuse him of being a liar. Then they accept someone else as an infallible authority where they ignore their direct experience and suspend their reasoning ability. Or they go on to another guru, and then yet another, rationalizing their actions at each step of the way--rather than accepting scriptural injunctions to submit to guru, to think of him as infallible, to think of him as God, not an ordinary man, etc., etc. What gives anyone the right to call him a liar?

A: Admittedly that is not so nice, and it should be avoided. If you are hinting at my abandonment of ACBS, I was impelled to do that not by shastra & yukti but by lobha. The shastra yukti only came later.

Madhava: An equally valid question would be, do you not draw a line at all? Should a line not be drawn anywhere? If absolutely no line is drawn, it is likely that we are mistaken on several occasions where the author intentionally used exaggeration to eulogize an issue.

A: Very simple. Consult the acaryas tikas. How else will you know? By sankalpa/vikalpa?

Madhava: Perhaps, instead of arguing along the lines that everything is possible in Krishna's pastimes and all events directly or indirectly related, and that therefore all description should be thought of as literal, we could see how such passages are employed in other Puranas and Itihasas in events that are not connected with the pastimes. If similar descriptions would be found in such literature (and I strongly suspect this is the case), we could safely conclude that they were a commonly used literary device, a method to express to the reader how truly wonderful something was.

A: Same thing. Why not trust the judgement of the tikakaras instead of our own sankalpa/vikalpa?

Madhava: If Krishna says, "Priyaji, your face is truly the moon of my endless nights, and it shines like a thousand suns on the sky," are we to visualize the face of Radha in the place of a moon in the sky, Krishna sitting there endlessly and staring at it, the environment illuminated as if a star just went supernova right above His head? That would be the literal reading, if absolutely no poetic devices, such as metaphors, exaggeration and so forth, were allowed to be taken as anything but literal facts. And if we are allowed to interpret them, then the line is drawn.

A: This example is obviously metaphoric and poetic, that does not make all the facts and figures in Krishna's Bhagavat lila or the Puranas metaphorical. Jagad has admitted the tikakaras have not said they are exaggarated or metaphorical.

Adiyen: It is my belief that some of the old-timer explorers of Gaudiyaism like Jagatji spent so much time linking what they knew from ACBSP to what they came to learn about broad Gaudiyaism, that they more-or-less missed the radical disjuncture, the need to start all over.

A: Yes. atmavan manyate jagat - Jagat thinks the world is like him. Unlike Jagad (9 years) I spent only 4 years in Iskcon, post-ACBS, and unlike him, I was not pallying around with them all the time after leaving. It is a distant past for me, but Jagat is so absorbed in Prabhupada-consciousness and surrounds himself with similar folks that he thinks I am also like that. When I wrote my defense of shastra I was not thinking of ACBS for a minute. I spent only 8 % of my life in Iskcon, in the first half of my life, and I can hardly remember it anymore.

Jagat : I would define reason as the attempt to understand and systematize our experience. Received knowledge naturally plays a role in that, but it cannot ever be anything more than a guide.

A: The principle of ‘acintya’ excludes 'understanding' in advance. sraddhavan jan hoy bhaktir adhikari (CC Madhya 22.63)

Jagat: QUOTE
3. (Adwaita:)What are the acaryas tikas on SB 10.90.41-42? Do they confirm it is exaggarated and that generally the figures in Krishna's lilas are exaggarated?


Jagat: No, they only discuss the numbers. Our acharyas tend to be literal, I am afraid.

A: That is a very arrogant statement if I may say so politely. It leaves two options: 1. You are an apostate. 2. The acaryas are wrong.
Heaven help us all if you win the poll and rule nr.1 will be tweaked. Will Sridhar Swami and Jiva Gosvami have to consult you on their tikas and wait for your permission, or, alternatively, you will grant them the privilege of becoming equal partners in an eclectic discussion with you?


J: My understanding will always be limited. That is not the point. I want things to make sense, not to hide behind a wall of dogmatic acceptance of poetic exaggerations as historical truth or a cosmology that has nothing to do with a pragmatic world view.

A: 1. Again, the word dogma is an invention of western intellectuals and is nowhere in the shastra.
2. Transcendental things DONT MAKE SENSE, no matter how much you will try to make them. That is the beauty of it.


Madhava: The discussion is whether such scriptural passages truly intend to declare that such a feat was being accomplished. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it was necessarily done.

A: Of course, why not?

Madhava: For example, why on earth would Krishna wish Ugrasena to have quadrillions bodyguards around him? I mean, I know He's fond of protecting His devotees, but isn't that a bit overkill?

A: It is called lila. There is no reason for anything in lila.
Madhava - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:19:20 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 17 2004, 05:58 PM)
Madhava: An equally valid question would be, do you not draw a line at all? Should a line not be drawn anywhere? If absolutely no line is drawn, it is likely that we are mistaken on several occasions where the author intentionally used exaggeration to eulogize an issue.

A: Very simple. Consult the acaryas tikas. How else will you know? By sankalpa/vikalpa?

Madhava: Perhaps, instead of arguing along the lines that everything is possible in Krishna's pastimes and all events directly or indirectly related, and that therefore all description should be thought of as literal, we could see how such passages are employed in other Puranas and Itihasas in events that are not connected with the pastimes. If similar descriptions would be found in such literature (and I strongly suspect this is the case), we could safely conclude that they were a commonly used literary device, a method to express to the reader how truly wonderful something was.

A: Same thing. Why not trust the judgement of the tikakaras instead of our own sankalpa/vikalpa?

Sometimes the tikakaras do not give clear-cut answers as to whether something is a poetical embellishment, they leave the issue open or merely comment on some aspects of the embellishment. For example, in the case of Ugrasena's bodyguards, what little I saw of Visvanatha's tika seems to show that he was more interested in commenting on the specific numbers used than the question we are posing. That in itself does not directly yield support to a strictly literal interpretation, it is just as likely that he was taking apart the poetic exaggeration to demonstrate how grand an eulogy of Ugrasena's prowess the reader is faced with.

If the tikas do not specifically answer the question we are faced with, what are we left with but our abilities for deductive reasoning. In such cases, we may deduct similar patterns in other texts and be reasonably certain that a particular kind of conclusion is correct. For example, in the case example at hand, if the commentators do not specifically comment whether the trillions of bodyguards -statement is a poetic exaggeration or a literal fact, we may study other similar instances across the countless scriptures out there and see whether we could find another example from which the usage would be more clear, and based on which we could reach a conclusion.

We could also study other narrations where descriptions of Ugrasena's deeds are given, and if we would note that no such quantities of bodyguards are anywhere to be seen, we could safely conclude that the case in the Bhagavata is indeed a poetic statement not meant to be taken literally.


QUOTE
Madhava: If Krishna says, "Priyaji, your face is truly the moon of my endless nights, and it shines like a thousand suns on the sky," are we to visualize the face of Radha in the place of a moon in the sky, Krishna sitting there endlessly and staring at it, the environment illuminated as if a star just went supernova right above His head? That would be the literal reading, if absolutely no poetic devices, such as metaphors, exaggeration and so forth, were allowed to be taken as anything but literal facts. And if we are allowed to interpret them, then the line is drawn.

A: This example is obviously metaphoric and poetic, that does not make all the facts and figures in Krishna's Bhagavat lila or the Puranas metaphorical. Jagad has admitted the tikakaras have not said they are exaggarated or metaphorical.

It is obvious -- to you. However, do the tikakaras particularly say it is metaphorical whenever such comparisons are given? If not, then we have only your opinion to cite, and someone might think that you are heretic since you submit opinions that are not specifically verified by the commentators. It might seem obvious to me that the quantity of Ugrasena's bodyguards is a poetic exaggeration.

At any rate, all of this demonstrates that lines may be drawn, and indeed have been drawn. I believe we all also agree that no commentary has exhaustively discussed every single aspect of every single verse of any given scripture. This means that there are issues that have not been commented on, and subsequently that there are also many poetic devices whose nature has not been commented on. In fact, sometimes even key points have not been commented on. "In fear of increasing the bulk of the text..." In such a situation, you may wish to draw no lines at all and take it all as literal, while another person may deduct a reasonable line to be drawn on the basis of both his experiences of the world and of parallel situations in literature of a similar nature.

Someone should start a separate thread examining various poetic devices in Sanskrit literature.
Madhava - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:26:47 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 17 2004, 05:58 PM)
Madhava: For example, why on earth would Krishna wish Ugrasena to have quadrillions bodyguards around him? I mean, I know He's fond of protecting His devotees, but isn't that a bit overkill?

A: It is called lila. There is no reason for anything in lila.

I'm afraid I have to voice my disagreement here, and I am surprised that we disagree on such a fundamental issue. The lIlA-rAjya is not the kingdom of chaos, whatever happens there happens for a very specific reason. The increase of relish of the exchanges of prema-rasa is the focal pivot of lIlA, and whatever occurs, occurs with this singular goal as its purpose.
Madhava - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:37:02 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 17 2004, 05:58 PM)
Jagat: QUOTE
3. (Adwaita:)What are the acaryas tikas on SB 10.90.41-42? Do they confirm it is exaggarated and that generally the figures in Krishna's lilas are exaggarated?


Jagat: No, they only discuss the numbers. Our acharyas tend to be literal, I am afraid.

A: That is a very arrogant statement if I may say so politely. It leaves two options: 1. You are an apostate. 2. The acaryas are wrong.
Heaven help us all if you win the poll and rule nr.1 will be tweaked. Will Sridhar Swami and Jiva Gosvami have to consult you on their tikas and wait for your permission, or, alternatively, you will grant them the privilege of becoming equal partners in an eclectic discussion with you?

I am afraid it is not as black and white as you would have it.

The acaryas frequently comment on the details of the literal interpretation of such shloka, but if the tika does not contain anything to bind the details (such as Ugrasena's trillions of bodyguards) into the rest of the broader scenario in which the statement is made, they effectively leave the issue open. For example, in the eulogy in question, if none of the commentators for example narrate a story of Ugrasena's traveling from Mathura to Hastinapura with vast hordes of bodyguards, we cannot draw a definite conclusion of the literality of the statement.

As for the question many of us may be wondering, why then did not the acaryas comment one way or the other on all these issues we are pondering, the answer is that the questions an individual comes up with is inherently fused into the atmosphere of the environment in which he was brought up. Therefore, Westerners are seen to come up with very different questions from their contemporary Indian peers, what to speak of their Indian peers centuries ago.
Jagat - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:25:13 +0530
Go Iskcon! Hiranyagarbha Das, 1971
Attachment: Image
Advaitadas - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:27:43 +0530
I see this discussion is going nowhere. I believe it and you and Jagat dont believe it, bas. I must warn you both though that this is a path that leads to no good. I know it from experience, I was on this eclectic path also once and it brought me and my then-friends nowhere. agyas cashraddhadanasya samshayatma vinashyati (Gita 4.40). Compare it to a knit sweater with one thread hanging loose on the bottom. To keep it neat you pull off the loose thread, causing the next thread up to loosen up, so you pull that one off too, ultimately ending up without a knit sweater. Similarly if you start doubting one thing without knowing where to draw the line you will end up with nothing. You can not for yourselves decide where to draw the line, with a PhD or any type of big brain. It is just not working like that. sraddhavan jan hoy bhaktir adhikari. The uttam adhikari has full scriptural knowledge and full faith, the madhyam has little shastra knowledge but full faith and the kanistha has just weak faith. I am afraid it is as simple as that. Krishna plays His lila as He wants, Ugrasena has a trillion bodyguards and he may be totally alone the next moment according to the playful Lord's sweet will. Nowhere the Acaryas have said that this or any other lila or Puranik figure is exaggarated and to presume otherwise is just defiant and arrogant speculation. I therefore decide not to waste any more time on this discussion. radhe radhe.
Jagat - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:28:14 +0530
How many times is that now that you have called me an apostate, Advaita?
Advaitadas - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:38:10 +0530
Not enough? tongue.gif
Madhava - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:38:11 +0530
Oh, I almost forgot about this.

Jambudvipa is described as one of the seven dvipas of Bhu-mandala, the great plateau of the mid-planetary-system shaped like the whorl of a lotus. (BhP 5.16.2) Jambudvipa is divided into nine varshas (divisions of earth), one of which is Bharata-varsha, or the great India as we have come to call it. (BhP 5.16.6) Therefore, Jambudvipa must be synonymous to earth, unless we are to conclude that the events of the Bhagavata occured on some other planet or in another dimension. There are some questions that arise from this:If I am not entirely mistaken, the commentators have nowhere stated that these would be in any way poetic statements or otherwise anything but literal statements.

Let's call the bluff of all the literalists. I would like to have clear answers, a plain yes or no will suffice, to each of the questions above, please.
braja - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:10:13 +0530
I believe there is a purpose in the demands of sastra to be taken literally, guru to be seen as beyond human defects, etc., and so long as one does not throw out the baby with the bath water when seeing those defects, the transgression is minor, if it even is a transgression. One is an apostate only if s/he rejects Mahaprabhu and Radha Govinda, rejects drinking the nectar of the Bhagavatam, not if they merely cannot accept some esoteric and unimportant detail.

And conversely, there is no need to reject Vaisnava etiquette when dealing with those who minds are wired so differently that some of the more extreme ideas presented in sastra just do not sit. It is again throwing out the baby.

No baby killers here, please.
Madhava - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:40:01 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 17 2004, 07:57 PM)
I see this discussion is going nowhere. I believe it and you and Jagat dont believe it, bas. I must warn you both though that this is a path that leads to no good. I know it from experience, I was on this eclectic path also once and it brought me and my then-friends nowhere. agyas cashraddhadanasya samshayatma vinashyati (Gita 4.40). Compare it to a knit sweater with one thread hanging loose on the bottom. To keep it neat you pull off the loose thread, causing the next thread up to loosen up, so you pull that one off too, ultimately ending up without a knit sweater. Similarly if you start doubting one thing without knowing where to draw the line you will end up with nothing. You can not for yourselves decide where to draw the line, with a PhD or any type of big brain.

Obviously we have a disagreement here.

You do not, however, have a right to call someone faithless on account of their having differing views on how to approach certain sections of zAstra. If we were devoid of zAstriya-zraddha, we would not bother with the scriptures to begin with.

If you couldn't get the thing together reconciling such issues and decided to take a literalist approach all the way, then fine, that's your call. However, you are fortunately not in a position to judge others in this respect. If you cannot accomplish something, that does not set the standard of the impossible for the rest of the world.

So please have respect for fellow devotees who do not share your views.
nabadip - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:42:03 +0530
I think Advaitadasji prefers to sweat in his sweater, sweat it all through until the end of the universe wink.gif , sweat out those doubts and possible counter-arguments. Christians have discussed whether hares are ruminators as the Bible says, or whether only those 30'000 (or how many?) selected ones really get to see final redemption. Another question that brought sleepless nights to medieval literalist scholastics was the one how many angels fit on the blade of a knife. Maybe Ugrasena's bodygards would fit there?!

Literalists take the easy way. It is easy to say that whatever is written is exactly so.

What I find interesting is how literalists develop complex explanations to save their face. In order to maintain a simple faith, you need an elaborate body of apologesis (defense strategies).

Also, there are on the positive side so many statements in the shastra, which, if they were literally true and factual all of this discussed here and all the rules and regs would be vain tormentations of a faithless bunch. I am talking about those eulogies at the end of stories, like "one who hears this narrated is receiving liberation" etc.

I like to look at a painting as a whole rather than at the individual atoms and molecules that make up a piece of art. I do not like to throw away the Mona Lisa because the paint used is toxic. And yet, I want to be able to take the responsibility to call the toxicity by its name, and to beware of its effect on my present being.
dirty hari - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:13:52 +0530
What is the purpose of sastra ?

1. To teach you to directly commune with God and all that entails i.e who God is, what God is, What God can do, What God enjoys, who and what we are, rasa etc.

2. To create a magical world view

So what do we have when we are confronted with a non realistic description as is often the case ? We can take that to be for the purpose of creating and maintaining a magical world view.

By magical world view is meant the world and possibilites within the material world seen with the eyes of the vedic or puranic fantastical magical reality.

Before this technological age there was no way to dismiss the puranic world view as fantasy, in fact in Vraja this magical realism is what the residents see reality as being.

Why ?

It's fun.

More fun then seeing the world as it really is, since in a non technological world there is no necessity of telling the truth, the best thing to do would be to tell the most enjoyable lie.

So when confronted with seemingly fantastic mythology, this is because it is, it is meant for people in a non technological world.

The stuff that matters for us is the philosophy.

Does this mean that Krishna did not do as He did and all the related myths ?

Maybe He did maybe He didn't, does it matter ? Does it change the nature of reality ?

Krishna can do those things exactly as is described, but whether or not things happened exactly as they are described is irrelevant, their purpose in writings are meant to attract you to the philosophy, to bring you to meet Krishna here and now, leave the belief and insistence for acceptence of fantastic possibilites as necessary, for the neophyte and common worshipper, it is for the neophyte and common worshipper that they have strong relevance for, they create a magical reality, for the more advanced devotee they are like the pretty frame of a beautiful painting, the painting is the point, not the frame.
Audarya-lila dasa - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:34:56 +0530
Here is a link to a Sanga edition that dealt a little bit with this topic:
http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/...three/m165.html

I can see both sides of this 'argument' as having validity. Adwaita's points are well taken, at least by me. If one starts to expect sastric statements to conform to the constructs of logic and reason or empirically derived data - eventually one will take the life out of scripture and end up as an athiest.

On the other hand - there is the need to look at scripture and reconcile the statements therein with what is known through observation and logic - in other words our empirical knowledge is constantly changing and being refined and as this happens we will find a need to adjust our thinking and our tradition to accomodate this updated information. Otherwise the tradition becomes irrelevant and static and, in the eyes of many, comical or sad due to an inability to accomodate new information and holding onto belief systems that have proven themselves to be invalidated by empirical knoweldge. Madhava's point of the structure of the universe is a case in point.

The whole point of scripture is to orient individuals in terms of their spiritual prospect and to point them in the right direction. It is due to the fact that sadhakas follow those directions that they develop faith in scripture - in other words - they gain some experience. I think we all share that commonality - we have some genuine experience and it is that experience that causes us to become occupied physically and mentally as we seek to gain more experience.

Another point that has been discussed is how we are to approach scripture. It is obvious that educated people don't want to be asked, nor will they accept, blindly following something. Doubts will be there. I am not sure it is wise to suggest that given the proper level of intellectual accumen that one can resolve all the issues satisfactorily. Then again, maybe no one really suggested that - but still I think it is fair to caution against such an idea. I think the proper approach is to seek good guidance. We even have the example of Visvanatha Cakravarti who could not find the half syllable in the kama gayatri. He tried to use his intellect and he searched scripture thoroughly and couldn't find the answer. Yet he had faith in the statements of Krsna dasa Kaviraja. The resolution of his dilemma came from above, or in the words of Sridhara Maharaja 'from up to down'. I think that this point is very, very relevant to this discussion. Doubts are to be dispensed with by consulting higher authority, not by exercise of our intellect - which certainly is no higher authority. Of course, in this case which is very instructive, Visvanatha Cakravarti did use his intellect to it's furthest reach and only when he couldn't resolve his doubt in this way did the need arise for revelation. Still the point is that scripture is revelatory and we should seek to read it and understand it with that in mind - it is speaking to us about that which we are incapable to understanding but through grace or revelation.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Madhava - Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:59:11 +0530
I'm not certain if the example of Visvanatha you give actually supports the point you are trying to make. Visvanatha did not, as far as I recall, seek advice from someone else, but rather it was directly revealed to him. And the solution discovered was, interestingly, reasonable.

I do not think any of us would consider logic as independent from grace in our pursuit of scriptural reconciliation. After all, we all know from where all memory and knowledge come from.
Audarya-lila dasa - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:28:01 +0530
Maybe I wasn't clear on what point I was trying to make. My point was that we are to excercise our intellect but at the same time we need to realize that for spiritual understanding we will have to rely on Krsna's mercy. Both things are necessary - our endeavor and Krsna's grace. I wasn't seeking to invalidate either by the example. I thought the example illustrated the point very nicely - Visvanatha Cakravarti tried his very best with his intellect and when he failed - Srimati Radharani herself supplied the answer. We must admit the need for grace and our utter dependence on Krsna's mercy for actually knowing. It doesn't mean we become lazy and wait for such an occurence - but at the same time we must acknowledge our absolute dependence.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:37:56 +0530
I would not agree with the assessment that Visvanatha first tried to understand with sole intellect, without understanding the grace factor. Of course the degree of eagerness for receiving revelation is in direct relation to the manifestation of the grace factor.
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:45:50 +0530
In all my statements on the subject, I don't think I have ever taken a radically different line from the one that Audarya has taken. We are anchored in Gaudiya Vaishnava revelation that is incarnate in the person of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Just like Jesus is the Logos incarnate, Mahaprabhu is the Divine Syzygy incarnate in one person, God overcome by Bhakti. These symbols are the core of our faith, not the cosmologies of the Bhagavatam.

If we have a firm hold on the core, we can adapt to an evolving world, especially when that core can be seen as conducive or accomodating a dynamic view of both material and spiritual reality.

The point is don't lose the forest for the trees.

A further point is this: The core, properly understood, will become universally meaningful. This does not mean that everyone will convert, but simply that people from other faiths will see how it is meaningful, seekers especially so. When one gets lost in details, that is easily discernable to a seeker who will find the overall picture out of focus.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:58:37 +0530
QUOTE
One is an apostate only if s/he rejects Mahaprabhu and Radha Govinda,


How about calling Rupa Gosvami a 'human being' and calling the acaryas tikas to SB 10.90.41-42 'unfortunate' because it flies against one's own obviously unconfirmed theory? wink.gif
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:46:02 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 18 2004, 07:28 PM)
QUOTE
One is an apostate only if s/he rejects Mahaprabhu and Radha Govinda,

How about calling Rupa Gosvami a 'human being' and calling the acaryas tikas to SB 10.90.41-42 'unfortunate' because it flies against one's own obviously unconfirmed theory? wink.gif

I believe you are unfairly attributing the claims above to Jagat.

So, Rupa Gosvami was not a human being? In every painting I see of him, he has two eyes, two ears, a pair of hands and legs and all that. All the Gosvamins also studied the scriptures meticulously, and there is documentation in Bhakti-ratnakara how Jiva kept editing and editing before books would be released. Granted, they certainly were most unique individuals, but whether they were omniscient in all respects is open to debate. If they indeed were, then why waste all that time studying, editing and so forth? If you know all about everything perfectly, just write the thing once and bas, all is complete. And yes, I know that the Gosvamins were six manjaris in Vraja.

As for the tikas, he did not call the tikas unfortunate. He said that unfortunately our acaryas seem to be literalists in commenting to that verse in that they only deal with the figures presented in the verse without commenting beyond that as to why and where the quadrillion bodyguards might have been there etc. or whether it was a poetic praise. Therefore it is unfortunate that the acharyas have not specifically commented pro or con on the issues we struggle with.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:56:42 +0530
I am afraid you and Jagat just dont get it, Madhava. I think your intellectual overweight is blocking proper understanding. Krishna also has 2 hands 2 feet and 2 eyes as well, so does Rama and Mahaprabhu. Are they too human beings? It is the attitude towards a saint/incarnation/God that counts. na martya buddhyasuyeta - This phrase covers the 2 problems with Jagat. 1. na martya - If the Guru is not a human being, then what to speak of the entire Sampradaya's Adi Guru, Rupa Gosvami? Personally I am appalled by Jagat's attitude and I appeal to other members that share my feeling to express their outrage at this as well. 2. asuyeta - one should not find fault with the acaryas. Jagat did say the tika or the conclusions are unfortunate which is not only breathtakingly arrogant, but is also asuya, which means, amongst others, envious and faultfinding.
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:04:07 +0530
If Rupa and our gurus are not human beings, then all is meaningless. If Rupa and our gurus are nothing but human beings, then all is meaningless.
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:05:10 +0530
The pastimes of Krishna were known as nara-lila last time I checked. They play the role of a human.

In the case of acharyas, perhaps you would explain how the guru/acharya is still seen as dependent on the extent of his having learnt scriptures in his capacity to address scriptural concerns, if he is beyond any human limitations in his abilities?

Or is this another of those issues where we are just supposed to shut up and not speculate, being content with an incomplete understanding of the matter?

Please don't escalate and misinterpret our words. We all know those verses and have our respective understandings of how they are understood.
braja - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:06:51 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 18 2004, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE

One is an apostate only if s/he rejects Mahaprabhu and Radha Govinda,


How about calling Rupa Gosvami a 'human being' and calling the acaryas tikas to SB 10.90.41-42 'unfortunate' because it flies against one's own obviously unconfirmed theory? wink.gif

That's just the colorful eccentricity and strong opinions that we've all come to love from our Dutchmen. tongue.gif

But Rupa certainly is human, sentient, humane. He just happens to be nara-uttama. Those of us somewhere lower on the scale certainly have our barbs and quirks, but they will be shorn off in time. I don't think anyone who has spent 20-30 years delving into rasa-sastra with a view to attaining the feet of Sri Radhika by way of Rupa-Raghunatha is going to be cast into hell because of a probing intelligence. Perhaps it is an impediment that must be given up...or perhaps it is something that by divine arrangement is serving to bring and convince others who are of a similar (asuric?) nature.
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:17:19 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 17 2004, 08:08 PM)
I would like to have clear answers, a plain yes or no will suffice, to each of the questions above, please.

I would really like to get my yes:s or no:s on the Jambudvipa-post.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:20:52 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 18 2004, 08:34 PM)
If Rupa and our gurus are not human beings, then all is meaningless. If Rupa and our gurus are nothing but human beings, then all is meaningless.

Again, it is the attitude that counts. Guru is also passing stool and urine, but we should never consider him a human being. And BTW Rupa Gosvami is still Rupa Manjari, and that is not just ascribed to him by some historians or blind believer or so.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:25:07 +0530
QUOTE
In the case of acharyas, perhaps you would explain how the guru/acharya is still seen as dependent on the extent of his having learnt scriptures in his capacity to address scriptural concerns, if he is beyond any human limitations in his abilities?


I have already said that he is to be considered a human being, though the Light Divine does appear in a frame of flesh and blood. This is bhakti yoga, not big brain yoga. It is the attitude that counts.

QUOTE
Please don't escalate and misinterpret our words.


I am neither escalating nor misinterpreting. This is called Gaudiya Discussions, after all, so I am not to be heard? Or is this a monologue and Diktat of you and Jagat? Do I just have to lie low and obey? What is the use of this site then? Just to broadcast the opinions of you two, and everyone else serves as audience?
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 03:09:43 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 18 2004, 08:55 PM)
I am neither escalating nor misinterpreting.

Yes you are.


QUOTE
This is called Gaudiya Discussions, after all, so I am not to be heard? Or is this a monologue and Diktat of you and Jagat? Do I just have to lie low and obey? What is the use of this site then? Just to broadcast the opinions of you two, and everyone else serves as audience?

Yes, you can certainly be heard. However, you should not be exacerbating our statements and judging us or anyone else for that matter. Present the siddhanta all you like, but I don't think anyone here is particularly fond of hearing judgmental statements issued.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 03:16:39 +0530
What do you mean with judgemental statements? Statements of personal opinion? What is wrong with expression one's judgements? Or if you mean anything else, could you quote examples?
Audarya-lila dasa - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 03:40:21 +0530
I would like to suggest that discsussions can take place without having to call someone who has a differing opinion an apostate or calling on others to express their outrage at what appears to you, Adwaita, to be outrageous.

Saying it is unfortunate that none of the previous acharyas who are accepted universally as authorities gave defininite answers one way or the other regarding numbers in a particular verse is hardly outrageous.

You seem to have very strong feelings about this issue but you should also know that each devotee who is dedicating their life to Mahaprabhu has similarly strong feelings and maybe give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their motives. I mean do you really think that Jagat or Madhava place their intellect on such an exalted platform? I would guess that they are both quite aware of their own fallibility and the foolishness of thinking that Krsna can be subjugated by the mind and intellect. Just because they choose to exercise their intellects in relation to scripture and it's application and meaning in modern times doesn't mean they are slaves to intellectualism.

Most people will not abide by the idea that the intellect and reason should be suspended and that one should simply have 'faith'. Most people want faith, but they would like faith which is reasonable as much as possible. To doubt is not a bad thing - without questions there can be no significant growth.

Since there is no definitive statement regarding the very large numbers, for instance, of bodyguards for Ugrasena made by our predecessor acharyas - what is wrong with questioning whether or not the numbers are poetic rather than literal numbers?

Your explantion that yogamaya can arrange for the impossible is one way to approach this 'problem' - but another way is to suggest that the numbers really simply mean there were a lot of guards, not that we take the number literally. In either case, the explanation is one being given by a contempory devotee who is exercising their faith and intelligence in relation to trying to understand scripture. Since there can be many meanings within scripture, both interpretations may be right. And both interpretations can be bolstered with examples from our sacred texts.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 03:43:10 +0530
QUOTE
So, Rupa Gosvami was not a human being? In every painting I see of him, he has two eyes, two ears, a pair of hands and legs and all that. All the Gosvamins also studied the scriptures meticulously, and there is documentation in Bhakti-ratnakara how Jiva kept editing and editing before books would be released. Granted, they certainly were most unique individuals, but whether they were omniscient in all respects is open to debate. If they indeed were, then why waste all that time studying, editing and so forth? If you know all about everything perfectly, just write the thing once and bas, all is complete. And yes, I know that the Gosvamins were six manjaris in Vraja.


gaurangera sangi gane, nitya siddha kori mane, se jay brajendra suta pash

(Prarthana, Narottama Das Thakura, song 13)


"Whoever considers the associates of Gauranga to be nitya siddhas, will attain Krishna in Braja."

Purport by Ananta das Babaji Maharaja - "sutaram gaurangera lila sangi gane keho tatastha jiva tattva nahen, tahara sakalei anadi siddha nitya parikara. sri gaurangera nyaya yahadera cid anandamoy vigraha...

"Therefore none of the associates in Gauranga Lila are tatastha jiva tattva, all of them are eternally perfect associates of the Lord, since beginningless time. Their bodies are transcendental, like that of Sri Gauranga......"
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 03:45:58 +0530
As far as I know, that was not brought into question.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 03:52:47 +0530
QUOTE
I would like to suggest that discsussions can take place without having to call someone who has a differing opinion an apostate or calling on others to express their outrage at what appears to you, Adwaita, to be outrageous.


This is not what I said. I suggested that Jagat's attitude to the tikakaras can be seen in two different ways, either a. that he is an apostate or b. that the acaryas are wrong. Do you have a third option?

QUOTE
I would guess that they are both quite aware of their own fallibility and the foolishness of thinking that Krsna can be subjugated by the mind and intellect.


Calling the tikas 'unfortunate' does show a great faith in one's own intellect, doesnt it? Doesnt show great respect for the acaryas, does it?

QUOTE
Since there is no definitive statement regarding the very large numbers, for instance, of bodyguards for Ugrasena made by our predecessor acharyas - what is wrong with questioning whether or not the numbers are poetic rather than literal numbers?


Do you presume the tikakaras were too lazy or inadvertent to mention that the numbers were exaggarated? What they did say is that tarka does not apply to the inconceivable, which I repeatedly quoted. That makes 2-0 for yours truly...

QUOTE
Since there can be many meanings within scripture, both interpretations may be right. And both interpretations can be bolstered with examples from our sacred texts.


There is no dearth of tikakaras, there are 8 to the Bhagavata that I know. I have yet to see a single one of them saying that this or any other number in the shastras are exaggarated. Are they all too lazy or inadvertant to point this out?
RasaMrita - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 06:10:01 +0530
I heard that the Srimad Bhagavatam is the spotless purana. Not here.

“The sages have come to the positive conclusion that singing the praises of the Lord of sacred fame is the undying fruit of all austerities, study of the Vedas, performance of sacrifices and charities, muttering of sacred formulas and pursuit of knowledge”
RasaMrita - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 06:33:09 +0530
I read in this thread, what is the proof of this and that?

The vedas itself cannot go beyond "not this, not that" in describing Brahman. In the aphorisms of Devarsi Narada, number 59 it says,

"The proof of devotion is devotion itself, it requires no other proof"

Therefore, the lila of the Lord doesn't require proof. It is not a subjective matter because it is belong to Him, and to have direct experience of it; is possible only through his bliss and the grace of His devotee; when one depend entirely on that Divine Grace.
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:16:50 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 18 2004, 09:46 PM)
What do you mean with judgemental statements? Statements of personal opinion? What is wrong with expression one's judgements? Or if you mean anything else, could you quote examples?

Statements such as labeling people apostates over their not agreeing with you on some issues. Such statements are in no way constructive to a discussion, and only indicate that you are attempting to bully someone into accepting your conclusion.

We repeatedly see you saying, "You just don't get it." As if you had an exclusive license to understanding things. Have you consider that for change you might reconsider your preconceived ideas or at least allow room for views aside those that are your own? We do not need someone to play the siddhanta-police here, to enforce his own views upon others and then get angry when someone doesn't agree.

As far as I can see, you haven't come forward with any substantial case with your views in this regard, you just advocate blind following in absence of a better understanding. And should I say, "You just don't get it." That would be a constructive way to look at it.
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:18:33 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 18 2004, 10:22 PM)
Do you presume the tikakaras were too lazy or inadvertent to mention that the numbers were exaggarated? What they did say is that tarka does not apply to the inconceivable, which I repeatedly quoted. That makes 2-0 for yours truly...

Do you take this for a fun game you play, where you win scores over eggheads? Seriously, we would like to have a forum where we can dispassionately discuss different views without having someone attack and try to score points whenever something doesn't fit into his world.

And he shoots, and he scores! Advaita 3 - Eggheads 0.
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:21:41 +0530
QUOTE(RasaMrita @ Jun 19 2004, 12:40 AM)
I heard that the Srimad Bhagavatam is the spotless purana.  Not here.

Please, comments like this are really tiresome. Of course we all have heard that statement hundreds of times, just as we have heard the na martyabuddhasuyeta etc. and all the other phrases people like to adopt as a way to hammer someone over the head.

Quoting such verses as if we wouldn't know of their existence, or expecting that we just outright disagree, is a not-very-complimentary way to look at our knowledge of and respect for the scriptures. We just might have a slightly different understanding from yours over what a certain statement may mean.
Openmind - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:40:40 +0530
What I am missing badly while contemplating this subject is wisdom and realization. Blind acceptance and chewing the remnants of others mindlessly may appear attractive to some individuals, but not to me.

I was extremely happy when in a text (kindly sent to me by my friend, Adwaitaji who has always been ready to answer my endless questions and share his valuable experiences with me) I read about a famous bengali siddha in the Adwaita parivar, who - when asked by his parents to study Gaudiya shastra - refused, saying "I do not want to chew on others' remnants, I want to find out the truth for myself", and went to practise meditation for years in solitude. This was the second time I encountered this brave, wise and exploring spirit in our lineage. The first was when I read BVT's speech on Bhagavata, where he inspires all to find the truth individually, and not be attached to mere words of the ancient ones. If this attitude is considered heretical in Gaudiyaism, then I am happy to be a heretic.
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:59:11 +0530
That was Advaita's own guru, wasn't it? Marvellous contradictions. Looking for your own individual way does not mean that we are not guided in basic principles by guru and sastra. They are indispensable. But you are an individual, and you must approach God as an individual. The onus is indeed on you.

By the way, thank you for posting your picture and biodata on your profile. Your experience with Buddhism will surely bring much to your unique understanding of the bhakti path, and will make you capable of giving much also.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:27:57 +0530
QUOTE
That was Advaita's own guru, wasn't it? Marvellous contradictions. Looking for your own individual way does not mean that we are not guided in basic principles by guru and sastra.


With due deep respect, Jagat, you are certainly a more mature and saintly person than myself, but I hope you will concede that your unfortunate ideas about the Shastras and the Goswamis cannot be compared with the deep faith-world of an Indian born Vaishnava/brahmin/Goswami. My Gurudeva has never denied the divinity of shastra and the Goswamis, he simply wanted to find his own way, keeping all respect to the Shastras and the Goswamis. Secondly, if you knew him well, Openmind and Jagat, you would know that he did not reach his conclusions through intellectual prowess. On the contrary, if you think that I am anti-intellectual you haven't seen/heard him yet. Indeed he considered even me an egghead! His path was the spiritual, not the intellectual. I have never heard him say that a tika was unfortunate or that the Goswamis were only human, and I dare to stick my hand in the fire for it that he hasn't said that during his adolescence either. His example is not a license for speculation and shoreless intellectualism at all.
RasaMrita - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:29:48 +0530
The reason I said what I said was to remind you. You have decided in considering that which you couldn't not understand in the scriptures as mere prose. You words not mine. Instead of praying for the sweetness of the Lord in the form of his compassion you are choosing the reasons of your own intellect in the inconceivalbe matters of the shastra. It is not that I am a puritan. I am probabily the most fallen among you. Your public disdain towards Sri Rupa and the Bhagavatam take you to my level and that causes concern.
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:40:21 +0530
Disdain? This was meant for me? I don't understand. I have given my life to Gaudiya shastra, and yet rather than see that, one takes one comment and makes that the one thing that counts.

It's like a political campaign and the media. No place for nuance.

P.S. Rasamritaji, would you like to share a little more about yourself on your profile. It's always nice to know about the person when things get personal.
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:42:53 +0530
Let me say this: It is more important that I love Rupa Goswami than that I think of him as a god.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:49:29 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 19 2004, 12:12 PM)
Let me say this: It is more important that I love Rupa Goswami than that I think of him as a god.

Would you not consider him a god if you really love him? It's the least you can do..... wink.gif
RasaMrita - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:33:39 +0530
"O Uddhava, the heart is guided by its own choice.
Leaving sweet fruits like grapes and dates,
the insect bred in poison will feed on poisonous plants.
The chakora bird will throw away camphor if the same is offered to it,
and will be satisfied with embers.
The bee which pierces through the hardest wood will die
rather than pierce the soft petal of the lotus.
The moth hugs the flame, knowing it to be its greatest friend."

There you have it.

Please do not take it personally, Do you want that your nonsense be accepted without question it? Will you call that a well wisher?

Again,

"O Uddhava, the heart is guided by its own choice.
Leaving sweet fruits like grapes and dates,
the insect bred in poison will feed on poisonous plants.
The chakora bird will throw away camphor if the same is offered to it,
and will be satisfied with embers.
The bee which pierces through the hardest wood will die
rather than pierce the soft petal of the lotus.
The moth hugs the flame, knowing it to be its greatest friend."

My life is irrevelant, it has not impact. A common man.
vamsidas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:46:32 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 19 2004, 08:19 AM)
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 19 2004, 12:12 PM)
Let me say this: It is more important that I love Rupa Goswami than that I think of him as a god.

Would you not consider him a god if you really love him? It's the least you can do..... wink.gif

Krishna's most intimate associates do not consider him a god, even though they love him far more than any of us can imagine.

So your suggestion appears to fail. smile.gif
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:59:05 +0530
QUOTE(vamsidas @ Jun 19 2004, 01:16 PM)
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 19 2004, 08:19 AM)
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 19 2004, 12:12 PM)
Let me say this: It is more important that I love Rupa Goswami than that I think of him as a god.

Would you not consider him a god if you really love him? It's the least you can do..... wink.gif

Krishna's most intimate associates do not consider him a god, even though they love him far more than any of us can imagine.

So your suggestion appears to fail. smile.gif

That is in Krishna's nitya lila. In Gaura lila respect is pradhana. Look at the difference between Rupa and Sanatan Gosvami's respect for Mahaprabhu in comparison to their (Rup and Labanga Manjari's) intimate friendship with Radha-Krishna, or the reverence Das Gosvami showed for Rupa Gosvami versus the intimate love of Tulasi Manjari towards Rupa Manjari.
RasaMrita - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:16:31 +0530
Advaita, could you please elaborate on your previous statement? I find it to be very interesting. This is on the essence of raganuga sadhana. If respect is the main ingredient, how is it compare or equated with spontaneous love?
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:34:39 +0530
It is the teaching of my Guru's father Srila Ananda Gopal Goswami in his Vilap Kusumanjali commentary, verse nr. 67 -

"The VrajavAsIs have constant rAga, or sacred passionate love, exclusively devotional feelings for zrI KRSNa. The sAdhaka will follow these feelings of sacred passion and so they will be ‘infected’ by their feelings of love. Then prema will be earnest. All other types of devotional love outside of Vraja are mixed with feelings of awe and reverence. This type of reverence-mixed loving attitude can also be seen in MahAprabhu’s associates towards zrIman MahAprabhu. Despite his intimate spiritual relationship with the Lord RAmAnanda RAya could not take MahAprabhu to his home (because it would be a breach of Vedic protocol)

eimata duhe stuti kore duhAra guna; duhe duhAra darazane Anandita mon
heno kAle vaidika eka vaiSNava brAhmaNa; daNDavat kori koilo prabhure nimantraNa


"In this way the Lord and RAmAnanda RAya praised each other. They were filled with transcendental bliss from seeing each other. At that time a Vedic Brahmin appeared, who offered obeisances to the Lord and invited Him for a meal.” (C.C. Madhya 8.47-48)

But KRSNa’s associates in Vraja make Him eat their food-remnants and climb on His shoulders! Such pure love can not be found outside of the cowherd villages of Vraja. Unless one follows the feelings of the gopIs there will be feelings of awe and reverence towards the Lord.
zrI RUpa GosvAmI humbly stayed in HaridAsa ThAkura's cottage at PurI, afraid to approach MahAprabhu directly. But in Vraja, as RUpa MaJjarI, he prays:

karuNAM muhur arthaye paraM tava vRndAvana cakravartini
api keziripor yathA bhavet sa cATu prArthana bhAjanaM janaH


"O empress of VRndAvana! O zrI RAdhike! Please make KRSNa (or the selfsame MahAprabhu!) pitifully pray to me (for Your audience)!" (CATu PuSpAJjali, 23)

(Thus ends Srila Ananda Gopal Gosvami's purport)

Furthermore, there is the opening verse of Vilap Kusumanjali, where Tulasi Manjari (Raghunath das Gosvami) intimately addresses Rupa Manjari (Rupa Gosvami) -

tvam rupa manjari sakhi prathita pure'smin

"O Rupa Manjari, my sakhi!"

But at the end of his Dana Keli Cintamani, Raghunath das Gosvami prays as follows to Rupa Gosvami:

AdadAnas trnnam dantair idam yAce punah punah
srimad rüpa padAmbhoja dhulih syam janma janmani


"Taking a straw between my teeth, I pray thus again and again: "May I become the dust on Srimad Rupa Gosvami's lotus feet, birth after birth."
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:57:48 +0530
Now, this is what I like to see from you, Advaita! Now tell me why I cannot agree with everything above, and still scoff at 10 quadrillion or 300 billion bodyguards for Ugrasena as historical truth?

Just doing Chaitanya Chandrodaya for GGM, in act 6 where Gopinathacharya is arguing that Mahaprabhu is an incarnation, and Sarvabhauma's disciples are asking for scriptural evidence, etc. He says: tat-kathA-viSayo na bhavati | anubhava-vedyam eva bhavati ced asyAnugrahas tvayi tadA bhavataivAnubhAvyam | "This cannot be explained. It is only something that you can feel or experience for yourself. And as such, you will be able to understand it only when he is merciful to you."
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:28:08 +0530
QUOTE
Now, this is what I like to see from you, Advaita! Now tell me why I cannot agree with everything above, and still scoff at 10 quadrillion or 300 billion bodyguards for Ugrasena as historical truth?


Huh? huh.gif Evidence is provided from CC, Stavamala, DKC and Stavavali. What is wrong with that?

QUOTE
Just doing Chaitanya Chandrodaya for GGM, in act 6 where Gopinathacharya is arguing that Mahaprabhu is an incarnation, and Sarvabhauma's disciples are asking for scriptural evidence, etc. He says: tat-kathA-viSayo na bhavati | anubhava-vedyam eva bhavati ced asyAnugrahas tvayi tadA bhavataivAnubhAvyam | "This cannot be explained. It is only something that you can feel or experience for yourself. And as such, you will be able to understand it only when he is merciful to you."


Exactly. This is called faith and/or revelation, as opposed to big big intellect. Has Mahaprabhu mercifully revealed to you from within the heart that the Acaryas' tikas are unfortunate, that dope can be favorable and that Rupa Gosvami is an ordinary guy?
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:27:04 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 19 2004, 02:58 PM)
Exactly. This is called faith and/or revelation, as opposed to big big intellect. Has Mahaprabhu mercifully revealed to you from within the heart that the Acaryas' tikas are unfortunate, that dope can be favorable and that Rupa Gosvami is an ordinary guy?

For the umpteenth time, please do not twist our statements. Jagat has never said that Rupa Gosvami is an ordinary guy, and has indeed already on several occasions clarified his stand on the issue when you blamed him of the same.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:38:28 +0530
QUOTE
For the umpteenth time, please do not twist our statements. Jagat has never said that Rupa Gosvami is an ordinary guy, and has indeed already on several occasions clarified his stand on the issue when you blamed him of the same.


Posted by: Jagat Jun 17 2004, 10:45 AM

(3) Those who make the selection process are, like ourselves, human beings. We acknowledge that they are special individuals, speaking to time and place, finding eternal verities. Innovators like Rupa Goswami are innovators not because they accepted sabda as they found it, but because they discovered things within their experience and applied their intelligence to them.

Posted by: Madhava Jun 18 2004, 08:16 PM
So, Rupa Gosvami was not a human being?

************
gaurangera sangi gane, nitya siddha kori mane, se jay brajendra suta pash

(Prarthana, Narottama Das Thakura, song 13)

"Whoever considers the associates of Gauranga to be nitya siddhas, will attain Krishna in Braja."

Purport by Ananta das Babaji Maharaja - "sutaram gaurangera lila sangi gane keho tatastha jiva tattva nahen, tahara sakalei anadi siddha nitya parikara. sri gaurangera nyaya yahadera cid anandamoy vigraha...

"Therefore none of the associates in Gauranga Lila are tatastha jiva tattva, all of them are eternally perfect associates of the Lord, since beginningless time. Their bodies are transcendental, like that of Sri Gauranga......"

wink.gif
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:49:02 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 19 2004, 08:19 AM)
Would you not consider him a god if you really love him? It's the least you can do..... wink.gif

Perhaps like Ramachandra Puri, who lovingly reminded his guru that he was God on his deathbed.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:57:02 +0530
You started using the word god, not me. Now you come with God with capital G..

Anyway, I did not say god, Narottam says this -

gaurangera sangi gane, nitya siddha kori mane, se jay brajendra suta pash

(Prarthana, Narottama Das Thakura, song 13)

"Whoever considers the associates of Gauranga to be nitya siddhas, will attain Krishna in Braja."
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:00:04 +0530
I believe I've made myself sufficiently clear in this regard. If you still wish to misinterpret it, please be my guest, though I will probably not have much further to say.
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:02:07 +0530
The guru is God. There is no ambiguity. Now you are introducing ambiguity? You are capable of nuance?
RasaMrita - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:05:16 +0530
QUOTE
Now, this is what I like to see from you, Advaita!


Smoothness produced by water does not stand.

QUOTE
why I cannot agree with everything above,


Could you please tell us in what you disagree? I am not very knowledgeable and such statement confuse me.

QUOTE
and still scoff at 10 quadrillion or 300 billion bodyguards for Ugrasena as historical truth?


Are you serious? Mocking the Bhagavatam! What a fatuation!
Without faith, there will be no attachement and without attachement Bhakti cannot endure.



Bhakti Sutras

31. This is corroborated by the examples of the Royal Palace and meals, etc.

32. It (the mere knowledge of the ins and outs of a palace) does not help us to win the favour of the king (Who occupies it), nor does it (the mere knowledge of a particular kind of food) help us to satisfy our hunger.
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:08:59 +0530
In Iskcon, an interesting situation arose when Bhaktivedanta Swami was on his deathbed. One day, he expressed a desire to do Govardhan Parikrama. One group of disciples said this would kill him and argued that they should refuse his request, the other group said, "He is guru, do what he wants without question."

I would have taken the position, "He is a devotee. Fulfill his desire."

I repeat: If the guru is not human, then everything we do is a waste of time. If the guru is merely human, then everything we do is a waste of time.
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:11:06 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 19 2004, 04:32 PM)
The guru is God. There is no ambiguity. Now you are introducing ambiguity? You are capable of nuance?

You are constantly changing, juggling and side tracking.
1. You spoke of Rupa Gosvami as a human being.
2. I refuted that by quoting Narottama, saying Nitya siddhi kori mane.
3. Then you introduced the word god, whereas the dispute was human/nitya siddha.
4. Now you start speaking of Guru, whereas we were discussing Rupa Gosvami.

blink.gif
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:12:39 +0530
QUOTE
I repeat: If the guru is not human, then everything we do is a waste of time. If the guru is merely human, then everything we do is a waste of time.


That may be a bit too cryptic for us dumb guys. Perhaps you could give a clear and well described example of both.
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:27:42 +0530
QUOTE(RasaMrita @ Jun 19 2004, 04:35 PM)
I am not very knowledgeable and such statement confuse me.

You are not very knowledgeable, yet you come in preaching to everybody. Isn't that a contradiction there?
Jagat - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:29:39 +0530
Guru is God. Rupa is Guru. I don't see any difference in tattva. Call it nitya-siddha or whatever you like. The shakti and shaktiman are one. We are all God, aren't we?

If the difference between jiva and nitya-siddha is absolute, an uncrossable gulf, then what do they mean to us? They have nothing to do with us. They have no challenges, no suffering, no death.

If they are not human, we share nothing with them. Madhava was right, two hands, two legs, breathing, eating, sleeping, shitting, pissing, vomiting, this is all human. That which is common to us is "human." But that includes the element of the divine that exists in ourselves as well, not just in them. If the potential for perfection were not within us, their so-called divinity or nitya-siddha status would be meaningless.

And yet, if they are just like us, then what do we have to learn from them? If they are not via media for divine revelation, then what is the point of holding them in our hearts?
RasaMrita - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:54:45 +0530
QUOTE
If they are not human, we share nothing with them. Madhava was right, two hands, two legs, breathing, eating, sleeping, shitting, pissing, vomiting, this is all human. That which is common to us is "human."


I like to remind you about the pastimes of the name "Gopal Guru"
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:00:23 +0530
The acaryas distinguish between jiva and God and between siddhas, nitya siddhas and sadhakas..... wink.gif
Advaitadas - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:03:09 +0530
QUOTE
Guru is God. Rupa is Guru. I don't see any difference in tattva. Call it nitya-siddha or whatever you like. The shakti and shaktiman are one. We are all God, aren't we?

If the difference between jiva and nitya-siddha is absolute, an uncrossable gulf, then what do they mean to us? They have nothing to do with us. They have no challenges, no suffering, no death.


The Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas distinguish between jiva and God and between siddhas, nitya siddhas and sadhakas..... wink.gif

QUOTE
shitting, pissing,


This type of language is the privilege of the moderator? When I said 'Anthropologist my ass' the world was too small for you.
wink.gif
RasaMrita - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:24:32 +0530
QUOTE
You are not very knowledgeable, yet you come in preaching to everybody. Isn't that a contradiction there?


I would like also to remind you that, The Devotion, which is recognized as means to the attainment of Wisdom, is an auxiliary form of Devotion. It falls under the category of ordinary worship, it is not the highest manifestation of Devotion characterized as Love. This Love is the end or culmination of all disciplines and is averse to pride and attach to humility.

If the attributes of Krishna were nothing but the manifestations of gross Maya, which has given birth to this material universe and whose nature is to screen the Divine (as done by you and Jagat) or if the Divine form of the Lord were nothing but a product of Maya, they would not have been able to attract human beings, after all who want to be attract it to another condicional soul. Did you get it?

"From now on, you will be know as Gopal Guru" Doesn't rings to you?
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:27:58 +0530
I'm sorry but it really doesn't ring. I really don't follow your pattern of thought here. I have trouble understanding what you are trying to say.
Madhava - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:56:12 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 19 2004, 05:33 PM)
QUOTE
shitting, pissing,

This type of language is the privilege of the moderator? When I said 'Anthropologist my ass' the world was too small for you.

There's a difference in the usage there. For example, you could say, "A dog bit me in the ass," but you couldn't say, "Anthropologists my ass." You could say, "The dog shit on my shoes," but you couldn't say, "These ideas are complete shit." I trust you understand the difference.
Openmind - Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:58:06 +0530
Dear Adwaita:

You are right, I did not know your Gurudev, I wish I had. And I never ever said that he came to realiziation through intellectual speculation, that is what I was trying to say in my post: instead of believing everything in the books, he went to the Himalayas to meditate in solitude to attain factual realization of all the things we can read about in different texts. And this quality makes him in my eyes an extraordinary personality, I wish there were much more of this type amongst Vaishnavas. This is attainment, this is realization. Belief is nice and as you quoted the famous verse "adau sraddha" often, it is necessary, or else we would never take up the path. But if this faith is not followed by actual realization and experience, then - in my opinion - we may become dogmatists, just like some Christians whose one and only "argument" is: "It is so, because the Bible, this chapter, this verse says that".
Jagat - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:02:14 +0530
I was making a point, which was that Rupa Goswami had to do those things also. So, I used cruder words than normal, just to emphasize the point. I meant no impoliteness to him or any acharya. After all, the nitya-siddha Madhavandra Puri's stools were cleansed away by another nitya-siddha Ishwara Puri.

When you get down to basics like this, you get the feeling that there is something in common. I am not denying the other, divine aspect of Rupa. My point is that our tattva is called achintya-bhedabheda. We have a tendency to play up the divine aspect, in order to maximize the sense of respect and wonder.

But without recognizing that there is a common aspect that we share with the acharyas, nitya-siddha, sädhana-siddha, or ardha-siddha, we end up creating a divide between ourselves and true spiritual understanding. We are always followers, and our heads are always bowed in respect, but we are a part of them and they of us.

A father is of the same quality as the son, and the son of the father. If the father is a monkey, the son will not be a human.

This is basically all I am trying to say.
RasaMrita - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:07:54 +0530
QUOTE
would like also to remind you that, The Devotion, which is recognized as means to the attainment of Wisdom, is an auxiliary form of Devotion. It falls under the category of ordinary worship, it is not the highest manifestation of Devotion characterized as Love. This Love is the end or culmination of all disciplines and is averse to pride and attach to humility


This means, please Madhava don't try to be a scholar strive to be a devotee.

"O Uddhava, we are not fit to practise yoga, Being women, what do we know of the essence of wisdom? How shall we practise meditation?
You ask us to close these eyes - the eyes wherein stays the Form of Hari;
Such deceitful talk we are not going to hear.

o honey - tounged messenger!

You ask us to get our ears cleft and twist our looks into clotted hair; who will bear all this pain? You advise us to give up the use of sandal paste and besmear our bodies with ashes, but don't you know we are burning with the fire of separation?"

QUOTE
If the attributes of Krishna were nothing but the manifestations of gross Maya,(pissing, shitting etc.)  which has given birth to this material universe (place of pigs) and whose nature (of those materially entangled) is to
screen the Divine (as done by you and Jagat) or if the Divine form of the Lord were nothing but a product of Maya, (as a human) they (incarnations) would not have been able to attract human beings,(conditioned souls)  after all who want to be attracted to another condicional soul. Did you get it?


This means that there is no different between Krishna and his devotee (Rupa)

Devotees are my heart, and I am the heart of devotees. They know nobody else than I; and I know nobody else than they." or even better "He who worships Me through Love resides in Me, and I reside in him."
Madhava - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:27:22 +0530
I'm fairly certain you've missed the point here, Rasamrita.

If you have concerns over my aspirations, whether I aspire to be a scholar or a devotee, feel free to PM or e-mail me and discuss them in private.
Jagat - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 02:39:02 +0530
I would like to invite Rasamrita to share with us a little something about him or herself on the personal profile. Advaita and I have a longstanding personal relationship that goes back more than 20 years. Though there is obviously a deep rift between us, there is still something that binds us together.

Gaudiya Discussions is still a small group, and we would like to make it as personal as possible. We don't ask everyone to spill all their secrets, but it makes it so much easier to communicate if we have a little idea about the person we are talking to. Ideas are only one part of a community--sometimes they can survive controversy because of ongoing personal relationships and friendships. These may be even more valuable treasures than our ideas themselves.

So please, Rasamritaji, please fill in the profile card--let us know somethinga bout you--how old you are, where you come from, what kinds of institutional affiliations you have, if any; tell us a little bit about your personal search for truth, which has led you to where you are today.

No one is a common man--we are all individuals with profound experiences that have led us to where and what we are. Hardly any belief can be separated from the one who believes it.

You have nothing to fear.

Your servant, Jagat.
RasaMrita - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 03:14:14 +0530
Madhava! I have constantly express my gratitude every time I received your help I admire your compassion, dedication, sincerity of your service and scriptural knowledge. However, I cannot accept that some verses of the Bhagavatam are just mere prose and that Rupa Goswami is a special human being.

I remember one time, I was uncertain or unclear about the nature of the body, (material or spiritual) of the spiritual master and you posted this for me, from you param gurudeva.

QUOTE
"The body of a devotee (whether male or female) engaged in chanting the Holy Names and other devotional practices becomes progressively free from the material qualities. I am explaining this to you with evidence from the scriptures for your ultimate and greatest benefit.

One who is aware of the spiritual nature of the devotee’s apparently material body will keep free from offences and will thus protect himself on his path to spiritual achievement.

Here the following question arises: When a devotee attains prema and enters the eternal pastimes of the Lord then his body composed of the five elements “dies.” This is seen practically and is mentioned also in connection with the story of NArada. Still some knowledgeable VaiSNavas say that this death of the devotees is false, how is this possible? How can one deny the death of the material body?

The answer is that factually the devotee has no material body. As Lord zrI Caitanya MahAprabhu himself says in the Caitanya-caritAmRta:

A devotee’s body should never be thought of as material. It is transcendental and made of spiritual substance. At the time of initiation, when the devotee offers himself up to the Lord, then the Lord makes him equal to himself. He makes the devotee’s body spiritual like his own so that the devotee can engage in the service of his lotus feet [otherwise, how can he serve him?]

In the BRhad-BhAgavatAmRta also, Maheza says to NArada,

Oh NArada! I consider that wherever there are devotees, that is VaikuNTha. Even if they are in the material world, it is not to be considered inferior to VaikuNTha. This is my own realization from direct experience and I don't feel it necessary to offer proofs from scripture. My experience is sufficient evidence. Due to drinking the nectar of devotion to KRSNa they have completely forgotten the material body and everything connected with it and thus that body becomes transformed into something other-worldly or spiritual, just as took place in the case of Dhruva MahArAja. It is just as with the drinking of certain potions—the body becomes transformed.

The transformation of the devotee’s body is a gradual process. In his commentary on the words “they gave up their bodies of material elements” in BhAgavata-purANa (10.29.10), VizvanAtha presents the following argument:

Other than a devotee surrendered to the Lord, no one, not the jJAnin, nor the yogin, nor any other transcendentalist is actually completely free from the material qualities. This was stated by the Lord to Uddhava (BhP 11.25.26). One should understand this in the following way: the devotee’s body is considered to be nirguNa because, on the order of his spiritual master, all of his senses are engaged in the transcendental service of the Lord, his ears in hearing about KRSNa, his tongue in chanting the Lord’s names and glories, his mind in remembering KRSNa, his entire body in prostrating himself in supplication to the Deity and his hands in various types of service. Thus, because all his senses are engaged in receiving transcendental materials connected with the Supreme Lord, they also become transcendental. On the other hand, as much as the senses receive non-spiritual data, they will be influenced by material qualities. As a result, from the beginning of the devotional process, the devotee’s body is partly material and partly spiritual. According to the indications of the BhAgavata verse (11.2.40) which compares advancement in devotional service to the satisfaction felt by a hungry man while eating, his gaining of strength and relief from the discomforts of hunger, one can understand that the process is progressive, for as much as one has eaten, that is the proportion to which he will feel these beneficial effects. Thus, as one progresses in spiritual life, the spiritualized portion of his body increases and the material portion is gradually reduced. When one reaches the stage of prema then his body is completely spiritualized and there is no mundane portion left. Thus the death of a devotee that is seen by all is to be known as nothing more than a kind of illusion and not at all real. The non-devotees consider that the devotee’s body must also die. This false doctrine is maintained by the Lord just to keep devotional service closed to atheistic and self-interested persons. An example of this is the so-called “Club Pastime” of the Lord in which he created the illusion of the demise of the Yadu dynasty. One should know that this too is non-factual. On some occasions, the Lord does not make such an illusory show but rather seeks to illustrate the glories of devotional service, as in the case of Dhruva. Dhruva went to VaikuNTha in the selfsame body, thus it is to be concluded that the apparent death of NArada was also an illusion created by the Lord.

The next question then is, what is to be gained by thinking that a devotee’s body is beyond the material qualities? And conversely, what is lost by thinking it to be material? Why do disease, etc., manifest in a devotee’s body if it is transcendental?

The response to these questions is as follows: By thinking a devotee’s body to be transcendental, one’s material existence comes to an end. To think it material results in increasing material entanglement and hellish suffering. Evidence is the Padma-purANa verse beginning with vaiSNave jAti-buddhiH. The Lord allows the appearance of death and diseases in a devotee’s body just to increase the materialists' entanglement: it should be considered a test of faith. Caitanya MahAprabhu said the very same thing in connection with the appearance of sores on SanAtana GosvAmin’s body: “The Lord KRSNa made these pus-filled sores appear on SanAtana’s body just to test me. If I had not embraced him due to disgust at seeing them, I would have committed an offense and been punishable by the Lord.”

Anyone, whether male, female, boy or girl, brAhmaNa or any other caste or nationality, immediately rises above the material qualities when he engages in the service of the Lord. For this reason, all devotees should be treated with the greatest affection and reverence; not doing so will result in hellish existence, even if one performs one’s devotional activities most perfectly. This is the conclusion of the devotional scriptures."

Therefore, I do not understand your current position of Rupa Goswami as special human being. Which makes this to stand,

QUOTE
The Devotion, which is recognized as means to the attainment of Wisdom, is an auxiliary form of Devotion. It falls under the category of ordinary worship, it is not the highest manifestation of Devotion characterized as Love. This Love is the end or culmination of all disciplines and is averse to pride and attach to humility


Be careful Brother! That is what I mean. Please do not be offended!

Jaya Radhe!
Madhava - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 03:24:05 +0530
QUOTE(RasaMrita @ Jun 19 2004, 09:44 PM)
Madhava!  I have constantly express my gratitude every time I received your help I admire your compassion, dedication, sincerity of your service and scriptural knowledge. However, I cannot accept that some verses of the Bhagavatam are just mere prose and that Rupa Goswami is a special human being.

For heaven's sake, what is a human being?

Human: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck ... Alas it's a duck! And Matsya was a fish, Bhagavan incarnate as a fish!

Certainly we recognize that Rupa Gosvamin is the leading manjari of Vraja and a nitya-siddha, that is not the issue. Nor do we suggest that he would have been a conditioned soul. So what is the problem here?

"Just mere prose." I suppose you mean poetic expression. Do you have a problem with poetic expressions? The lotus feet of Krishna is a poetic expression. Shines brighter than a million suns brought together is a poetic expression. The soul's size being one ten-thousandth of the tip of a hair is meant to convey the idea that it's real small. And so forth.
Madhava - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 03:27:04 +0530
And for the record, I do not think that Rupa Gosvamin was a duck. So please don't say that Madhava and Jagat are saying such things.
RasaMrita - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 03:48:12 +0530
I rest my case, I lost.

Signed / Rasamrita
Jagat - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 05:03:30 +0530
I've decided not to continue on this thread. My final word is this: A 15th century mentality cannot function in the 21st century. Times have changed, and we must recognize that a superficial acceptance of all things ancient is impossible.

Some may feel it is a danger, some may feel it unnecessary. But my personal opinion is that devotion to Krishna can only become meaningful if we defend it on the right terrain.

If anyone wants to understand where I stand, my website is full of this kind of apostasy. No doubt the subject will come up again. It's going to take more than fear of offending the beginners on the path of devotion to stop my holding these positions.
Elpis - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 06:52:07 +0530
Reading through this thread made me think of two lines in Tennyson's In Memoriam:
QUOTE
There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds.
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:26:04 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 19 2004, 06:26 PM)
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 19 2004, 05:33 PM)
QUOTE
shitting, pissing,

This type of language is the privilege of the moderator? When I said 'Anthropologist my ass' the world was too small for you.

There's a difference in the usage there. For example, you could say, "A dog bit me in the ass," but you couldn't say, "Anthropologists my ass." You could say, "The dog shit on my shoes," but you couldn't say, "These ideas are complete shit." I trust you understand the difference.

anudvegakara vAkyam satyam priya hitam ca yat (Gita 17.15)

"Words should not upset, should be true, dear/precious and beneficial."

I think saying any 4-letter word is therefore wrong. Instead of 'shit' anyone can say 'pass a big one' 'excrement' or 'stool'. I plead guilty, but I also plead that others clean up their act, especially the senior devotees.
Madhava - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:30:58 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 20 2004, 11:56 AM)
I think saying any 4-letter word is therefore wrong. Instead of 'shit' anyone can say 'pass a big one' 'excrement' or 'stool'.  I plead guilty, but I also plead that others clean up their act, especially the senior devotees.

"Word" has four letters. cool.gif

Agreed though. "Poop" should do it.
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:32:37 +0530
QUOTE(Openmind @ Jun 19 2004, 06:28 PM)
Dear Adwaita:

You are right, I did not know your Gurudev, I wish I had. And I never ever said that he came to realiziation through intellectual speculation, that is what I was trying to say in my post: instead of believing everything in the books, he went to the Himalayas to meditate in solitude to attain factual realization of all the things we can read about in different texts. And this quality makes him in my eyes an extraordinary personality, I wish there were much more of this type amongst Vaishnavas. This is attainment, this is realization. Belief is nice and as you quoted the famous verse "adau sraddha" often, it is necessary, or else we would never take up the path. But if this faith is not followed by actual realization and experience, then - in my opinion - we may become dogmatists, just like some Christians whose one and only "argument" is: "It is so, because the Bible, this chapter, this verse says that".

Yes, realisation is where its at. Generally, let no one here take personal offence, I feel that book knowledge and realisation are often communicating vessels. In other words, the more book knowledge, the less understanding. I know that you sympathise with my Gurudeva, Openmind, and it naturally delights me. However, take care with the word dogma. Dogma is not a word that is translatable or insertable into Vedic/Vaishnava thought or tenet. My Baba was not inclined to blindly swallow the pill that his father and brothers fed him (and what a pill that was! Pure bhavollasa, but still) and wanted to find things out on his own. He was thus perhaps non-dogmatic in the pure GV sense, but he did not swerve from the Hindu-schools of thought or practise and he certainly did not arrogantly or casually deal with authorities like Sadhu Shastra or Guru. It is just for the record, I know you understand and sympathise! flowers.gif
nabadip - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:39:21 +0530
QUOTE
he did not swerve from the Hindu-schools of thought or practise


With all due respect, and dandavats to your gurudev and yourself-
did he have the choice to do the above?
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:57:00 +0530
QUOTE(nabadip @ Jun 20 2004, 12:09 PM)
QUOTE
he did not swerve from the Hindu-schools of thought or practise


With all due respect, and dandavats to your gurudev and yourself-
did he have the choice to do the above?

Of course - 10% of India is Muslim, 5 % is Christian, 2 % is Sikh. Sadhus are not unaware of those religions and their tenets. Look at Ramkrishna Paramahamsa, he did it all, in Bengal, in the 19th century.
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:02:43 +0530
QUOTE
Jagat - My final word is this: A 15th century mentality cannot function in the 21st century. Times have changed, and we must recognize that a superficial acceptance of all things ancient is impossible.


No one is expecting you to divert the Ganga to Laval, to give cows in charity to the brahmins in Quebec or to pass stool with a lota and clay. These are externals. However, I am pretty sure that many visitors to this site took exception at your attitude towards Krishna Lila, Shastras and the Tikakaras. Krishna Lila is beyond time and space and has nothing to do with either the 15th, 21st or any other Century. The culture thing and the spiritual are two different issues.
Madhava - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:09:59 +0530
What might the statement on Krishna-lila have been that you found objectionable? I cannot recall that anything was said to the effect that something would be impossible in the lila.
Jagat - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:18:26 +0530
Let me just say that I agree with Advaita that realization is more important than book learning. However, sastra has a significant place, because sravanam is the sine qua non for entering into raganuga bhakti. Everywhere it is hearing, hearing, hearing.

But hearing what? First of all, without hearing from an advanced Vaishnava, there is little chance that any kind of hearing will have a transformative effect.

Second of all, it has to be hearing about the right matters. This is why the right speaker is so important. He will not be misguided by peripherals and will know, like a paramahamsa, what is milk and what is water.
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:20:14 +0530
QUOTE
What might the statement on Krishna-lila have been that you found objectionable? I cannot recall that anything was said to the effect that something would be impossible in the lila.


You could peruse Jagat's posts of
Jagat Jun 16 2004, 09:28 PM
Jagat Jun 17 2004, 07:55 AM


I found that appalling, personally....
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:21:32 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 20 2004, 12:48 PM)
Let me just say that I agree with Advaita that realization is more important than book learning. However, sastra has a significant place, because sravanam is the sine qua non for entering into raganuga bhakti. Everywhere it is hearing, hearing, hearing.

But hearing what? First of all, without hearing from an advanced Vaishnava, there is little chance that any kind of hearing will have a transformative effect.

Second of all, it has to be hearing about the right matters. This is why the right speaker is so important. He will not be misguided by peripherals and will know, like a paramahamsa, what is milk and what is water.

This is totally OK with me, Jagat! flowers.gif
Jagat - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:23:22 +0530
As to the language, I think you will find that my use of language has been impeccable throughout all the years of forum use. In this case, I used this language deliberately. But if I caused offense, I am sorry.

I was making a point, that is all. But if anyone did take offense, that just shows their incapacity to see the human side of acharyas like Rupa. This proves my point.
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:26:33 +0530
Speaking of excrement, while stopping short of saying that Madhavendra Puri's body is like that of Krishna, we do find in the Bhagavata narrations of Krishna passing stool and urine on the floor of mother Yashoda's kitchen, and passing semen in the uterus of Rukmini. He was sweating in the battle of Kuruksetra and bleeding when the hunter Jara shot Him. This is nara lila indeed....
Jagat - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:30:05 +0530
I didn't find any posts corresponding to the times you posted. You must be on a different clock. Perhaps you could give the message number, e.g. Post Preview: #17955.
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:42:42 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 17 2004, 07:55 AM)
I am so far away from this kind of thinking that I almost despair of going back all this territory that has already been covered. I can only suspend disbelief so far, I am sorry.

In terms of preaching, this is a far greater concern than ganja, for though there may be a great many people who are favorable to ganja, there are far more who will find misguided this wholesale gobbling of wild exaggeration as literal truth in the name of "faith."

And yes, it may well be true that Vaishnavas and Hindus of all stripes accept the same things that Iskcon does. But even though I may have mentioned Iskcon's dread name, I mean them all.

I am not in a position to go over this all right now, but perhaps I may invite you to look Here. I am sorry that I did not edit these pages a little more closely, they are still very much answers to letters on a listserve forum, so things jump around quite a bit. However, most of what I have to say on these matters can be found there.

I should put those articles in some kind of numerical sequence. I think this was the first one Why I am not a Prabhupadanuga.

QUOTE
(1) Shastra cannot be taken as absolute. It is only acceptable where it is amenable to reason. Shastra cannot be taken as universally valid in all domains; it cannot be understood literally in all circumstances. I use the example of the cosmology of the Fifth Canto. Anyone who wants to accept the Fifth Canto literally is free to do so, but I don't think that I will be able to engage in a meaningful conversation with such a person. That Prabhupada expected the devotees to build a "Vedic planetarium" on the basis of this cosmology was a classical example of his chutzpah. On the other hand, as soon as one admits the possibility of scriptural fallibility in this or another particular case, a breach has been made in the armor: one has admitted that scripture is no longer universally infallible.

The path of scriptural exegesis is a preliminary path of reason. I see some devotees are now taking recourse to all kinds of non-Krishna conscious authorities like Scott Peck, etc., in order to better understand their own experience and find answers to questions about which shastra is unfortunately vague. But once we abandon the literal reading of the texts, reason again becomes king, usurping shabda. Contradictions are resolved on the basis of reason. Where scriptures are equivocal, certain passages are viewed as allegorical, metaphorical or subordinate to other, more rationally acceptable passages. When for other reasons literal interpretations become impossible, time and circumstance are taken into consideration to allow for relativism a place in interpretation. In all these cases, it is reason, poor maligned, fallible reason, that establishes the hierarchy.

I should point out that I consider that the divine caittya-guru is manifested through the exercise of reason, aided by the help of prayer and meditation and the guidance of insightful predecessors. This is, of course, stated by Krishna: dadAmi buddhi-yogaM.

I will not answer responses to this here, unless you first go and read my responses to other people from the Garuda archives.

This was the worst one....
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:44:54 +0530
Don't wanna recycle the entire debate though crying.gif .
Jagat - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:47:14 +0530
And yet (sigh) that is my line in the sand. Anyway, as I said, I won't pursue this again for the time being.
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:51:55 +0530
I agree. I was only responding to Madhava's challenge.

"What might the statement on Krishna-lila have been that you found objectionable? I cannot recall that anything was said to the effect that something would be impossible in the lila. "

And this one, Madhava, from Jagat on June 16, 2004 -

"Which is it, 10 quadrillion or 30 trillion? This is just bodyguards, mind you. "
Hari Saran - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:32:33 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 20 2004, 12:56 PM)
Madhavendra Puri's body is like that of Krishna. He was sweating in the battle of Kuruksetra and bleeding when the hunter Jara shot Him. This is nara lila indeed....

Is to look at the human side of the Lord and His associates to be taboo or a big deal? I was not aware of that...

“Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is an historical person who appeared on this earth in India 5,000 years ago. He stayed on this earth for 125 years and played exactly like a human being, but His activities were unparalleled.”
[ACBSP]

Vasudeva said, "My dear Lord, it is not a very wonderful thing that You appear within the womb of Devaki because the creation was also made in that way. You were lying in the Causal Ocean as Maha-Visnu, and by Your breathing process, innumerable universes came into existence. Then You entered into each of the universes as Garbhodakasayi Visnu. Then again You expanded Yourself as Ksirodakasayi Visnu and entered into the hearts of all living entities and entered even within the atoms. Therefore Your entrance in the womb of Devaki is understandable in the same way.”
[Krishna Book]

The Lord appears in human form firstly to please Himself, secondly and consequently to present His conclusive understanding out of the experimental nara-lila. He loves humans; we are the best for His pastimes... wink.gif
nabadip - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:05:51 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 20 2004, 01:33 AM)
I've decided not to continue on this thread. My final word is this: A 15th century mentality cannot function in the 21st century. Times have changed, and we must recognize that a superficial acceptance of all things ancient is impossible.

Some may feel it is a danger, some may feel it unnecessary. But my personal opinion is that devotion to Krishna can only become meaningful if we defend it on the right terrain.

If anyone wants to understand where I stand, my website is full of this kind of apostasy. No doubt the subject will come up again. It's going to take more than fear of offending the beginners on the path of devotion to stop my holding these positions.

A 15th century mentality cannot function in the 21st century.

What we are dealing with here in cultural perspective, is the Amish of Pensilvania versus us, computerised, living in modern homes, in modern societies. The Amish lifestyle is a possibility still, but extremely remote from present day life-style, even of an on average simple bhakta-sanga. (When I came to the small ashram of my babaji, there was no electricity. So to carry the comparison on, it is safe to say that some bhaktas in the Dham still live like the Amish today.)

But how to live like that in our minds, in our hearts? I have received some PMs enabling me to say this: It is a cause of great despair for some visitors coming to this site and read the kind of stuff an ostensibly learned person as our Sri Advaitadas proposes, not only that, but more or less violently imposes. People are turned off to pursue a Gaudiya vaishnava interest; now it is not about quantity, or that truth should look for the response in people; the despair is that such views are earnestly proposed as the heart of the Gaudiya Vaishnava school. I doubt that any person whatsoever who has not been previously brainwashed by one of the neo-Hindu orgs into acceptance of nonsense such as dressing like a lunatic and selling weird brochures on a Western street, that any person who has not accepted such kind of violence towards him- or herself, can come here and accept such an out of the world view on spiritual life, and continue and be interested, let alone accept initiation into it.

If this is the great mercy of Mahaprabhu and his school, that one has to take a funnel and be force-fed such beliefs - it is impossible. I for myself know: this is not the case. It cannot be. This is the Taliban of Vrindaban. There is no Taliban among the many -bans there in reality. But it exists in the minds of people. Sri Gauranga did not come to set up a rigid religion, otherwise he would have done so explicitly. The few lines that are directly attributed to him (the Shikshastaka) do not speak of such things. They speak of personal internal experience, and of wisdom furthering development of such experience.

But it is a fact as well, that religion has formed around that deeply subjective field of experience: Some or other Taliban-formation has grown out of Vrindaban, and now that is proposed to be the solution for everyone for the rest of time. I for myself am set on the path towards a merciful God, toward Sri Sri Nitai-Gauranga who come to give unconditionally.
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:27:03 +0530
QUOTE
What we are dealing with here in cultural perspective, is the Amish of Pensilvania versus us, computerised, living in modern homes, in modern societies. The Amish lifestyle is a possibility still, but extremely remote from present day life-style, even of an on average simple bhakta-sanga. (When I came to the small ashram of my babaji, there was no electricity. So to carry the comparison on, it is safe to say that some bhaktas in the Dham still live like the Amish today.)

But how to live like that in our minds, in our hearts? I have received some PMs enabling me to say this: It is a cause of great despair for some visitors coming to this site and read the kind of stuff an ostensibly learned person as our Sri Advaitadas proposes, not only that, but more or less violently imposes. People are turned off to pursue a Gaudiya vaishnava interest; now it is not about quantity, or that truth should look for the response in people; the despair is that such views are earnestly proposed as the heart of the Gaudiya Vaishnava school. I doubt that any person whatsoever who has not been previously brainwashed by one of the neo-Hindu orgs into acceptance of nonsense such as dressing like a lunatic and selling weird brochures on a Western street, that any person who has not accepted such kind of violence towards him- or herself, can come here and accept such an out of the world view on spiritual life, and continue and be interested, let alone accept initiation into it.


Nabadip, I demand a rectification from you.
1. Prove to me where I have said that the heart of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is to live without electricity? This is a complete lie. Rather I have said:

QUOTE
No one is expecting you to divert the Ganga to Laval, to give cows in charity to the brahmins in Quebec or to pass stool with a lota and clay. These are externals.


2. When in my whole life have I ever said one should dress like a lunatic or dress like anyone to sell brochures?

3. When have I ever violently imposed anything on anyone? I demand quotes or apologies on all three counts! mad.gif mad.gif

If you are traumatised by Iskcon then dont blame me for following regular shastrik siddhanta, because they overlap each other in many cases. If you had read all my posts you would know that I had nothing whatsoever, even remotely to do with Iskcon, or any org for more than 22 years.
nabadip - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:46:55 +0530
1. I started out comparing what was happening in this discussion, the confrontation between literalist and and figurative/poetic interpretaton of shastra, to the Amish versus the "normal", e.g. us including you and me (refering to 15th versus 21st century). (I got carried away there saying that some in India still live like the Amish, but I put that in parenthesis, hoping it is obvious that that is a side-remark).

2. On the second point: My point is that one has to have accepted a weird thing before, in order to be in a position to accept another such (to modern views) inacceptable theory like yours. Or to say it bluntly: only former Iskconites come here and show interest. A complete neophyte of today could never accept this kind of thinking.

3. Violent in the form of forceful language discrediting others, participants. I can withdraw that word and say it in a less offending expression. But the real "violence" is done to those ardent searchers who feel disheartened by this exchange.

I apologize in a general way with my dandavats to everyone including to yourself of course, but I thought it is necessary to say these things for those reading here without saying anything, just feeling lost in the face of it.
Advaitadas - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:01:21 +0530
Thank you for the apologies, Nabadip, I accept them. However, your explanations of points nr. 1 and 2 are not clear to me, so could you please express yourself in a more simple language? BTW I wonder how many ardent seekers are put off by the incredibly difficult language on this site and references to Amishes or whatnot.
And, are seekers 'ardent' if they are put off by anything, especially someone who speaks with conviction and always backs up his points with shastra? What type of people you feel should come here, and what should be the benefit they get from visiting this site, pray tell.....
nabadip - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:40:03 +0530
1. I did not say you said that living without electricity is the heart of GV. The remark about electricity was a side-remark about the bhaktas in the Dham who do live like the Amish, 15th century, versus us, PC conversant, 21st century.
It is assumed that you support a 15th century perspective, while we live in 21st century. Let me call the poetic/figurative interpretators as 21st century, to remain in this obviously starkly contrasting metaphor. No doubt there are 21st century teachers maintaining what you maintain also. The figures are only a matter of juxtaposition of two different perspectives on "the same".

2. Most of us here have grown towards acceptance of traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava affiliation, by first having undergone some "training" towards generally considered inacceptable type behaviour and thinking: Chanting mantras, obeisances to gurus, lying flat in front of Americans crying.gif , reading books in weird language describing a weird world view, getting up at 3 o'clock in the morning, hearing endless lectures about karmis and devotees and the most difficult of all, going out to proselytize.

Having undergone such kind of training there is a remote possibility that one would also accept any kind of statement that goes totally against reasonable thinking. It is remote for them, the so conditioned ones, but some might accept the self-denial and just wholly subscribe to whatever is demanded, like with a blank cheque. But it is close to impossible that a person without such prior conditioning could come here and accept such rigid views. It is even hard, if not impossible for most of us who had that conditioning.

With ardent I meant bhaktas deeply seeking, with a heartfelt desire to enter this line. You are ardent too, Advaitaji, many of your posts speak of your heartfelt experience of your practice.
Hari Saran - Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:55:49 +0530
A 15th century mentality cannot function in the 21st century. Times have changed, and we must recognize that a superficial acceptance of all things ancient is impossible.

Perhaps Jagat’s statement refers to the bullock carts of ACBS as a substitute to the polluting automobiles. Well, that probably would help to slow down the fueled brains of our days. If not, a sweet made with camphor will do that. It is a natural brain-cooler, used even before 15th. smile.gif
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:15:40 +0530
QUOTE
It is assumed that you support a 15th century perspective, while we live in 21st century.


That assumption is totally wrong and its obvious too - I have my own website and have been on the internet since 2000, exactly the anfang of the 21st Century. I have never, repeat never, written on palm leafs and I have had electricity since 1956, and could not have had it earlier than that in this birth......

And, as I pointed out to Jagat, who also lumped me in with Iskcon simply for quoting Jiva Gosvami, spiritual truths are timeless and the 15th century external aspects are an outer shell. That is a different topic.

Now, before I say this, I must insist, before I get roasted alive, that I do not wear a dhoti when I go to the wholesale market or to the Municipal Hall or even in my garden, but isnt the clergy in every world religion - Imams, reverends, Pandits, Lamas, Rabbis - wearing robes? They dont wear blue jeans either. Is it such a terrible crime if a 21st Century Vaishnava, on the order of his Guru, in the discrete privacy of his home, wears a - gulp - dhoti, when he does his puja at least? Please? sad.gif
RasaMrita - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:18:19 +0530
No thanks, Jagat!

Since steps have been taken to remove my priviledges; if I do not do, what you are asking from me. You are changing the rules in the middle of the game, I choose not to comply. I don't want to be your or Madhava's friend. I thought this was a place for the 'meeting of the minds', instead, this forum is becoming no more that an echo of your own voices. If I compare the 'Yesterday' of this forum with 'today'; I have to come to the final decision that today, there is an absence of inward transcendental joy in the moderators.

Therefore, you want to kick me out but seeing you, I want to leave.

As small cup cannot be a receptacle for the vast water of an ocean, so the limited human mind cannot contain the understanding of the Lord lila, only a deluded mind think the the ocean is in the jar of his mind. People are so skillful in their ignorance! Scholars.

Thank you for your help,

My last post, Rasamrita out.
nabadip - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:18:22 +0530
Needless to say I personally support an Amish life-style if practicable in our part of the world. Life without electricity and machines makes a great difference in terms of being in touch with the cycles of nature. But I do not advocate this lifestyle, I just know to appreciate its merit.

This lifestyle thing was only a metaphor to contrast the old-style understanding versus a contemporarian one.
nabadip - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:28:52 +0530
My reference to the Amish seems to have brought this thread totally off-track. Advaitaji, can you undo it in your mind? I never even thought such outlandish things of you...
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:29:57 +0530
QUOTE
If I compare the 'Yesterday' of this forum with 'today'; I have to come to the final decision that today, there is an absence of inward transcendental joy in the moderators.


How true. Please change your mind on this RasAmrita. Devotees like you are badly needed here to keep the balance.
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:31:47 +0530
QUOTE(nabadip @ Jun 20 2004, 06:58 PM)
My reference to the Amish seems to have brought this thread totally off-track. Advaitaji, can you undo it in your mind? I never even thought such outlandish things of you...

No its quite allright Nabadip. Its not just to you but also to others, like Adiyen, Mina and sometimes Jagat, I wish to submit - often I dont have the faintest idea what you are talking about, cant make heads or tails out of it. unsure.gif
nabadip - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:34:51 +0530
Could it be that you are reading too fast and "reacting" on buzz-words, rather than trying to understand first what a person says? Reading online is so much different than reading a book... things done in a hurry, rather than slowly, thoughtfully. without electricity this would not happen, let me tell you tongue.gif
Openmind - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:44:48 +0530
Too many personal quarrels make us forget about the main subject we are trying to discuss. So can we get back to the subject, please?

The question is whether we have to accept everything and anything that is found in the shastra. The answer is a definite no, I do not think that anyone here believes that the Earth is flat or that the demon Rahu swallows the Sun every now and then, we all eat eggplants despite HBV forbids it, et cetera.

Next question: who is there to decide what we accept and what we reject from the shastras? Adwaita wrote a few weeks before: one should consult one's guru. I think this is nice, even though I would add that one should also consult one's common sense and one's heart before accepting or rejecting anything.

So is this acceptable for both parties?
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:52:00 +0530
QUOTE(nabadip @ Jun 20 2004, 07:04 PM)
Could it be that you are reading too fast and "reacting" on buzz-words, rather than trying to understand first what a person says? Reading online is so much different than reading a book... things done in a hurry, rather than slowly, thoughtfully. without electricity this would not happen, let me tell you tongue.gif

No Nabadip that is not what I meant. I meant that all kinds of philosophers and scientists are quoted by the aforementioned devotees that many, less learned devotees, simply don't know about.

But your point is well taken, one tends to read too fast on the internet.

And electricity, well like I said, I know the phenomenon for more than 48 years..... cool.gif
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:54:14 +0530
QUOTE
Adwaita wrote a few weeks before: one should consult one's guru. I think this is nice, even though I would add that one should also consult one's common sense and one's heart before accepting or rejecting anything.

So is this acceptable for both parties?


It is to me, though I would urge caution with that 'common sense', since there is still the warning about bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa and karana patava, not to speak of insincerity and wishful thinking.
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 01:31:19 +0530
QUOTE
The question is whether we have to accept everything and anything that is found in the shastra. The answer is a definite no, I do not think that anyone here believes that the Earth is flat or that the demon Rahu swallows the Sun every now and then, we all eat eggplants despite HBV forbids it, et cetera.


You see, in bhakti yoga the mentality is all that counts. Hence we have 10 offences, and, as I told you before, keep this as a simple ABC of conduct. So just as it is an offense to disregard the guru (guror avajna) it is an offense to critique the shastra. Now, any sane person with two eyes in his head can see that there will be some human imperfections in the Guru, but if he loves and respects him he will never express any critique, or even think badly about him. So it is with the shastras, the next namaparadha (sruti shastra ninda). A reasonable person may see some imperfections in there, but will nevertheless have unconditional love and respect for a wonderful creation like the Bhagavata. All my other cautions stand - where does one draw the line and hands off Krishna Lila! cool.gif
Madhava - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 02:35:35 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 20 2004, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE(Rasamrita @ Earlier)
If I compare the 'Yesterday' of this forum with 'today'; I have to come to the final decision that today, there is an absence of inward transcendental joy in the moderators.

How true. Please change your mind on this RasAmrita. Devotees like you are badly needed here to keep the balance.

So, now our inner transcendental joy is being assessed. And "how true"? blink.gif
Madhava - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 02:37:09 +0530
Caugh caugh. huh.gif

QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 17 2004, 08:08 PM)
Oh, I almost forgot about this.

Jambudvipa is described as one of the seven dvipas of Bhu-mandala, the great plateau of the mid-planetary-system shaped like the whorl of a lotus. (BhP 5.16.2) Jambudvipa is divided into nine varshas (divisions of earth), one of which is Bharata-varsha, or the great India as we have come to call it. (BhP 5.16.6) Therefore, Jambudvipa must be synonymous to earth, unless we are to conclude that the events of the Bhagavata occured on some other planet or in another dimension. There are some questions that arise from this:If I am not entirely mistaken, the commentators have nowhere stated that these would be in any way poetic statements or otherwise anything but literal statements.

Let's call the bluff of all the literalists. I would like to have clear answers, a plain yes or no will suffice, to each of the questions above, please.
Madhava - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 02:50:55 +0530
Looking at the bright side of things, this is probably our longest non Gaudiya Math thread. Keep it coming folks.
vamsidas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:05:41 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 20 2004, 03:22 PM)
And electricity, well like I said, I know the phenomenon for more than 48 years..... cool.gif

I'm glad that you accept electricity as favorable for devotional service. smile.gif

Of course, since there is no electricity in the pastimes of Mahaprabhu or Radha-Krishna, your acceptance of electricity means that you do accept Jagat's premise that we can use modern ideas--ideas that are absent from shastra--to enrich our devotional service.

Your primary disagreement with Jagat appears to be which extra-textual ideas can/should be accepted. So maybe the two of you have a little more common ground than you realize. (Perhaps, somewhere in Mathura, there's even a brahmana cursing you as an apostate because your Deities are occasionally bathed in electric light! smile.gif )
dirty hari - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 06:16:58 +0530
The purpose of sastra is to transcend the need for sastra, in this light we should not become attached to our conception as absolute to the nth degree. Until we are dealing directly with the source, all conceptions we hold dear should be ready to be thrown away, this is humility. This is how you go beyond the stage of self reference, in opening up to change we are in a position of reception, being closed to change we cut off that which is beyond our experience and embrace the allready known.

We really need to always see our conception as lacking to some degree as long as we are not dealing with the source directly, if we were without fault in our conception then what is the hold up ? Is not Radhe with you at every step ?

Drawing a line in the sand and thinking "I will tolerate no more change from where I have been" leaves us unable to go where we have never been.

Humility in dealing with the higher world is the key that unlocks the door to our progress, if we were perfect in our vision we would not be trying to attain the higher realm, when you are perfect the higher realm reveals itself to you everywhere.
Madanmohan das - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:03:25 +0530
Vaisnava carane dandavat.

What crossed my mind going through the above debate.

I don't see why one cannot have implicit regard for the words of sastra, and still allow for poetic liscence, particularly in desriptive portions where the poet might exagerate figures to incredible degrees to convey an extraordinary measure. Such devices I would have thought quite appropriate.
Since the sastras are almost all poems of varying lengths, and since all kind of poetical devices are found in them, perhaps when trying to convey some aspect of the "inconcievable reality"(?), the sastras might resort to inordinate exageration of figures and dimentions.
Does anyone else know the dimensions of the universe?
And Mahaprabhu did advocate a kind of blind adhearance to sastra when he says that it says bones are unclean, but conch is pure, excrament is unclean, but cow dung is pure. These are to be accepted as facts without question. What say you?
Madhava - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:55:53 +0530
If Elpis were here, he'd give you a seminar on the various astronomical theories of India and would probably present the Bhagavata cosmos in a particular stage of its development.

As I see it, the scripture uses the science of its times to demonstrate the presence of the divine in the cosmos.

As you propose, indeed I cannot see a problem or disregard of shastra in considering something a poetic expression. Someone should start a separate thread on varieties of common poetic expressions to give us a better context on this.

The example you cite of Mahaprabhu, it reads as follows:

jIvera asthi-viSThA dui - zaGkha-gomaya |
zruti-vAkye sei dui mahA-pavitra haya ||

These two examples are really quite straigth-forward statements which leave little space for interpretation, and moreover they are concerned with matters of ritual purity, which to begin with is rooted in the shastra. The book of the law is free to define its exceptions.

The statement above is cited in connection with Vedanta being svataH-pramAna, and his objection is primarily with Shankara's monistic interpretations. We are all quite aware of the fact that there are countless examples of the Supreme being presented as nirAkara in the Upanishads, yet we reconcile them by looking at the broader picture as Mahaprabhu later on in the discourse does, and thus derive interpretations which we feel are in harmony with the totality, and which, though obvious to us, may not actually be obvious from the context. In fact, ironically, it sometimes seems that such interpretations are truly out of context, and as such seem to directly contradict the verdict of Mahaprabhu, svataH-pramANa veda satya yei kaya - lakSaNA karile svataH-prAmANya-hAni haya. Nevertheless, we seem to be confidently accepting such interpretations.
Jagat - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:18:50 +0530
Dear Rasamrita,

Who said anything about wanting to kick you off this forum? I simply requested you to give some information about yourself in your profile. Is this really too much to ask?

Most of the regular contributors here don't seem to have any difficulty with this concept. The idea is that we are trying to build a kind of community here.

This doesn't necessarily mean that we will all be bosom buddies, but it does mean that we will develop and maintain a certain amount of respect for each other. This site has for me already resulted in many friendships, and I am sure that it will result in similar relations for anyone who finds the way it is being run to their liking.

Let me say that there are people who come to these forums from a wide variety of institutional affiliations, though naturally we tend to appeal more to those whose institutional affiliations are loose. Nevertheless, we do not prejudge anyone on that basis alone. We wish that everyone should be respected for their own individual efforts to understand the meaning of Gaudiya Vaishnavism in their lives, and to share our own understanding with them, for the benefit of everyone involved.

We wish to advance in spiritual life to the point of attaining the panchama purushartha, prema, which is the ultimate prayojan. In this effort, we need all the help we can get, and we wish to help others also. I am, for the most part, pleased with everyone who is here, even those I disagree with, and I have stated this many times.

Why? Because I believe in their fundamental sincerity according to the above-stated terms. The only time I have had any trouble with anyone was when I doubted their motives in coming here. Sometimes I have been proved wrong, and believe me, that makes me happy.

I don't expect universal agreement. As a matter of fact, I consider this to be one of the utopian pipe dreams that sometimes distracts us from our real business. Such universal agreement did not exist in the Chaitanya Bhagavata, the Prema Vilasa, or most other accounts of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's life. If Nityananda and Advaita Prabhus did not always get along, then how can I expect to always get along with Advaita Das (being Jahnava Das myself)?

And, as far as joy is concerned, remember this:

yaz ca mUDhatamo loke
yaz ca buddheH paraM gataH
tau ubhau sukham edhete
klizyaty antarito jagat

I'll let you look it up in the Bhagavatam!

There is actually quite a lot of joyful stuff on here. I can remember posting a lot of things with a heart full of bliss. Sorry you missed them...

Having said that, if this is not your place, I truly hope you find one... Jai Radhe,

Your servant,

Jagadananda Das.
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:09:38 +0530
QUOTE
Vamsidas: Of course, since there is no electricity in the pastimes of Mahaprabhu or Radha-Krishna, your acceptance of electricity means that you do accept Jagat's premise that we can use modern ideas--ideas that are absent from shastra--to enrich our devotional service.


The point I try to make is that technological advancement does not mean that basic theological or moral issues are going on the slope or down the drain. Websites or palmleaves, water remains wet and murder remains a sin, so to say. Oh yes and Ugrasena really had trillions of bodyguards, I write on my 2001 keyboard, to post on a 2004 web forum.... flowers.gif
Jagat - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:42:36 +0530
I consider this half-a-hen logic. I accept technology, but do not accept the process that got there--the scientific method.
Openmind - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:59:19 +0530
Is that true that the Vedic scriptures had never been changed, nothing had been added, as we learned in Iskcon? Devotees often tell people that the Bible had been changed according to the timely interests of the church, consequently it cannot be accepted as absolute. How about the Vedic scriptures? Did they remain exactly the same throughout the ages without any interpolations?
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:34:17 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 21 2004, 10:12 AM)
I consider this half-a-hen logic. I accept technology, but do not accept the process that got there--the scientific method.

Why do you think I reject science? I reject applying science to spirituality or morality, that is all. Like your admired Harikrishna Das said once: 'Scientists should practise science and spiritualists should practise spiritual life. They should not mind each other's business though.'
Rasaraja dasa - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:42:39 +0530
Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Just some early morning thoughts…

MadanMohandas makes the point:

“I don't see why one cannot have implicit regard for the words of sastra, and still allow for poetic license, particularly in descriptive portions where the poet might exaggerate figures to incredible degrees to convey an extraordinary measure. Such devices I would have thought quite appropriate.

Since the sastras are almost all poems of varying lengths, and since all kind of poetical devices are found in them, perhaps when trying to convey some aspect of the "inconceivable reality"(?), the sastras might resort to inordinate exaggeration of figures and dimensions.”

I don’t see anything wrong with this mental approach so long as one doesn’t use this logic to distort or “steal” the essence of sastra. This, to me, is where Guru and Sadhu come in as our association will help guide us in understanding what the essence is and how, when approaching a specific point, like Madhava has supplied “Is there a mountain as tall as the width of the Earth and 26.000 km wide at its base in Ilavrita-varsha somewhere on Earth? (BhP 5.16.7)” that one doesn’t lose their entire grip on our theological teachings. This is, as many of us know, not rare as many lose faith when trying to understand sastras perfection in light of points that seem to be, or are, disproved.

I see 90% of this topic, and the arguments within it, being more of an issue with how one approaches and expresses these issues than one of theological difference. “It is not what one says but how one says it”. Jagat’s initial point on Rupa Goswami as being human a good case in point. All on this board understand that he was not simply “human” and his teachings and those of the Six Goswami’s and our Acaryas were anything but prose to be taken lightly. They are our very nourishment. Yet how Jagat worded his point has touched a nerve with many.

I thought Nabidip made a very critical point when he asked:

“Could it be that you are reading too fast and "reacting" on buzz-words, rather than trying to understand first what a person says? Reading online is so much different than reading a book... things done in a hurry, rather than slowly, thoughtfully. Without electricity this would not happen, let me tell you”

This isn’t to say that Advaitadas has done that but I think it is fairly accurate to discussions on a message board as well as the nature of many devotees. I have found that devotees tend to examine the words or actions of one another to find points of difference or fault as opposed to understanding the essence, meaning or reasoning behind another’s words or actions. This is certainly a very distasteful tendency that can wreak havoc on ones spiritual aspirations.

So again maybe if we all approach these topics trying to understand what the author is trying to say as opposed to trying to find a bone of contention we would find a more focused and productive discussion on such a challenge in our devotional lives. This won’t negate differences or debate but it will at least start it off with a healthier and more succinct starting point.

I enjoyed Advaitadas’ reference and summary as to how such a theological ‘dilemma’, as this thread is built upon, may very well parallel the way in which we understand or practically apply the principles of Guru Tattva.

Advaitadas makes the point:

“Now, any sane person with two eyes in his head can see that there will be some human imperfections in the Guru, but if he loves and respects him he will never express any critique, or even think badly about him. So it is with the shastras, the next namaparadha (sruti shastra ninda). A reasonable person may see some imperfections in there, but will nevertheless have unconditional love and respect for a wonderful creation like the Bhagavata. All my other cautions stand - where does one draw the line and hands off Krishna Lila!”

If we approach these quandaries just tying to analyze with our intelligence then we are, for all intensive purposes done in devotional life. From a practical perspective I have seen most of these arguments between two aspiring Vaisnavas get kicked off not from a huge philosophical gap but based the tendency to examine others words or actions to find points of difference or fault as opposed to understanding the persons point.

Case in point: Above Advaitadas is making the point that if we understand perfection of Guru/Sastra as being “perfect in all respects” from an intellectual perspective than we are all in trouble. The fact of the matter is we will find fault, if and when, we want to. However if we see perfection from the standpoint as one or something that gives us the ultimate gift than we will surely focus on that aspect as opposed to intellectually fighting the fight of is every word, sentence or action perfect and correct in every sense.

I think that all of the main contributors to this thread do have unconditional love and respect for a wonderful creation like the Bhagavata. However some are approaching the subject at hand from a more academic/scientific/worldly point of view while others approach it from a more practitioner point of view. At the same time I have read nothing from those approaching it from a more /scientific/worldly point of view that leads me to believe that these individuals have anything but unconditional love and respect for a wonderful creation like the Bhagavata.

Maybe their word selection could be better but maybe, just maybe, the reader can approach their words without a focus on finding fault.

Finally Advaitadas’ point “All my other cautions stand - where does one draw the line and hands off Krishna Lila!” is one that I have been thinking about a lot lately. Basically we all struggle in some areas and excel in others due to our type of nature. I know that many times I get frustrated by the lack of philosophical prowess I have. Yet in some ways that lacking serves me well in regards to where one draws the line in understanding and approaching these issues. I find that I don’t overly question or attempt to intellectualize Krishna’s lila or sastras statements to seemingly worldly points unless I am forced to be surrounded by those who demand that we take every sentence, word and syllable to be 100% true and imperfect in every sense. Since I have removed myself from such environments I have found that my mind and heart can quite simply develop that faith. So if one finds that te association of a group or one person subtracts from the faith than they should find those that will add to it.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa
Jagat - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:50:21 +0530
So you think that there is nothing in the Bhagavatam that encroaches on the terrain of the sciences? Like, for instance, the relative distance of the sun and the moon from the earth?
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:08:37 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 21 2004, 02:20 PM)
So you think that there is nothing in the Bhagavatam that encroaches on the terrain of the sciences? Like, for instance, the relative distance of the sun and the moon from the earth?

Nabadip: Yes you are right, one tends to read more casually online than off line, I notice it now too.

Rasaraja: Thank you for your contribution. You seem to be able to mediate between the science-mishra bhaktas and the er, science-shunya bhaktas? [I prefer this over 'literalists', another western magazine-invention, like 'dogma' and 'conservative']. I was almost giving up hope for finding an ear over here...

Jagat and Madhava: I said it before but I will have to say this again (thanks Rasaraja for understanding this point) - it is the attitude that counts. The Guru may have shortcomings (that is the human side) but the loving disciple will never discuss that or even consider it to himself. As for the Guru, so for Shastra (see namaparadha 3 and 4). So rather than run the risk of being deprived of prema, the cherished result of offenseless chanting, I will decline to react to Madhava's lengthy and, dare I say, rather aggressive, challenge on the arithmetics of the Bhagavata's cosmology. For me there can be a million mount Merus in Amsterdam from today onward if the Bhagavata says so, I will say 'yes' and 'amen' and get prema rather than start arguing and attacking both the Bhagavata and its nitya siddha commentators by taking a scientific approach. It is first of all a namaparadha and secondly the whole matter of stones flying through the sky (viz. cosmology) is simply not important enough to risk losing prema for.

How great God is! Millions of Mount Merus in Amsterdam!
Jagat - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:12:25 +0530
No objection to that attitude, but it is when one holds fast and insists that somehow accepting the existence of a million mount Merus in Amsterdam (not bad alliteration, Advaitaji!) is a building block to prema, that is where we must object. After all, there is enough testing our faith without entering the realm of the absurd. Accepting the infinite possibilities of God's power is not the same as saying it is so in the world we are living in.

The humanity of God is sufficient to deal with. After all, when Tertullian said credo quia absurdum est, he was refering to God's need to die on the cross to save humanity. It makes no sense. The idea that God needs to express love through adopting the limited human form similarly makes no sense (after all, God himself makes little sense as a concept to many people). Let's concentrate on the important stuff.
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:22:02 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 21 2004, 02:42 PM)
No objection to that attitude, but it is when one holds fast and insists that somehow accepting the existence of a million mount Merus in Amsterdam (not bad alliteration, Advaitaji!) is a building block to prema. Accepting the infinite possibility of God's power is not the same as saying it is so in the world we are living in.

That is not what I meant at all dear Jagat. I will toe the line of the scientists if asked about cosmology, but fortunately, and understandibly, in 26 years as a Vaishnava, not many people have asked me questions about this, because it is really not an essential or devotional topic. I wish there were millions of Mount Merus in Amsterdam, but whether they are there or not is not as important to me as the fact that Priya and Priyatama are NOT there, at least not physically. My standpoint on the Bhagavata cosmology, when presented to novices, will go along with a caution about the 4th namaparadha, like the usage one gets with a box of medicines about possible side effects.
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:25:09 +0530
QUOTE(Openmind @ Jun 21 2004, 10:29 AM)
Is that true that the Vedic scriptures had never been changed, nothing had been added, as we learned in Iskcon? Devotees often tell people that the Bible had been changed according to the timely interests of the church, consequently it cannot be accepted as absolute. How about the Vedic scriptures? Did they remain exactly the same throughout the ages without any interpolations?

They have been interpolated widely as far as I know, particularly the Padma Purana I have heard. Dont know about the Bhagavata though. As Gaudiya Vaishnavas the essence is what is distilled from the shastras by the Gosvamis as being essential. I dare to say with certainty that the books of the Gosvamis have not been tampered with and it will be impossible to do now too, with the modern media like printing presses, websites etc. having secured them.
nabadip - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:33:52 +0530
just for reference for recent newcomers to this forum: these two threads discussed the dating of scripture etc,

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=1254

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=1105
RasaMrita - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:49:08 +0530
QUOTE
“Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is an historical person who appeared on this earth in India 5,000 years ago. He stayed on this earth for 125 years and played exactly like a human being, but His activities were unparalleled.” ACBSP


This is a statement for the general people, not for the devotees and therefore, irrevelant for the path of pure devotional service. Does the following mean something to You,
QUOTE
"Thus the death of a devotee that is seen by all is to be known as nothing more than a kind of illusion and not at all real. The non-devotees consider that the devotee’s body must also die. This false doctrine is maintained by the Lord just to keep devotional service closed to atheistic and self-interested persons. An example of this is the so-called “Club Pastime” of the Lord in which he created the illusion of the demise of the Yadu dynasty. One should know that this too is non-factual. On some occasions, the Lord does not make such an illusory show but rather seeks to illustrate the glories of devotional service, as in the case of Dhruva. Dhruva went to VaikuNTha in the selfsame body, thus it is to be concluded that the apparent death of NArada was also an illusion created by the Lord."


What is your interpretation? May I ask. I am waiting.

Then Rasaraja wrote this,

QUOTE
"Since the sastras are almost all poems of varying lengths, and since all kind of poetical devices are found in them, perhaps when trying to convey some aspect of the "inconceivable reality"(?), the sastras might resort to inordinate exaggeration of figures and dimensions.”
I don’t see anything wrong with this mental approach so long as one doesn’t use this logic to distort or “steal” the essence of sastra. This, to me, is where Guru and Sadhu come in as our association will help guide us in understanding what the essence is and how, when approaching a specific point, like Madhava has supplied “Is there a mountain as tall as the width of the Earth and 26.000 km wide at its base in Ilavrita-varsha somewhere on Earth? (BhP 5.16.7)” that one doesn’t lose their entire grip on our theological teachings. This is, as many of us know, not rare as many lose faith when trying to understand sastras perfection in light of points that seem to be, or are, disproved."


My god! Show me one quote where guru or sadhu said "The sastras might resort to inordinate exaggeration of figures and dimensions."

In the Mahabharata, there is a dialog between Yudhisthir Maharaja and Yamaraj; where Yamaraj asked, What is the path, etc.? Yudhisthir answered:

Each rsi's opinion is different, and also different sections fo the Vedas give different explanations and direction. So who are we to follow? There is not necessary to follow, the vedas or rishis, but we must follow whoever is the servitor or the transcendental world."

Therefore I want to know, who are you following, who is that sadhu that compare with an analogy Rupa Goswami with a duck; to prove that he is a special human being. I also want to know who is that sadhu or guru that said "sometimes the Bhagavatam is just mere prose'

I have work to do! I have to go!
Jagat - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:44:54 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 21 2004, 10:52 AM)
That is not what I meant at all dear Jagat. I will toe the line of the scientists if asked about cosmology, but fortunately, and understandibly, in 26 years as a Vaishnava, not many people have asked me questions about this, because it is really not an essential or devotional topic. I wish there were millions of Mount Merus in Amsterdam, but whether they are there or not is not as important to me as the fact that Priya and Priyatama are NOT there, at least not physically. My standpoint on the Bhagavata cosmology, when presented to novices, will go along with a caution about the 4th namaparadha, like the usage one gets with a box of medicines about possible side effects.

Well, then we seem to be in agreement. My point is not to condemn the Bhagavatam wholesale, but simply to say what is important, and what not.

Nevertheless, it seems our friend Rasamrita is indeed a literalist.
RasaMrita - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:41:32 +0530
QUOTE
Nevertheless, it seems our friend Rasamrita is indeed a literalist.


Thank you again for your kindness! I do not know what is the meaning of the word literalist since I never read it or heard it before from the lotus mouth of sadhu. However, I am willing to accept it; if doesn't mean that I am pure or a strictly following the path of devotional service. I am sinful and weak. Extremely attached to sense objects. However, I refuse to change shastra to adapt it to my life style. For example, like the thread on illicit sex and the use of ganja in this website. Moreover, in the same natural bearing, I refuse to add up to my weakness and impurity, the faults of disrespect, to the scriptures and to the eternal associates of Srimati Radhika.

I am very happy to be an acquaintance of your good-self, Madhava and Advaita.

With respect,

I offer my humble obeisances.

Jaya Radhe!

p.s. If wife know that I am in this forum and not working! Oh men! To the end of eternity.I better go!
Advaitadas - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:53:17 +0530
QUOTE
I do not know what is the meaning of the word literalist since I never read it or heard it before from the lotus mouth of sadhu. However, I am willing to accept it;


No you should not accept it. You are correct. Left wing, right wing, conservative, liberal, literalist - it is all from mundane magazines and not from the Gosvamis teachings and I urge you to refuse to be labeled like this, as I do.
Madanmohan das - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:27:30 +0530
In reference to an earlier point, "Sometimes shastra might resort to exaggerated figures or dimensions to convey some aspect of the inconceivable reality." I may not have heard it from any sadhu or guru. But my point was, why should that cause any doubt in sastra. All our goswamis and mahajanas are the greatest poets, fully conversant with the devices of poetry, however the English translations that we read are done in plain, modern language (mostly). Having said that, the cosmology portions in the fifth skanda are in prose. Anyway there was no intention of undermining the sastras in what I said, out of haste maybe, you took it that way, my apologies.

"It has been shown that god is personal and all-beautiful. Sages like Vyasa and others have seen that beauty in their soul's eyes. They have left us descriptions.
Of course, WORD CARRIES THE GROSSNESS OF MATTER. But truth is still perceivable in those descriptions." (Thakur Bhaktivinoda, Sri Caitanya's Life and Precepts).
Jagat - Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:47:50 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 21 2004, 01:23 PM)
QUOTE

I do not know what is the meaning of the word literalist since I never read it or heard it before from the lotus mouth of sadhu. However, I am willing to accept it;


No you should not accept it. You are correct. Left wing, right wing, conservative, liberal, literalist - it is all from mundane magazines and not from the Gosvamis teachings and I urge you to refuse to be labeled like this, as I do.

What silliness. A word means something because it has been given a meaning. A word exists because it designates something, a concept that is being communicated. Is there a word for polar bear in the Goswamis' writings?

A literalist is someone who accepts everything stated in the scriptures at face value, uncritically. That's all.

A conservative is someone who wants to maintain something from the past, and usually in favor of obstructing the freedom of those who are in favor of change, while a liberal is more embracing of change and personal freedom. But these are very fluid concepts and admittedly harder to define.

Nityananda was considered very liberal in his day. Rupa Goswami must also have been thought pretty liberal when it came to his interpretation of the shastras. These were devotees who innovated and promoted change. The sankirtan movement was a success in great part because it was new and fresh. Timely.

Left wing and right wing are terms which are also fluid, and a question of degree.

*****

What I don't like is this closed attitude. This is where I consider Advaita to have a mentality similar to the one that is oft-encountered in Iskcon.

It is the idea that we have nothing to learn from anyone outside our group (and not even from inside our group if they have been "contaminated").

The fact is that it is possible to objectively compare religions, religious doctrines, human societies, human psychologies, and come up with certain observations that apply to Vaishnavism. Furthermore, what you learn can be very useful in your practice of Vaishnava dharma.

On the other hand, it is possible to draw incorrect conclusions about things by only accepting a narrow set of sources. Say, for instance, if your only source of knowledge about Islam were the Bengali Vaishnava texts, you would have a very strange understanding that a practitioner of that religion would barely recognize. You would thus be subject to an unalterable set of prejudices and prejudgments that would severely hamper you in attaining a genuine human understanding of Muslims, which could prove harmful and even dangerous.

And of course if you depended on the Bhagavatam for knowledge about polar bears, ice hockey or building cantilever bridges, you would similarly be misled.

So, let's not be silly, but use our common sense.
dirty hari - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:13:49 +0530
From B.R. Sridhar Maharaja

QUOTE
Here in the material world, the material consideration is always tampering with the spiritual current; the purity of the truth is always being disturbed. So, sometimes Krsna has to come himself, and sometimes he sends his personal representative to again reestablish the truth in its former and pure state.

When the truth is sufficiently covered, disturbed, and mutilated by the influence of maya, the illusory energy, then an attempt is made by the devotees of the Lord, or by the Lord himself, to rejuvenate it and return it to the previous standard of purity. We cannot expect truth to continue here in this world of misunderstanding without any tampering or interruption. It is not possible...


We are slaves of the truth. We are beggars for the pure current of truth that is constantly flowing: the fresh current. We are not charmed by any formality. I will bow down my head wherever I find the river of nectar coming down to me. When one is conscious that the Absolute Truth is descending to him from the highest domain, he will think, "I must surrender myself here."

Mahaprabhu says to Ramananda Raya, kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya, yei krsna-tattva vetta sei guru haya. "Wherever the truth appears, wherever the nectar of divine ecstasy descends, I shall offer myself as a slave. That is my direct concern." Whatever form it takes doesn't matter much; the form has some value, but if there is any conflict, the inner spirit of a thing should be given immense value over its external cover. Otherwise, if the spirit has gone away, and the bodily connection gets the upper hand, our so-called spiritual life becomes sahajiya, a cheap imitation.
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:42:44 +0530
QUOTE
What silliness. A word means something because it has been given a meaning. A word exists because it designates something, a concept that is being communicated.


That is allright for the secular intellectual but not for the Gaudiya Vaishnava. We are having all kinds of terms, uttam-madhyam-kanistha, jnana misrita, karma misrita, vaishnava pray, prakrita bhakta, but nowhere have I seen liberal [udara bhakta] left wing [vama paksa] - now I find that really silly!

QUOTE
A literalist is someone who accepts everything stated in the scriptures at face value, uncritically. That's all.


We are going around in circles. The Gosvamis have nowhere said that anything is symbolical [this is adhyatmika vada BTW, the portal to mayavada] or exaggarated (atirikta vada or so?) in the Bhagavata or other Shastras.

QUOTE
A conservative is someone who wants to maintain something from the past, and usually in favor of obstructing the freedom of those who are in favor of change, while a liberal is more embracing of change and personal freedom.


This is what Krishna Prem condemns as Paris Fashions in Yoga - now it is outdated that Krishna is blue, let's make Him green or red now, new fashion. Ever heard of timeless truths?

QUOTE
Nityananda was considered very liberal in his day.


He was called 'udara' because of his generous distribution of prema, not because of calling tikas unfortunate or Rupa Gosvami a human being, or any arithmetic in Krishna Lila exaggarated or impossible.

QUOTE
Rupa Goswami must also have been thought pretty liberal when it came to his interpretation of the shastras. They innovated at promoted change.


Is that so? nana shastra vicaranaika nipunau sad dharma samsthapakau.
They quoted shastra from cover to cover, and instead of innovating they revealed, which is quite another thing. And dont tell me that manjari bhava is an innovation please because whatever is transcendental has no beginning and no end.

QUOTE
This is where I consider Advaita to have a mentality similar to the one that is oft-encountered in Iskcon.


Well here we go again, ad nauseum. It is astonishing that you have forgotten all your experiences in more than a decade travelling all over the GV holy places, meeting so many types of Vaishnavas. If an ignorant Iskcon yankee would speak like that OK. Again, I am totally disconnected from Iskcon and I am just following the Gosvamis teachings. I have already told you why I left Iskcon and it was not because they were following the Bhagavata or regular GV philosophy, which they largely do.

QUOTE
What I don't like is this closed attitude. ...It is the idea that we have nothing to learn from anyone outside our group (and not even from inside our group if they have been "contaminated").


You might like to consider non-magazine conceptions like ananya bhakti? Forgot about that? It is called loyalty, it exists also in Canada in 2004 I am sure. By the way, check out Gita 18.66.

QUOTE
You would thus be subject to an unalterable set of prejudices and prejudgments that would severely hamper you in attaining a genuine human understanding of Muslims, which could prove harmful and even dangerous.


Aha, like your prejudice 'if it is loyal and exclusive it must be Iskcon'. Hard to believe you were in Bengal and Vraja for 10 years.....

QUOTE
Is there a word for polar bear in the Goswamis' writings?


Now that is really ridiculous, speaking of 'silly'. I am speaking about making modern mundane classifications of Vaishnavas. Why would the Gosvamis classify a Vaishnava as a polar bear?

QUOTE
And of course if you depended on the Bhagavatam for knowledge about polar bears, ice hockey or building cantilever bridges, you would similarly be misled.

So, let's not be silly, but use our common sense.


You say that, after making such an utterly silly statement like that. I would meditate deeply on namaparadhas nr. 1, 3 and 4, Prof.
dirty hari - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:51:32 +0530
QUOTE
We are going around in circles. The Gosvamis have nowhere said that anything is symbolical [this is adhyatmika vada BTW, the portal to mayavada] or exaggarated (atirikta vada or so?) in the Bhagavata or other Shastras.


From Krsna Sandarbha of Jiva Goswami:

Gokula, the supreme abode and planet, appears like a lotus flower that has a thousand petals. The whorl of that lotus is the abode of the Supreme Lord, Krsna. This lotus-shaped supreme abode is created by the will of Lord Ananta.

The whorl of that transcendental lotus is the realm wherein dwells Krsna. It is a hexagonal figure, the abode of the indwelling predominated and predominating aspect of the Absolute. Like a diamond, the central supporting figure of self-luminous Krsna stands as the transcendental source of all potencies. The holy name consisting of eighteen transcendental letters is manifested in a hexagonal figure with six fold divisions.

The whorl of that eternal realm Gokula is the hexagonal abode of Krsna. Its petals are the abodes of gopas who are part and parcel of Krsna, to Whom they are most lovingly devoted and are similar in essence. The petals shine beautifully like so many walls. The extended leaves of that lotus are the garden-like dhama, i.e. spiritual abode of Sri Radhika, the most beloved of Krsna


After the description of the internal abode of Sri Krsna, which is the whorl of the lotus flower known as Goloka, there is a description of the petals situated about that abode. Those petals are the abodes of the cowherd residents of Goloka, who are all relatives and friends of Sri Krsna...

On this lotus flower of Goloka Vrndavana are many petals known as 'patrani sriyam', the many gardens which are abodes of Srimati Radharani and the gopis. Where these petals join the whorl of the Goloka lotus flower, the paths of Goloka are situated, and the extensions of these petals are the places of the cow-pastures of Goloka. In this way the different parts of the lotus flower of Gokula Vrndavana are described.


p.s I don't know if the translator made a mistake when He uses "gokula" and then "goloka", I have not checked.
RasaMrita - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:51:52 +0530
QUOTE
I may not have heard it from any sadhu or guru. But my point was, why should that cause any doubt in sastra. All our goswamis and mahajanas are the greatest poets, fully conversant with the devices of poetry, however the English translations that we read are done in plain, modern language (mostly). Having said that, the cosmology portions in the fifth skanda are in prose. Anyway there was no intention of undermining the sastras in what I said, out of haste maybe, you took it that way, my apologie


Taken. The only problem we got is with the verses and proses of the sceptics.

To the contrary;

On a particular day, Sri Radha got angry with Sri Krishna owing to some mischievous pranks played by Him.

"I shall never meet Him, so long as I live;
I would rather suffer the pangs of separation, and would allow to be consumed by the fire of anguish;
I have resoved in my mind that I shall, never apply collyrium to my eyes, nor shall I allow musk to touch my body
I shall not hear the music of the bee or the cuckoo, nor shall I touch the blue lotus
with my hand."
Madhava - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:14:17 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 21 2004, 02:38 PM)
So rather than run the risk of being deprived of prema, the cherished result of offenseless chanting, I will decline to react to Madhava's lengthy and, dare I say, rather aggressive, challenge on the arithmetics of the Bhagavata's cosmology. For me there can be a million mount Merus in Amsterdam from today onward if the Bhagavata says so, I will say 'yes' and 'amen' and get prema rather than start arguing and attacking both the Bhagavata and its nitya siddha commentators by taking a scientific approach.

Well, you may do that for yourself, and all of us who have come to appreciate the essence of bhakti may individually adopt such approaches, and they will certainly work, and for that no-one can be blamed as far as their individual domains are concerned. However, if we are to attempt to make the concepts of Sri Caitanya popular among the larger public, we may need to think of alternative approaches to the issue.

Though I do not profess the ISKCONite evangelical approach, it is my understanding that introducing the larger public to the teachings of Sri Caitanya is a very desirable aspiration. With that in mind, we may need to reflect on approaches that will not alienate the populace conditioned by rational thought, and in so doing, it is my firm faith that our sincere faith in the worthiness of this aim will overrule whatever inadvertant offence we may commit.
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:20:00 +0530
Not all Iskconites are role models of course, but they did manage to score 10s of thousands of devotees without tampering with shastra......
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:38:03 +0530
The Sanskrit word for exaggeration is atizayokti. It is a figure of speech commonly used and understood. Madhava has been using the example of "lotus feet" and "moon face." He is quite right. These are metaphors (rUpakAlaGkAra).

There is a debate in the Alankarika world about which alankara is the basis of the others. It is usually argued that it is upamA or the simile. One of the other contenders is atizayokti, because all alankaras exaggerate something or other. This is why svabhAvokti ("natural description") is not considered a true alankara by some.

Exaggeration is the nature of poetic language. As a matter of fact, any kind of comparison is an exaggeration of some kind, because no two things are entirely equal.

But as to whether any tikakara has ever said: "This is exaggeration." I am sure I have seen it somewhere, but unfortunately, I can't remember exactly where. It would make an interesting area of research, to examine all the uses of atizayokti in the Gaudiya Vaishnava literature, tikas.
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:47:48 +0530
After reading your response, Advaita, I must say I am seriously disappointed in you. You really seem to be incapable of subtle thought. You react every time to the word "Iskcon" as predictably as a bull to a red flag, without seeming to be able to understand at all what I am saying. I could as easily say fundamentalist Christian or Muslim, to whom many Iskcon devotees are generically similar. You are simply another human being responding to religious teaching--whatver it is--in the same fashion.

And, as a matter of fact, if you insist on terms from the tradition, I will use kanistha adhikari, for I consider that the kanistha mentality includes this rather literalist attitude to scripture. As far as I am concerned it is pretty much all bravado, a balloon awaiting a pin prick. This is why Iskcon has made thousands of devotees and then lost 90% of them.

Do you think "sastre yuktye sunipuna" means only "Believe or suffer the consequences of aparadha 1, 2, 4 and 5"? A pox on the unbelievers and apostates, they will be born as worms in stool for tens of thousands of births!

Iskcon, polar bears, Muslims--any kind of example is outside your realm of comprehension. You seem only capable of thinking in a straight line. Rather amusing, actually.

Do you even know what it means to try to understand what another person is saying? You know what you know. If something sounds sort of the same, it is good. If it doesn't, it is not. So, for your benefit, I'll stop calling it literalist or fundamentalist and call it "kanishtha mentality."
RasaMrita - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:06:01 +0530
QUOTE
The Sanskrit word for exaggeration is atizayokti. It is a figure of speech commonly used and understood. Madhava has been using the example of "lotus feet" and "moon face." He is quite right. These are metaphors (rUpakAlaGkAra).


Jagat is refering to one of Madhava's post

QUOTE
If Krishna says, "Priyaji, your face is truly the moon of my endless nights, and it shines like a thousand suns on the sky," are we to visualize the face of Radha in the place of a moon in the sky, Krishna sitting there endlessly and staring at it, the environment illuminated as if a star just went supernova right above His head? That would be the literal reading, if absolutely no poetic devices, such as metaphors, exaggeration and so forth, were allowed to be taken as anything but literal facts. And if we are allowed to interpret them, then the line is drawn.


Wow! Whom am I reading?

Hopkins, Cooke, Wilson, Weber, Monier, Zimmer, Danielou, Gonda, Meyer, Carpenter, Dumont, Ruben, Sarma, Farquhar, Dowson, Avalon, De, Barth, Muir, Eliot, Morgan, Macnicol, Blomfield, Eggeling, Hume, Buhler, Jolly, Edgerton, Brown, Thompson, etc. etc.

All The Above!
Madan Gopal - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 03:01:51 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 21 2004, 02:17 PM)
Nityananda was considered very liberal in his day. Rupa Goswami must also have been thought pretty liberal when it came to his interpretation of the shastras. They innovated at promoted change. The sankirtan movement was a success in great part because it was new and fresh. Timely.

Wow, I've been busy studying for finals lately and today I'm trying to catch up. I keep seeing these threads like this one, the kama sutra one where you prabhus put up like 12 pages per day. Man! I don't want to skip over all kinds of good juicy stuff but you are hard to keep up with. Anyhow, I see that we're back to the same sticking point, liberal vs. conservative (pardon the mleccha english Advaita prabhu smile.gif ), interpretation of scripture according to modern life, etc. I love this stuff! Even arguing with Advaita is fun. You know, thanks everyone for just being here! Mental dandavats all around!

On the topic of Jagat's wisdom quoted above here, I was talking to Rasaraj on another forum once and he made this similar point to me that the Goswami's were quite liberal in their approach to the overall religion they were establishing. I started thinking about it and it makes a ton of sense. Again Advaita prabhu, see past the language...dont get hooked on whether liberal is in your sanskrit dictionary. For Caitanya Mahaprabhu coming from a brahmin family, a sannyasi, and associating with "low birth" personalities, making Haridasa the namacarya, embracing Sanatana with sores all over his body, these are intensely liberal actions. Yes I know they are transcendental (please don't argue this), but socially in the actual time this is unheard of and the behavior of madmen. I know on another thread I mentioned something about Bhaktivinoda that didn't seem to go down too well with Adiyen and Advaita, I guess some on this board don't see any authority or wisdom in such "acaryas"? but I find that is what qualifies one as acarya. People like Bhaktivinoda have not perverted the Gaudiya teachings, they have made it work for them. You can't help but view their lives in a literalist way and they impress beyond hagiography. What they did (I would argue this with ACBSP and BSST too) was to be innovative and to expand on the Gaudiya teachings as society presented itself to them in their time. This is actually why I have a hard time being around ISKCON myself because I feel that modern day devotees live in fear of doing this themselves. All traditionalists, Advaita of his school or ISKCON with ACBSP instill fear into making religion work for it's adherents. I guess I just don't believe in that. I guess it just puts me out on the left wing, liberal thought or hey, according to BVT the people that seek the essence in religion, not the literal, are deemed Saragrahi's - his title for the Uttama. If I can shoot for that and it's only in his book, fine by me.
dirty hari - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 03:07:46 +0530
Are we devoted to the words of sastra or to being of value to the purpose of sastra ?

The form or the purpose ? The purpose of sastra is not to make us sycophants of it, rather it is to elevate our vision to the plane where sastra has no use, sastra is created with a Planned Obsolescence.

If and when you deal directly with the source in this life, will you be thinking of verses or looking through sastra to tell you what to think ? what to say ? what is appropriate ?

No, that is why spontaneous devotion is called spontaneous, it is not something which is based on something other then what the moment calls for, in this realm all sastra is useless.

Sastra enables you to enter into rasa, once there it can only inhibit you from the purpose of rasa, to be spontaneous in your rasa is your purpose in dealing with Radha Krsna, in the realm of rasa all the knowledge of sastra has reached it's purpose and is no longer needed, indeed it is an impediment.

All of the previous acaryas, sadhus and writings are vessels of the same source, otherwise what value do they have in and of themselves ?

Is Rupa a human or is sastra literal or is this or that writing factual, none of this has any meaning in the higher realm, all are seen as manifested from a single will, and whatever has been shown or said is understood to have had a purpose, and that purpose is to enable you to transcend dependence on those things.

What is needed is provided, this is always the reality. The focus on symbolism or the literal is all for a purpose, we shouldn't see the path as the goal, the goal is off the path.


From The Bhagavat of Bhaktivinoda Thakura:

We love to read a book which we never read before. We are anxious to gather whatever information is contained in it and with such acquirement our curiosity stops. This mode of study prevails amongst a great number of readers, who are great men in their own estimation as well as in the estimation of those who are of their own stamp.

In fact, most readers are mere repositories of facts and statements made by other people. But this is not study. The student is to read the facts with a view to create, and not with the object of fruitless retention. Students like satellites should reflect whatever light they receive from authors and not imprison the facts and thoughts just as the Magistrates imprison the convicts in the jail!

Thought is progressive. The author's thought must have progress in the reader in the shape of correction or development. He is the best critic, who can show the further development of an old thought; but a mere denouncer is the enemy of progress and consequently of Nature. . "Begin anew," says the critic, because the old masonry does not answer at present. Let the old author be buried because his time is gone.

These are shallow expressions. Progress certainly is the law of nature and there must be corrections and developments with the progress of time. Bur progress means going further or rising higher. Now, if we are to follow our foolish critic, we are to go back to our former terminus and make a new race, and when — we have run half the race another critic of his stamp will cry out: "Begin anew, because the wrong road has been taken!" In this way our stupid critics will never allow us to go over the whole road and see what is in the other terminus. Thus the shallow critic and the fruitless reader are the two greatest enemies of progress. We must shun them.
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 03:12:04 +0530
QUOTE(RasaMrita @ Jun 21 2004, 04:36 PM)
Wow! Whom am I reading?

Hopkins, Cooke, Wilson, Weber, Monier, Zimmer, Danielou, Gonda, Meyer, Carpenter, Dumont, Ruben, Sarma, Farquhar, Dowson, Avalon, De, Barth, Muir, Eliot, Morgan, Macnicol, Blomfield, Eggeling, Hume, Buhler, Jolly, Edgerton, Brown, Thompson,  etc. etc.

All The Above!

Do you have a point here, Rasamrta? If you do, I suggest you make it with a cool and clear head. If you wish to get into this kind of display, then I suggest you upgrade your status in this community. Please take note of this topic.

As far as I am concerned, you are a stranger, a stranger who has deliberately chosen to resist the invitation to introduce himself. You have nothing invested in this community, so you think you can talk down to those of us you disagree with. This is bad manners. I request you to please think about this.
Audarya-lila dasa - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 03:14:36 +0530
I would caution against the idea that uttama, madhyama and kanistha can be reduced to the mental or intellectual sphere. One may be very liberal and have very little substantial faith and may in fact have little to no genuine standing or development of faith. It may be true that weak faith requires an enemy or that the kanistha tends to view things in black and white terms - but merely making an intellectual adjustment does not necessarily correlate with the proper development of shraddha.

In all of this conversation one has to 'walk the walk' and not merely talk the talk. We are talking about a revolution in the very way to lead our lives and adjusting ourselves and our practices such that a life of bhakti and gradual development of faith ensues. Without any fire what cooking will be done?

This may be an obvious point, nonetheless I felt impelled to state it.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Madhava - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 03:23:15 +0530
QUOTE(Audarya-lila dasa @ Jun 21 2004, 09:44 PM)
I would caution against the idea that uttama, madhyama and kanistha can be reduced to the mental or intellectual sphere.  One may be very liberal and have very little substantial faith and may in fact have little to no genuine standing or development of faith.  It may be true that weak faith requires an enemy or that the kanistha tends to view things in black and white terms - but merely making an intellectual adjustment does not necessarily correlate with the proper development of shraddha.

You may have read Bhaktivinoda's Krishna-samhita, the preface. There he uses the terms in the way that Mud suggests, somewhat adjusted from the traditional usage. However, I believe Jagat's point stands valid whether taken by the usage of Bhaktivinoda or the traditional way around.
Audarya-lila dasa - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 03:28:10 +0530
My comment wasn't meant to challenge the point that Jagat was making - rather just to qualify it a bit - more in the realm of nuanced thinking, if you will. Besides, I agree with his point.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Madan Gopal - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 03:34:27 +0530
QUOTE(Audarya-lila dasa @ Jun 21 2004, 05:44 PM)
One may be very liberal and have very little substantial faith and may in fact have little to no genuine standing or development of faith.

I would argue that one who feels compelled to keep studying the Gaudiya conclusions despite encountering the predominating kanishta association has proven to have substantial faith. It seems to me that kanishta generally starts off conservative right? - overly attached to rules and regulations, in general not getting the point and thereby offending more advanced devotees who don't follow the rules as good as themselves... aren't these kanishta symptoms?

As for development of faith and walking the walk, I don't see how anyone can prove, or should have to prove to anyone their development of faith. What exactly are you saying is proof of walking the walk? Adjusting our practices is an individual excercise in my book and I think it indeed IS an intellectual understanding that proves one is walking the walk. Again I rely on BVT's wisdom. He says that the kanishta simply won't be able to relate to the madhyama and the madhyama will go nuts in the association of the kanishta. They can't mix.
Audarya-lila dasa - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:03:22 +0530
My very simple point and contribution in this regard is that one can spend considerable time thinking about all of these issues and not really live the life that the sastra is pointing to. Liberal thinking does not make one advanced in terms of practice. One can assume anything, but reality is often quite different. I guess I would say that the head will naturally follow the heart that is developing in terms of bhakti proper. A liberal approach to life and wisdom does not guarantee a soft heart, not at all.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Madhava - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:12:31 +0530
I would like to see further comments on the kaniSTha etc. issue in this separate thread.
Madan Gopal - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:13:55 +0530
QUOTE(Audarya-lila dasa @ Jun 21 2004, 06:33 PM)
My very simple point and contribution in this regard is that one can spend considerable time thinking

I agree totally. Good point. A little addition: The head will not follow the heart if the heart has been crushed by overly conservative thinking.
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:21:28 +0530
We are of course in that complex realm of kanishtha, madhyama and uttama, which are adhikaras in one place and bhaktas in another. Thus some have crossed the two categories to give nine different categories.

I am not taking a merely intellectual view of the question. But at the same time, I find that the denigration of reason has gone way too far. There seem to be many things that can be "dovetailed" into Krishna's service, but sex and thinking aren't included--or at least their parameters are so narrowly defined as to emasculate them (to use an expression that may need parsing on its own!).

The intelligence applied to finding prem will get results--as long as it always remembers it is the servant of bhakti, not its boss; it is the servant of Sri Guru and not Sri Guru's usurper.

But on both counts: "sastre yuktye sunipuna" and "na tad-bhakteSu cAnyeSu," it is the way of looking that is being considered, and not esoteric bhakti-related elements.

The main difference between Advaita and myself may be this: He thinks Sri Rupa is the last word, whereas I think he is the first word.
RasaMrita - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:10:53 +0530
Dear Jagat:

Here you go again:
QUOTE
As far as I am concerned, you are a stranger, a stranger who has deliberately chosen to resist the invitation to introduce himself. You have nothing invested in this community, so you think you can talk down to those of us you disagree with. This is bad manners. I request you to please think about this.


Uttering threats. Why? Because I do not like the ill odored skunk of your skepticism.

QUOTE
posted by jagat: The Sanskrit word for exaggeration is atizayokti. It is a figure of speech commonly used and understood. Madhava has been using the example of "lotus feet" and "moon face." He is quite right. These are metaphors (rUpakAlaGkAra).


That my friend, is vey hard not being affected by it. I hope you change, otherwise, you are going to be known by it.

Therefore, suddently you want to change the rules. It seems that I am saying the right things. Your apparently position is control others by legislation while I do whatever I want. I guess such behaviour was learned while training at ISKCON/Gaudiya Math. Bad habit are hard to break.

I do not want to be know as the one who kick the scholars mundane influences in the Gaudiya Discussions Forum. Being anonymous is the best for me. I hate fame. I would be happy just reading Advaita without posting anything. So be it.
Madhava - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:34:43 +0530
QUOTE(RasaMrita @ Jun 21 2004, 11:40 PM)
Uttering threats.  Why?  Because I do not like the ill odored skunk of your skepticism. 
...
Therefore, suddently you want to change the rules.  It seems that I am saying the right things.  Your apparently position is control others by legislation while I do whatever I want. I guess such behaviour was learned while training at ISKCON/Gaudiya Math. Bad habit are hard to break. 

I do not want to be know as the one who kick the scholars mundane influences in the Gaudiya Discussions Forum. Being anonymous is the best for me.  I hate fame.  I would be happy just reading Advaita without posting anything. So be it.

Enough is enough. That last post of yours in response to Jagat crossed the line. Watch that mouth of yours. Your posts will be moderated for four days. They will appear online once a moderator has previewed and approved them. (Yes, and there are other moderators aside myself and Jagat.) We will not censor your ideas, though we will censor foul language.

If you are persistent with your anonymity and at the same time wish to use the tone you are using, then I hate to break the news, but that just doesn't fly here, and I trust I am not alone in saying this. You prefer anonymity? Would you consider what the rest of the community preferred from you?


QUOTE(RasaMrita @ Jun 20 2004, 06:48 PM)
My last post, Rasamrita out.

I must have misread that one, you must have meant something else.
Madhava - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:52:20 +0530
That being said, let's get back on track here. Do the commentators describe some verses of the Bhagavata, or of some other scripture, as utilizing atizayokti, the ornament of intentional exaggeration?

For example, Bhakti-sandarbha (beginning of Anuccheda 179) cites a verse from Bhagavata describing the magnificent effects of sAadhu-saGga, and Jiva comments on that being an example of atizayokti. A similar discussion surfaces on the TIkAs on Bhagavata 10.51.53, both Jiva and Visvanatha discuss the issue. There are other examples, too, such as Visvanatha's TIkA on Gita 15.1 (which I did not have the time to look into too deeply yet).

But we are not debating that such an alaGkAra exists, right? If it indeed does exist (and it does), it is quite likely that it has been occasionally employed in the various scriptures we come across. And do the AcAryas always meticulously document every alaGkAra being used? Well, sometimes they do, but they are not exactly literary critics as much as they are illustrators of philosophical principles demonstrated in the zAstra.
braja - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:54:25 +0530
QUOTE(RasaMrita @ Jun 21 2004, 07:40 PM)
I do not want to be know as the one who kick the scholars mundane influences in the Gaudiya Discussions Forum. Being anonymous is the best for me.  I hate fame.  I would be happy just reading Advaita without posting anything. So be it.

I think you mean Soviet.

In any case, while the melodrama is amusing, the anonymity is not. The benefits of taking responsibility for your own words are great: increased maturity and the ability to engage in dialog.
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:00:29 +0530
Dont want to sound paranoid but isnt Rasamrita's reluctance to reveal his ID used as an excuse for the management to stifle him because of his opposition? He is a bit emotional in his reaction, OK, but I dont find this reason to moderate him for 4 days, and yes, Jagat and Madhava ARE de facto the only two persons in charge of this site. The third one, Ramdas, rarely comes to this site and if he did he would definitely side with Jagat and Madhava. As a matter of fact this site is entirely in the hands of the sceptic intellectuals.
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:10:48 +0530
QUOTE
Jagat: But as to whether any tikakara has ever said: "This is exaggeration." I am sure I have seen it somewhere, but unfortunately, I can't remember exactly where. It would make an interesting area of research, to examine all the uses of atizayokti in the Gaudiya Vaishnava literature, tikas.


Wherever the acaryas and tikakaras have declared a verse or statement exaggarated there it is exaggarated. Do they need your assistance in this? Haridas Das in his Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidhana cites 4 different types of atishayokti, only one of them being exaggaration. How do you know, when the tikakaras call something atishayokti, that they mean exaggaration instead of any other type of atishayokti? It is clear that if you have not found any tika that you can remember of the tikakaras calling anything exaggaration, in 34 years of ardent study, that they hardly, if at all, call any shastrik statement exaggarated.
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:23:58 +0530
QUOTE
Jagat: And, as a matter of fact, if you insist on terms from the tradition, I will use kanistha adhikari, for I consider that the kanistha mentality includes this rather literalist attitude to scripture.


There are two types of triple adhikaris, according to faith (BRS 1.2.17-20) and according to KC (SB 11.2.45-47). Which one do you refer to? The uttam adhikari faith-wise is described by Rupa Gosvami as expert in shastra and yukti plus having full faith, the madhyam has full faith but no shastra yukti and the kanistha has only komal faith, though Jiva Gosvami writes in his tika that the kanistha knows little shastra either. So I have full faith, nor could I be considered a shastrik illiterate, I should be in the top two. Where are the PhDs, however? They have little faith but a lot of shastrik knowledge. Below even the kanistha adhikari?

QUOTE
As far as I am concerned it is pretty much all bravado, a balloon waiting a pin prick. This is why Iskcon has made thousands of devotees and then lost 90% of them.


They did not lose 90 % because they believed in shastra and Guru. If that is so, then prove it. You cannot. A balloon is full of hot air, whereas I am quoting shastra non stop. Is that hot air to you?

QUOTE
A pox on the unbelievers and apostates, they will be born as worms in stool for tens of thousands of births!


You will break the world-record putting words in people's mouths? Quote me or correct yourself.

QUOTE
Iskcon, polar bears, Muslims--any kind of example is outside your realm of comprehension. You seem only capable of thinking in a straight line. Rather amusing actually.


That is funny since I was living in mainly Muslim neighborhoods for the last 15 years and my sister converted to Islam 13 years ago. I was also a full time Iskcon man for 4 years. And prove to me, either through your yukti or through shastra, that there is something wrong in believing one's acaryas, arrogantly dismissed by you as 'straight thinking'. Straight means riju and a person who is straight is arjava. That is a godly quality, if anything, according to Gita 18.42. 13.8 and 16.1.

QUOTE
Do you even know what it means to try to understand what another person is saying? You know what you know. If something sounds sort of the same, it is good. If it doesn't, it is not. So, for your benefit, I'll stop calling it literalist or fundamentalist and call it "kanishtha mentality."


This has already been refuted above. The kanistha has komala faith, prove that this is me. I think it rather applies to you, because you dont believe the shastras and the tikakaras. atmavan manyate jagat. Jagat...

All in all, just fancy modern magazine words and assumptions, firmly in the realm of bhrama pramada vipralipsa karana patava - or you are beyond that?
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:29:55 +0530
QUOTE
Mud: For Caitanya Mahaprabhu coming from a brahmin family, a sannyasi, and associating with "low birth" personalities, making Haridasa the namacarya, embracing Sanatana with sores all over his body, these are intensely liberal actions. Yes I know they are transcendental (please don't argue this), but socially in the actual time this is unheard of and the behavior of madmen.


Dear Mud you are making the same mistake as Jagat - liberal does not mean that one dismisses the shastras and the commentators or calls Rupa Gosvami a human being. What you refer to is compassionate social liberality, not mental speculation and intellectual arrogance.

QUOTE
All traditionalists, Advaita of his school or ISKCON with ACBSP instill fear into making religion work for it's adherents.


I am getting really tired being lumped in with Iskcon. Where have I threatened anyone? Mud you may not have any experience outside of Iskcon, but Jagat has. He can tell you that there are also other groups of Vaishnavas who follow the shastras and the acaryas. biggrin.gif
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:35:41 +0530
At any rate: I say it clearly and without embarrassment, or fear from the literalists: I can recognize exaggeration when I see it and I don't need help from a tikakar. If Advaita or anyone else accepts that Ugrasena had 10 quadrillion bodyguards--more people than have ever existed on this planet at any time--perhaps these were battalions of mosquitoes--then they are lacking in common sense. I don't see why this ridiculous discussion is even taking place.

"Gee whiz--no one told me this was an exaggeration! So how was I supposed to know? Let me pray to Vishwanath and Sri Jiva for the revelation, for they did not come right out and say it!

And if someone else does not accept it, he is an apostate! I am sorry, but this is not sraddha. You have a mistaken understanding of faith. My faith does not depend on believing such things. Nor does my acceptance or rejection of other devotees depend on these things.
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:38:26 +0530
QUOTE
My faith does not depend on believing such things.


Does this whole post of yours have anything to do with faith at all?
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:40:47 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 07:59 AM)
I am getting really tired being lumped in with Iskcon.

We have already explained what the common features are. It is the literalist and exclusivist sectarian mindset. It has nothing to do with Iskcon specifically, but since we are more familiar with Iskcon than with Southern Baptists or Wahabbis, we call 'em as we see 'em.
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:45:23 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 22 2004, 12:10 PM)
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 07:59 AM)
I am getting really tired being lumped in with Iskcon.

We have already explained what the common features are. It is the literalist and exclusivist sectarian mindset. It has nothing to do with Iskcon specifically, but since we are more familiar with Iskcon than with Southern Baptists or Wahabbis, we call 'em as we see 'em.

You can compare me with Bin Laden or Billy Graham if you want, I am just following the shastras and the acaryas. Last time I checked there was nothing wrong with loyalty, till I met a PhD. Something like nistha or eka nistha, ekanta, wouldn't that be a nice substitute for your 'dogmatic' , 'narrow minded' etc. type of insults? And how broadminded you are, that you are attacking a faithful person. If you are so broadminded you might also like to tolerate a faithful person? Deepak Chopra, come back, all is forgiven! Compared to Jagat even you are a democrat.....
Malatilata - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:18:59 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 11:30 AM)
Dont want to sound paranoid but isnt Rasamrita's reluctance to reveal his ID used as an excuse for the management to stifle him because of his opposition? He is a bit emotional in his reaction, OK, but I dont find this reason to moderate him for 4 days, and yes, Jagat and Madhava ARE de facto the only two persons in charge of this site. The third one, Ramdas, rarely comes to this site and if he did he would definitely side with Jagat and Madhava. As a matter of fact this site is entirely in the hands of the sceptic intellectuals.


There is also a fourth moderator. I also have full rights to moderate this site, I can do whatever like whenever I like. tongue.gif

I do read everything what is going on in this site, but being a simple housewife I rarely have time to write anything. All my time is spent taking care of Giridhari and Nitai Gaura, They need to be fed properly and Their house should be kept clean, They need new summer clothes etc.

And I am not an intellectual! blush.gif
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:21:05 +0530
Look, Advaita, you are also attacking my loyalty, are you not? You have called me an apostate, either directly or by suggestion on more than one occasion, have you not?

So we see each other differently from our own point of view, and clearly communication is very difficult. I find that you are unable to grasp certain things I say even though they seem clear enough to me.

Your concept of faith is "swallow everything, reasonable or unreasonable." This is what you insist on as the "gold standard" for everyone else. I am sorry, but I think this is an indication of a lack of reflection.

Have you read Haribhaktivilasa lately? Do you know what happens to you if you fast on dasami-biddha-ekadasi? And what happens to you if you eat brinjal, masoor dal, and carrots? I mean, it's all very heavy. I take it all as exaggeration, even if these Purana-karas (not Vyasadeva, please!) insist that thinking they are exaggerations multiplies the hellish sentence a thousandfold.

Anyway, I am very busy today. I'll maybe come back this evening, but the Shadow lurks at the door.
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:31:28 +0530
QUOTE(Malatilata @ Jun 22 2004, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 11:30 AM)
Dont want to sound paranoid but isnt Rasamrita's reluctance to reveal his ID used as an excuse for the management to stifle him because of his opposition? He is a bit emotional in his reaction, OK, but I dont find this reason to moderate him for 4 days, and yes, Jagat and Madhava ARE de facto the only two persons in charge of this site. The third one, Ramdas, rarely comes to this site and if he did he would definitely side with Jagat and Madhava. As a matter of fact this site is entirely in the hands of the sceptic intellectuals.


There is also a fourth moderator. I also have full rights to moderate this site, I can do whatever like whenever I like. tongue.gif

I do read everything what is going on in this site, but being a simple housewife I rarely have time to write anything. All my time is spent taking care of Giridhari and Nitai Gaura, They need to be fed properly and Their house should be kept clean, They need new summer clothes etc.

And I am not an intellectual! blush.gif

Yes dear Malati, simple housewives are what are needed here badly. And you are not an intellectual, that speaks for you too. I do hope you will have sufficient influence to make a balance. smile.gif
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:37:36 +0530
QUOTE
Look, Advaita, you are also attacking my loyalty, are you not?


Loyalty to whom, may I ask? You are not loyal to the Bhagavat but are finding faults in it, and you are not loyal to the Acaryas either. And, may I be so free to ask, would you speak these kinds of words, as in this thread, to your Gurudeva as well? He might fit the shoe that you place before him, as a 'right wing conservative'. You know very very well that my type of shastriya shraddha and nistha has nothing to do with Iskcon and that most, if not all of the Vaishnavas you met and lived with in India share my conception ( "opinion").

QUOTE
Have you read Haribhaktivilasa lately? Do you know what happens to you if you fast on dasami-biddha-ekadasi? And what happens to you if you eat brinjal, masoor dal, and carrots? I mean, it's all very heavy. I take it all as exaggeration, even if these Purana-karas (not Vyasadeva, please!) insist that thinking they are exaggerations multiplies the hellish sentence a thousandfold.


It is your interpretation only that these are exaggarations. They may serve the purpose of establishing the GV sampradaya as legitimate, as they present their own smriti shastra. That is my 2 cents. What do you want then? Mahaprabhu has said in CC Madhya 24.340 that Krishna will inspire Sanatan Gosvami to write it. I hope you dont consider this exaggarated either.....

I would, btw, finally like to have an answer to my repeated question whether your 'opinions' are beyond bhrama pramada vipralipsa and karana patava. You make me wait very very long now.....
Malatilata - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:05:23 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 01:01 PM)
Yes dear Malati, simple housewives are what are needed here badly. And you are not an intellectual, that speaks for you too. I do hope you will have sufficient influence to make a balance.  smile.gif

Back in my schooldays I had some tendencies towards intellectualism. I loved to read different philosophies and I even received a grant for being the best philosophy student at my school in the year of my graduation. I was also studying advanced mathematics and I really loved it.

But when I became I devotee, well, something happened. I think it was that naughty bluish teenager, who loves to steal things, especially from women. I think He has something to do with my intellect. wub.gif

In any case, I feel more like a silent observer. I rarely jump into discussions, and I rarely have any strong opinions. But I will try to find some time and write something every once in a while.

flowers.gif
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:32:32 +0530
QUOTE
But when I became I devotee, well, something happened. I think it was that naughty bluish teenager, who loves to steal things, especially from women. I think He has something to do with my intellect. 


Bas, that is all. We quarrelling male intellectuals should be ashamed of ourselves and take this brilliant example. blush.gif
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:42:01 +0530
I was looking around in my archives for material dealing with another subject and came across the following, badly filed document. This probably was posted on VNN Forums, ca. May 25, 1999. I am just posting it wholesale, so there may be some repetition of things I have already said in this thread. Please excuse me for that. VNN archives are no longer available.

*****

Dear Frederico,

I didn't start this thread, nor did I contribute anything to it until this week. Even then, I only cross posted other people's writings to begin with. These were intelligent comments by thinking devotees who challenge some of the superficial beliefs held by people in the Krishna consciousness movement. Since I posted them, I have followed up by responding to Puru’s comments. I hold strongly to my position, but I am hardly obsessed by it. On the contrary, I find the refusal to even entertain the possibility that the Bhagavata might contain erroneous information aberrant.

I do not say that everyone should become a scientist in the academic sense. I am merely saying that Bhagavata beliefs in these areas are ultimately incompatible with the world in which we are living. If devotees have pretensions to being a preaching movement (one that has more than merely limited personal value) then they should consider examining the validity of their beliefs and making the appropriate adjustments. Since these issues are not relevant at all to those that Prabhupada raised in his purport to SB 1.1.3, I think that we can do so without guilty conscience. And I thank Puru for quoting that purport to show us what Prabhupada considered to be important.

The most important question that you asked of me was (and I paraphrase): Why do I associate following blindly these kinds of unverifiable and dubious cosmological beliefs with false ego?

This is indeed a good question. For you, the path to overcoming false ego is to hear submissively from the sastra and to accept it blindly. In this way, I assume, that every time a doubt arises, you gleefully shoot it down by chanting Hare Krishna, much in the same way that you would a lusty desire.

Now, the sastras tell us that when we have doubts we should try to resolve them by approaching the spiritual master who is sarva-samsaya-samchetta. Sastra doesn't say that we are to ignore our doubts, but that we should try to resolve them.

All education requires submissive hearing. Indeed, if I wish to learn trigonometry or astronomy, I will have to undergo rigorous training for several years. In the beginning stages, I will be in no position to challenge the system itself, though I may have questions and doubts. These questions and doubts have to be resolved with the faith that the system has dealt with them in a legitimate way. It is only when I reach a certain stage of education that I will be able to challenge specific points or elements in the body of knowledge. I may even be able to question the entire foundation of a science, but I must have attained the requisite qualification. Do you not agree?

So, when learning a certain subject matter, it is indeed false ego to ask challenging questions at a premature stage of one's development. If the first grader attacks his teacher about 2 + 2 = 4 and refuses to understand his or her explanations, then this is a sign that the child has been badly brought up and augurs poorly for his schooling. In the terms we are using for this discussion, we have a false ego or psychological problem.

On the other hand, if an advanced and brilliant student challenges his professor's theorems on the basis of the scientific system that is accepted by both parties, then the refusal of the professor to accept his student's (correct) theorems is a sign of false ego on his part, is it not? I think something like this happened in the film "Good Will Hunting," where, though it was difficult for the professor to admit it, he was humble enough to recognize the extraordinary genius of his pupil.

So, for the purpose of this discussion, by “false ego,” I mean the conscious or subconscious motivations that influence one to accept or reject verifiable data that is accepted by qualified, impartial third parties. The inability to be impartial (“tatastha”) is a sign of false ego.

In Vedanta, the customary example of Maya or illusion is that of seeing a snake where there is only a rope. This is called adhyasa or, in modern psychological terms, projection. Modern psychology goes beyond establishing that the rope is not a snake. Indeed, that is not the realm of psychology at all. But if something cannot be demonstrated to be a snake in anything but the most superficial characteristics, then the question is no longer, “Is it a snake?” but “Why does this person believe that it is a snake?”

And to answer this question, one has to go beyond the obvious errors of perception, etc., in order to find the nature of the projection itself. Analytical psychologists of various schools thus go on to ask questions like, “What kind of snake is it?” in the hope that answering this question will reveal something about the person who is projecting the snake.

In cases like the Bhagavatam and other ancient Hindu cosmographic concepts that devotees seem to have accepted wholesale, we have a similar set of questions that need to be asked. Why is it necessary to believe them?

Here, the answer I get from most of you is something like: “I have to believe this because it is an integral part of a belief construct, without which this construct will collapse.”

In this case, we have a case of intense and emotional attachment -- a sure sign of projection, as Jung would say. In our language, it is a sure sign of maya or false ego, which when carried to an extreme must be considered a form of madness. To put it another way, if someone says, my life depends on protecting myself from this snake (which is, in fact, a rope) and arranges his entire life around this fear, considering anyone who sees it as a rope to be crazy and “plotting against him,” then we have a case of severe disorientation and paranoia.

This is where all the conspiracy theories come in. The premise of most horror pics is that the hero or heroine (and the audience) is aware of something so outlandish that no one can possibly believe him or her. Why do so many devotees buy into the conspiracy mentality? Well, once you have bought into one unfounded, outlandish belief, then your basic foundation in reality is disturbed and you are ready to accept any allegation of the sort as being true.

We may say, “I know this is a snake, but the world calls me crazy because I do so. I know I am not crazy, therefore the world is blind or deliberately denying that this is a snake for some nefarious purpose. The proof is that the world believes that Oswald killed Kennedy, that Hitler tried to eliminate all the Jews, and so many other false things. Since we have the same enemy, the people that know the “truth” about these things are my brothers and sisters.”

Ancient cosmological systems are a reflection of the state of science in the day that they were written. In the case of the Bhagavatam, we are talking roughly 800 AD. It has long shown that where accurate data is lacking, mental constructs have a tendency to take their place. All mythology is of this sort, and the Bhagavata cosmology is nothing more than this. It tells us little about the real universe, but can tell us rather more about the mind -- not only the minds that wrote it, but the collective mind of which we are all a part. But we must make the distinction between psychological and objective reality.

As I have shown above, most devotees feel that this is just the beginning of a “slippery slope,” the tip of the iceberg, as it were. Where is the line between “psychological” and “objective” reality to be drawn? Devotees like Ananda and Dvaipayana Vyasa, for instance, may be ready to decry the obviously incorrect picture of the universe drawn in the fifth canto, but as Ananda (and I) have said many times, Krishna consciousness belongs to a different realm. Ananda said that the guru and scripture have more authority in these realms than the scientific.

But many psychologists will say that the Deity is also a psychological construct and a projection. This is a long and complex discussion, and I shall not go into in detail here. The two most important approaches descending from Freud and Jung. Freud holds that God is an infantile projection while Jung holds that God is a projection of the “Self” archetype. Jung is basically Platonian (as is all Indian thought) in that he accords concrete value to ideas or archetypes.

Put succinctly, God is a symbol of the ultimate value. Since ultimate values are real, God is real. The content of God-symbols, however, differs because of differing concepts of ultimate value. We can advance our own understanding of ourselves by analysing our concept of Deity. But this also requires a certain amount of detachment.
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:31:32 +0530
Anyway, just chant Hare Krishna!
braja - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:39:55 +0530
An important point that I think is worth repeating is that personal faith of any quality is fine, but sooner or later that faith must run into other people and real world situations, thus the analysis of the kanistha mentality.

I'll post a few examples of literalist rhetoric run amok. Although these examples are from ISKCON, I suggest that--based on the principle mentioned above, that personal faith must manifest in the world in some form--an examination must be made of how ones interactions with others reflects ones faith.

ISKCON Cultural Journal

This is a blog by Krishna-kirti Das, a member of the apparently defunct GHQD, an anti-feminist, anti-liberal, pro-"Vedic" organization, which included a number of sannyasis. Basic motto: If guru or sadhu say it, it must be accepted in full. Thus we find the author publishing statements such as these:

QUOTE
I note that your wife has given birth to one girl child. Are all your other
children also dasi's or do you have any das's? We want more das's than
dasi's.

N.B. I am also in receipt of your letters dated October 20 & 21, 1975. I
note that your wife and Visalaini both gave birth to baby girls. That is the
defect. I want male children but you have no stamina for it. I expected from
Visalaini by her belly that it would be a boy. Anyway, never mind. The name
Brijlata is nice. Why do the majority of my married disciples give birth to
girls?


No thought is given as to the effect the promotion of those views will have on others. It is Truth.

This straight shooting obviously appeals to many as one sannyasi comments on the same site:

QUOTE
Thanks much for the refreshing light your blog sheds on ISKCON cultural issues.

I am *so* glad you address issues from the Vedic cultural standpoint and not the "social issues" standpoint. The latter too often proves to be the staging ground for Western-style human-centered programs for realizing "heaven-on-earth" (Rama-rajya without Rama, or at best with Rama shoved into the background as the order-supplier of human "needs").

Vedic culture, on the other hand, means what Srila Prabhupada said it means: God-centered (Isyavasya) civilization, in which humanity serves the pleasure of the Lord.

I found your 13 June comment on liberal-vs-conservative as "newfangled upadhis" brilliant. Yes, that goes hand-in-hand with the social issues paradigm, a frame of reference that is entirely mundane. As the postmodernist philosopher Richard Rorty puts it (approvingly of course), discussion of social issues by people sporting empty upadhis (liberal, conservative, progressive, bla bla bla) comes down to mere "conversation." In other words, it is prajalpa by which we keep ourselves entertained, like some TV panel discussion: "Ah, thank you. Over to you, Mike. You've got 30 seconds to respond."

In Vedic culture, discussion of difficult issues is vicara, the sober, exacting method of sastra-caksusa through brahminical debate. The aim of vicara is to enter into a deeper, richer and therefore satisfying-to-all-sides comprehension of sabda-brahma. *Vicara* is not a leftist-vs-rightist bashing fest for the amusement of the Net potatos out there in Cyberland.

And I liked your 4 June comment on Western science as the fallback position for our stubborn material conditioning.

I've cited your views on these topics at

http://www.in2-mec.com/J-Pages04/J040616.htm

Keep it up! On the Internet, if you can hang in there and keep pitching, over time the impact of your message grows and grows. What you're saying at this site is important *especially* because it runs against the relativistic grain of so much that's out there in Cyberland.


(More from the same Swami in regard to someone suggesting that the Bhagavatam contains science that has since been disproven can be seen on this page, in the section entitled "MacNewsletter physics.")

There is a profound danger in the faith-at-any-cost mentality. Internally one can keep any kind of faith they deem fit. But when that faith has to interact with others, caution is needed.
braja - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:23:15 +0530
There is an excellent documentary out from Sundance on similar subject matters: Trembling Before G-d. The film documents the lives of homosexual Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, who are faced with the similar scriptural and traditional condemnations of their sexuality as that faced nowadays by Gaudiyas.

This story on BeliefNet includes a quote from a Rabbi that seems to illuminate what is the central issue or objection for some:

QUOTE
But Shafran also criticized the film because, he said, "'Trembling Before G-d' wrongly answers the most important Jewish question imaginable: Is Judaism about what we'd like God to do to accommodate us, or about what we are honored, exalted and sanctified to do to obey Him?"


This is similar to the point earlier from Suhotra Swami regarding Rama rajya. We must all ask, "How much of myself can I bring, how much can I surrender?" Unfortunately it is easy to demand sacrifices from others but retain our own upadhis, rationalize whatever it is that makes us tick.
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:43:43 +0530
Thanks for that, Braja. If it's not clear by now, it verifies that common features between Advaita and certain elements in Iskcon exist. This sentence in particular: "I found your 13 June comment on liberal-vs-conservative as 'newfangled upadhis' brilliant."

But what I would like to object to particularly, is the idea that somehow all this thinking necessarily leads to a Godless society, just talking to pass the time of day.

We are engaged in a process of discrimination meant to establish what are the REAL insights of scripture. We are guided by the sampradaya in understanding where to look, what to look at and what to look for.

We look specifically at Mahaprabhu and Radha-Krishna, we look at manjari-bhava, and we say: OK, this is the FOR given in scripture; now this is the AGAINST as presented by the critics. Now, instead of simply saying "We are right because our scriptures are infallible, our guru is infallible. You are wrong because you are full of bhrama, pramada, karanapatava and vipralipsa. Nothing you say can possibly have any meaning because I am in the right group and you're not, so there!" I suggest we say, "Is there any validity to this criticism?"

This is not an attempt at apologetics, whereby we simply pick out ideas and defeat them with artificial arguments and professions of unflagging, unassailable faith. No, it is a genuine process of understanding. It is the crucible upon which our faith is strengthened.

It is like the parable of the talents in the New Testament (a nice free market parable if there ever was one): the gifts we are given if hidden away are wasted, those we risk make us prosper.

I long ago said to myself: If something is true in these scriptures, then I must find out how it is true. I must put it to the test. If Rupa Goswami and the Bhagavatam are the pramANam amalam, then I want to (1) understand it, and (2) understand the phenomena it deals with: God, religion, mysticism, spiritual life, and all the other connected things. By the process of anvaya-vyatirekabhyam: not simply looking at it from one side, but by looking at it from the other as well.

However, by Sri Guru and Gauranga's mercy, I have enough direct experience (aparokSAnubhUti) of the Divine Truths taught by our acharyas that I feel firmly rooted there. I am not flying away from the Sun, but orbiting it. And when I crash, it is into the Sun that I will crash.

And this is why I resent being accused of "disloyalty."
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:55:01 +0530
Surprisingly, I find that there is some useful material on that Cultural Journal site. I have long been for "feminisation", so that entire discourse is interesting to me, even coming from an opponent.

It is actually pretty well done. Go, Adwaita, this man shares many of your ideas, you can learn from him!
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:13:47 +0530
QUOTE
Thanks for that, Braja. If it's not clear by now, it verifies that common features between Advaita and certain elements in Iskcon exist.


You are consistently avoiding my challenges and you are using smoke screens like this to divert attention. This is my next effort to reject being lumped in by the 'broadminded'. If any of you gentlemen here plan to take diksa from a trad. line, be in for a surprise unless you heed my warning - these saints have never heard of 'left wing liberals', 'right wing conservatives' and will certainly not take Jagat's opinions as being free from bhrama pramada vipralipsa and karana patava, or more valuable than those of the tikakaras and other foundational acaryas. Rather, they will be appalled by his arrogant and defiant attitude. Now about me having common features with certain elements in Iskcon, let us have some evidence for this. Please quote some examples or apologise. Finally answer my questions Jagat, they are piling up and are not going away through smoke screens and side tracks.

I have had sat sanga with the following acaryas, each of them learned scholars -

1. Nikunja Gopal Gosvami
2. Govinda Gopal Gosvami
3. Ananta das Pandit
4. Krishna Caran das Baba
5. Kishori das Baba
6. Manindranath Guha
7. Madan Mohan das Baba
8. Rohinindranath Mitra (this gentleman was super eclectic, but even he was appalled when I said that some of my western friends started to select between credible and incredible Bhagavat slokas. He firmly said 'When faith is lost everything is lost.')
9. Krishnadas Madrasi Baba
10 Nitya Gopal Gosvami
11 Prem Gopal Gosvami

Not one of these famous mahatmas has ever told me that the tikas of the acaryas are unfortunate or that anything was poetic, exaggarated or symbolical. Nor were any of them even indirectly connected with Iskcon.

Furthermore I read the tikas of

1 Sridhara Swami
2. Visvanatha Cakravarti
3 Jiva Gosvami

These acaryas, nitya siddha or otherwise, are also not even indirectly connected with Iskcon, nor have they anywhere said that anything is relative, exaggarated etc.

Now the burden of proof lies with the accuser, who happens to know most if not all of the above mahatmas and is deceiving an innocent audience here to believe that ONLY Iskcon is so 'dogmatic' and 'narrow minded'. It is pure deception and suggestive populism a la Narayan Maharaja. A cow is an animal, that does not make every animal a cow. Similarly, shastriya shraddha or scriptural faith is not the monopoly of Iskcon nor is it in any way right wing (daksin paksa? ridiculous, eh?) Despite the fact that the burden of proof lies with the accuser I have done yet another attempt to prove my innocence, which I dont really need to do.
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:25:12 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 22 2004, 04:25 PM)
Surprisingly, I find that there is some useful material on that Cultural Journal site. I have long been for "feminisation", so that entire discourse is interesting to me, even coming from an opponent.

It is actually pretty well done. Go, Adwaita, this man shares many of your ideas, you can learn from him!

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. I am not obliged to read this long stuffy story. I believe it is about female births being inferior. How can you prove this is my opinion? Why dont you quote from this long article what points are similar to my points of view? Proof your point or apologise Jagat.
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:34:29 +0530
Well, I appreciate your point of view, Advaita, I really do. And I respect all those Vaishnavas you mention. And you are probably right, many of them would probably be appalled by my apostasy. What can I say, I bow down to them all with respect, and to you, too.

I respect them for their devotion, and that is what I pray they will bless me with. But I don't believe that devotion depends on Ugrasen's bodyguards. In other words, the exaggerations are meant to convince us of Krishna's greatness. But I am not interested in his aisvarya, but in his madhurya. So what difference does it make to me whether he has sixteen thousand palaces in Dwarka?

He is everywhere, present in everyone's heart, engaged in a relationship with everyone. So 16,000 or 16,000,000 or 16 quadrillion -- it's just a number that has no meaning. Nevertheless, what happens on that level and what actually really happened in this world are two different stories.

Anway, so is there any way these positions can be reconciled? Or is it all "no quarter to the apostates"?
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:37:49 +0530
QUOTE
In other words, the exaggerations are meant to convince us of Krishna's greatness. But I am not interested in his aisvarya, but in his madhurya. So what difference does it make to me whether he has sixteen thousand palaces in Dwarka?


That is odd. If you are not interested then why did you bring it up in the first place? You were the one who quoted SB 10.90.41-42, not me.... wink.gif
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:49:16 +0530
It was only meant to serve as an example of a thing that I consider an affront to my intelligence to be obliged to accept as literal truth.

There's that story Prabhupada used to tell about the man who marvelled at how a great oak tree could be "present" in a tiny acorn. Why do we need to engage in these gymnastics of faith and belief, when there are sufficient miracles in the quotidien and all around us?
Advaitadas - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:03:10 +0530
QUOTE
Jagat, June 22, 2004. If it's not clear by now, it verifies that common features between Advaita and certain elements in Iskcon exist.


QUOTE
                       Date:Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:11:52 -0400
                              From:"jan brzezinski" | This
                              is spam | Add to Address Book
                              Subject:Re: Re: getting off TD
                              To:"Maria Ekstrand" ,
                              "Advaita Das"
                                  
                 Weird exchange. Advaita is one of the most vociferous anti-Iskcon voices. He's pretty idiosyncratic.
                        


Apologies coming Jagat?
Madan Gopal - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:48:52 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 12:43 PM)
Now about me having common features with certain elements in Iskcon, let us have some evidence for this. Please quote some examples or apologise.

I apologise again and again for caring about this anymore. This is a waste of time. You do not get it. I would love to go on hearing discussion of these topics, with your angle being one of those visions of the truth, but you just insist again and again and again that your vision is THE vision - after all, all you do is quote sastra! REAL CLEAR HERE: THIS IS THE SIMILARITY WITH ISKCON - your insistence that you are on the side of the Goswami's and therefore right, and damn everybody else who disagrees or heaven forbid extracts their own meaning.

Look at your quotes from Jagat, that is an example of how it just goes right over your head. Anti-ISKCON you are, I'll give you that. Congrats. But anti-ISKCON does not qualify you as being different from the style of argument ISKCON has a tendency to use. His two quotes are about different things! That was my point in an earlier post. I did not lump you in with ISKCON, I said that your method has ISKCON written all over it. Anti ISKCON does not equal NOT ISKCON. I think you learned more in your four short years in ISKCON than you think. I'm speaking of a dynamic that works in religious institutions. You have it, the appeal to authority, the restriction of personal insight, the backing up of everything you believe with someone else's words and then because they are pure (an assumption) your words are true. Isn't that what ACBSP did all the time in referring to parampara? Do you see the similarity? Hey, that's faith, but blind faith in my book.

I'm done with this. I hope we get back to topic. I'll take your angle as long as you don't make it the whole view. Peace, Love and Prema.
Audarya-lila dasa - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:51:43 +0530
I would like to suggest that no person can be categorized in such simplistic terms as 'literalist', 'mental gymnast', 'kanistha', 'intellectual' or any other such label. We are all very complex invididuals and any attempt to reduce any one of us to a simple category will necessarily devalue us as inviduals.

It seems as though it is an inherent part of human psychology to want to simplify and categorize even when such an approach is obviously faulty. It's like stating to someone something like this, 'you always do such and such' - when in fact the person may do such and such often - they are in no way limited to doing so and, in fact, do something quite different at least from time to time.

Having said that, we do often exhibit tendencies and habits and we do 'tend' to have specific ways of viewing and interacting with the world.

I think it is obvious to most sadhakas who frequent this site that Adwaita and Jagat are unique individuals who have much in common and also much that they disagree on. Would it be possible to disagree with someone without having to reduce that person to a particular category that one finds offensive? I mean, maybe on a particular issue the opinion may fall into a general category but that by no means should be projected beyond the specific opinion.

Nothing is ever black and white like that. I am sure Jagat holds some opinions that would be considered foolish/conservative/blind by others and I am equally sure that Adwaita holds some opinions that would be classified by most as liberal/progressive/broadminded by others.

I think that this topic could use an infusion of objectivity and get off of the personal attack mode. The title of the topic is 'treating scripture as evidence'. I think it's fairly obvious that one opinion is that everything stated in scripture must be believed or else risk everything in terms of spiritual attainment. The other extreme is to question everything and those statements in scripture which are clearly out of the question in terms of accepted scientific possibility should be taken as either a sign of the underdevelop of scientific thought at the time the text was written or as literary embellishments. These are the polar extremes and obviously there is much gray area between them. Maybe we can refocus this thread on this type of discussion?

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Jagat - Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:57:58 +0530
This was a private correspondence, so I am rather surprised to see it publicly presented in this way. Looks like it got sent to you by accident. Nevertheless, I will stand by it. Are you not a "vociferous anti-Iskcon voice"? Are you not "pretty idiosyncratic"? I would think you would take pride in such a description. You could even put it on the jacket flap of your next book! wink.gif

Of course, I know these are not topics you deal with in your published material, to your credit.

As to apologies, I will most humbly apologize to you if you have taken offense. I have stated more than once that I appreciate what you have done to further awareness of Radha-Krishna lila around the world. Many people are grateful to you for the services you have rendered. This makes me happy.

We happen to disagree on matters that we both feel strongly about. I hope that we will be able to find points of agreement that will make it possible for us to renew and strengthen our friendship.

Your servant, Jagadananda Das.
Advaitadas - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:04:32 +0530
QUOTE
but you just insist again and again and again that your vision is THE vision - after all, all you do is quote sastra! REAL CLEAR HERE: THIS IS THE SIMILARITY WITH ISKCON - your insistence that you are on the side of the Goswami's and therefore right, and damn everybody else who disagrees or heaven forbid extracts their own meaning.


Dear Mud,
1. I have not expressed any opinion of my own. You should read the Sandarbhas of Jiva Gosvami. They clearly state that scriptural faith excells over popular faith.
2. You obviously dont know anything else but Iskcon. Open any book by Ananta das Pandit, Gaudiya Math etc. Quoting quoting quoting. Broaden your vision please.
Look at the post wherein I mentioned 11 acaryas I have known very well in Vraja and Bengal, none of them are from Iskcon.
3. Quote me on damning anyone. Quote or apologise, everyone is putting words in my mouth.

QUOTE
I'm speaking of a dynamic that works in religious institutions.


How do you know that? None of the 11 acaryas I mentioned are members of any religious organisation, nor were Jiva Rupa and Sanatana for that matter. You dont know anything else but Iskcon, so much is clear, but then dont bark at the caravan either please.
Advaitadas - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:09:10 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 22 2004, 06:27 PM)
This was a private correspondence, so I am rather surprised to see it publicly presented in this way. Looks like it got sent to you by accident. Nevertheless, I will stand by it. Are you not a "vociferous anti-Iskcon voice"? Are you not "pretty idiosyncratic"? I would think you would take pride in such a description. You could even put it on the jacket flap of your next book! wink.gif

Of course, I know these are not topics you deal with in your published material, to your credit.

As to apologies, I will most humbly apologize to you if you have taken offense. I have stated more than once that I appreciate what you have done to further awareness of Radha-Krishna lila around the world. Many people are grateful to you for the services you have rendered. This makes me happy.

We happen to disagree on matters that we both feel strongly about. I hope that we will be able to find points of agreement that will make it possible for us to renew and strengthen our friendship.

Your servant, Jagadananda Das.

Thank you for the apologies Jagat. However, note that I don't seek apologies for the entire debate we had, but only for the innuendo that I am related to Iskcon in any way. It is pretty hurtful, it is like accusing a Holocaust survivor of being an SS camp guard or so. I have suffered many types of abuse in Iskcon, physical, psychological and also doctrinal. Shastriya shraddha is shastriya shraddha, that is all.

As for the revelation of private mail, I am sorry but I saw no other or more powerful way of proving that you contradict yourself very strongly. This will be an exception rather than a rule.
iti.
advaitadas
vamsidas - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:22:07 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 12:43 PM)
If any of you gentlemen here plan to take diksa from a trad. line, be in for a surprise unless you heed my warning - these saints have never heard of 'left wing liberals', 'right wing conservatives' and will certainly not take Jagat's opinions as being free from bhrama pramada vipralipsa and karana patava, or more valuable than those of the tikakaras and other foundational acaryas. Rather, they will be appalled by his arrogant and defiant attitude.

Dear Advaitadasji,

Thank you for the above cautionary words.

I am indeed in exactly the position you describe. I am trying to learn about the differences between the different traditional parivaras, so that I may determine where I should set my aspirations for diksa.

I have firm faith in the Bhagavata Purana as the spotless Purana. I believe that Mahaprabhu and his associates have rendered many potential academic disputes moot, since Caitanya Vaishnavas accept that these personalities at the "root" of our sampradaya -- and the shastras they accepted or wrote -- have "set the standard" which we are to follow.

However, it is precisely because of my faith, and my desire to adhere fully to the orthodoxy and orthopraxis instituted by Mahaprabhu, that I find a need to answer some difficult questions.

I cannot be satisfied by a faith that requires me to say, more or less, "I don't understand what I believe, or why I believe it, and I cannot explain it to others outside my faith community. My faith is external to my experience, but because I am told to surrender to an external authority I will abandon my values, ethics, sense perceptions and reasoning abilities, and adopt beliefs and practices that I cannot rationally defend."

It would be foolish to demand that faith be fully rational. However, rational human beings need a framework in which to live their faith. Otherwise, they become incapable of authentic self-examination, as they become caught up in a process of denying their authentic frailties and learning to ignore their imperfect human perceptions whenever a conflict is suspected between the world of their experience and the world of their ideal.

You seem to be arguing for "irrational faith" on the strength of the testimony of superior authorities. I am striving to find "supra-rational faith" -- faith that fully harmonizes those authorities in a framework that honestly and authentically engages my rational faculties.

I am not suggesting that faith can be determined by, or captured by, human reason; rather, I am seeking a faith that is above reason, but that honestly places reason in a subordinate place instead of denying it.

An amateur astronomer can prove that the Bhagavata Purana is "wrong." However, as people of faith, we have personal experience that the Bhagavata Purana is not wrong. How do we reconcile these two points? For you, it seems sufficient to say, "the Bhagavata Purana is literally true, and if you don't accept it you are a demon aparadhi."

I had hoped that such an approach wasn't necessary; that the truth of shastra is not so fragile that it becomes falsehood if every single syllable isn't understood literally.

Instead, you seem to be offering a Caitanya Vaishnavism in which Krishna's literal "lotus feet" must make it rather hard for him to run away from Mother Yasoda, and which the gardener must water regularly so that they don't wilt and leave him crippled.

I could not adopt such a faith without engaging in a massive self-deception. If that's what Ananta das Pandit and other authentic acaryas would require of me, then I must sadly accept that perhaps I won't be able to accept an authentic diksa connection during this lifetime. sad.gif

In closing, let me attempt an analogy. If you love someone, but you know you will never fully understand your beloved, how should you proceed? Should you say, "I mustn't strive to understand my beloved, because it would be faithless and offensive to do so?" Or should you say, "I know I will never understand fully, but because of my love I will always seek to understand more deeply?" You seem to be arguing for the former, and if that's what's ultimately required in the "traditional" parivaras -- suppressing honest doubts or difficult questions out of fear of being demonized as an apostate or aparadhi -- then I must sadly offer my dandavats from a distance, at least for this lifetime.

Advaitadasji, I am finding your tit-for-tat with Jagat rather distasteful. But I am grateful for your straightforward presentation, and for your cautionary statements. If Madhavaji and Jagat are indeed presenting a "false hope" about the nature of Caitanya Vaishnavism, then you are doing a great service by alerting people like me, lest we stumble into a commitment that we cannot honestly or authentically uphold.

Oh, and apologies to other readers for the length and self-indulgence of this message; I thought about sending it as a PM to Advaitadasji, but since it involves a couple of others I thought I'd post it on the public board (Madhava, please delete this message if it's too long, self-indulgent or inappropriate for the public board).
Advaitadas - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:37:32 +0530
QUOTE
An amateur astronomer can prove that the Bhagavata Purana is "wrong." However, as people of faith, we have personal experience that the Bhagavata Purana is not wrong. How do we reconcile these two points? For you, it seems sufficient to say, "the Bhagavata Purana is literally true, and if you don't accept it you are a demon aparadhi."


I have never said this. I must stop counting the devotees who have put words in my mouth. I request all those who utter false accusations against me to study Bhagavad Gita 16.23 in this regard. I hope you understand that the Speaker of that verse is not a member of Iskcon.

Generally, your post is an average post of a male western devotee. I am making a general statement here, not a blanket generalisation. Men are mostly more ratio driven and women more faith driven, westerners are more rational and Indians are simple believers. Then what to speak of western men? Having had many years of experience with the faith-driven world of the Indian and comparing it with the endless rationalisation and intellectualisation of the Inconceivable by the westerners, I feel pretty desperate sometimes. It might be just the audience that is attracted to this site that has this attitude, though. I am not saying that one cannot express any doubt to any Indian Guru, certainly that is possible, but sticking up one's finger and saying 'This is unfortunate' or 'let me figure it out myself' 'yeh nice what Rupa and Jiva say, but I think it is such and so' - well, the question is then to you and Mud and whoever shares your train of thought - what do you really need a Guru for then?
braja - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:42:19 +0530
QUOTE(vamsidas @ Jun 22 2004, 02:52 PM)
Oh, and apologies to other readers for the length and self-indulgence of this message

No apologies necessary! It is a wonderful post, eloquenty capturing the thoughts of many. Thank you.

One of my attractions to the traditional Gaudiya lines is the lack of an organization and strong presence in the West whereby any potentially contentious issues (personal roles, sexuality, science, etc.) need to be addressed one way or the other. A sense of ambiguity or agnosticism is comfortable. That may sound weak or even hypocritical but I think therein lies the attraction for many of us: we want the essence. We would not be looking in traditional lines nor in the core scriptures and practices if we didn't. We've seen that the secondary, social, hyperbolic or periphery practices and teachings may not work for us, and may even be distractions or impediments.
Jagat - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:42:37 +0530
It is curious, though, to follow up on your analogy, that Israelis are accused of using Nazi-like tactics in their suppression of the Palestinians. Are there differences? Of course! Are there similarities? Hélas!
Jagat - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:50:17 +0530
QUOTE
"the Bhagavata Purana is literally true, and if you don't accept it you are a demon aparadhi."


It is true that, although shastra does say stuff like this, and Advaita has made more than one reference to the aparadhas of sruti-sastra-nindanam and guror avajna, he has for the most part avoided deliberately inflammatory language. So let's not unnecessarily up the emotional ante.

QUOTE
well, the question is then to you and Mud and whoever shares your train of thought - what do you really need a Guru for then?


This is an excellent point. The reason one gets initiation is to receive the seed of bhakti, instruction in the activities of bhakti-yoga, entrance into community of devotees, and direction towards the ultimate goal of prema. Of course, other kinds of tattva are received from the diksha guru, but they are also received from siksha gurus. The diksha guru establishes our fundamental orientation to sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana. The details come through siksha gurus who share those orientations--svajAtiyAzaye snigdhe svato-vare.
Madan Gopal - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:50:31 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 03:07 PM)
Mud and whoever shares your train of thought - what do you really need a Guru for then?

Your first reply to my ranting is just classic. Again you totally miss the point of what I'm saying. Bold type, stated several times over, you don't see that nobody is suggesting you are in ISKCON. Oh well, time to move on. I hope you do.

I will say again that I have more experience than just ISKCON. I'm not in ISKCON anymore either, but I'm willing to accept the effect it has had on my life, weed out the bad and keep the good. I don't have your experience of "traditional" Gaudiya's though I'm reading up with interest. As a matter of fact I am cracking a book by Ananta Das Pandit. Still, my own life experience will cause me to view everything with the same critical eye. I just want people to make sense!

Why do I need a guru? Not because they have learned to parrot better than me, but because they have realization how the siddhanta applies to my life. Not because they are a blind follower themselves, but because they see THROUGH the eyes of sastra, not that if they take the sastric glasses off they have no sight. Lastly I need a guru to teach me the essence of Bhagavatam, not the trivialities, inconsequential items.
Madhava - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:56:50 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 04:55 PM)
Prove your point or apologise Jagat.

I do not understand these repeated demands for apology. Clarifying the matter or withdrawing a statement is one thing, but constantly demanding apologies from others I find a bit odd.
dirty hari - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:00:19 +0530
Do we use sastra for our own purpose or do we use sastra for the purpose of sastra ?

That is the question !

Do you accept the potential of interpretation as intractable or as malleable ?

Can one add to the canon or is one forever subject to arcane rigid borders of acceptability ?

Is truth subjective or objective ?

Different strokes for different folks, thats how the game is played, from now til the end of forever.
vamsidas - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:03:38 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 03:07 PM)
I must stop counting the devotees who have put words in my mouth. I request all those who utter false accusations against me to study Bhagavad Gita 16.23 in this regard. I hope you understand that the Speaker of that verse is not a member of Iskcon.

Now it is you putting words in my mouth! I think you are confusing me with another frequent poster. I have not said that any shastra is "unfortunate." Rather than say "Let me figure it out myself," I am hoping to understand. My lack of understanding is my own fault; where you and I seem to differ is that when I fail to understand, I want to understand, while when you don't understand you seem either to want to feign understanding or to continue in ignorance. Or are you saying that you have full understanding simply because you accept whatever you have been told?

BG 16.23, by the way, condemns the giving up of scriptural injunctions. I don't think it speaks to whether we are to understand each line of scripture as literal, figurative, or both. If you believe I am advocating that we not give full assent to each scriptural injunction, you are misunderstanding me badly (or I am expressing myself badly, or both).

I admit that I am puzzled. You accuse me of mischaracterizing your position, yet in your accusation you seem to restate the position that you accuse me of mischaracterizing. If I am mischaracterizing your position, I do apologize -- please know that it is a matter of misunderstanding (or mutual mis-communication) rather than any deliberate effort on my part, and I am sorry.

Please know, though, that you are mischaracterizing my position. Perhaps you are so advanced that your sense perception is 100 percent in harmony with everything Jiva Goswami has written. I freely admit that I am not so advanced. But my attitude is emphatically not "'yeh nice what Rupa and Jiva say, but I think it is such and so'." The gap between my perception and Jiva Goswami's is a problem to be solved -- and the fault is on my end, not his -- but I cannot engage in some pious denial. If I am going to make genuine advancement I need to understand why my perception differs, and how I can reconcile this difference with guru, sadhu and shastra.

QUOTE
the question is then to you and Mud and whoever shares your train of thought - what do you really need a Guru for then?


I need a guru so that I can conform my thoughts, actions, words, desires, etc. to the service of the Divine Couple in Vraja. It seems that you and I differ in one key respect in this regard: I wish to conform my rational mind, etc. to Krishna Consciousness, while you seem happy to discard the rational mind. Actually, I don't believe that it is possible for a living, functioning human being to discard the rational mind, so I suspect that many who say that they have done so are in fact living in massive denial, and are not nearly so advanced as their self-perception indicates.

Even so, I appreciate your standing up as an "authentic voice" of what the traditional parivar gurus will expect of their sisyas. Better safe than sorry, and all that. So I'm grateful for your cautions, even if they are somewhat disappointing.
Anand - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:06:21 +0530
QUOTE
It is a wonderful post, eloquenty capturing the thoughts of many.


Sometimes it sounds as if you people on this site can read minds... Its a frightful thought!
vamsidas - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:06:56 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 22 2004, 03:20 PM)
QUOTE
"the Bhagavata Purana is literally true, and if you don't accept it you are a demon aparadhi."


It is true that, although shastra does say stuff like this, and Advaita has made more than one reference to the aparadhas of sruti-sastra-nindanam and guror avajna, he has for the most part avoided deliberately inflammatory language. So let's not unnecessarily up the emotional ante.

Agreed.

Advaitadasji, I apologize for that particular line of inflammatory rhetoric. There is a world of difference between "apostate" and "demon aparadhi" and I should not have used the latter phrase. I regret my choice of words, and I ask your forgiveness.

Vamsi
Madhava - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:33:48 +0530
QUOTE(vamsidas @ Jun 22 2004, 07:33 PM)
I have not said that any shastra is "unfortunate."  Rather than say "Let me figure it out myself," I am hoping to understand.  My lack of understanding is my own fault; where you and I seem to differ is that when I fail to understand, I want to understand, while when you don't understand you seem either to want to feign understanding or to continue in ignorance.  Or are you saying that you have full understanding simply because you accept whatever you have been told?

And we return to the thoughts in the opening post of this thread:

QUOTE
The scriptures are fairly unequivocal about their being the ultimate evidence in matters of spirituality.

However, evidence serves little purpose if it is not given a meaning, if it is not put into an appropriate context where its relevance becomes evident and the underlying reasons for the truth of the statement shine forth.
...
Therefore, as we present the evidence of scripture, we would do well to present it in a way befitting the audience, so as to let it serve its nature. Scriptural evidence must be made relevant to the audience through interlinking it with topics from within their realm of experiences. Though scripture remains valid evidence even without this being done, it serves little purpose inasmuch as it does not illuminate the consciousness of the hearer with the light of increased insight.

In English: Are we obliged to present the scripture in such a way that it makes sense and offers true insight, or is it sufficient that we just attempt to instill faith in people and have them agree that scripture is authority, and therefore it does not make any difference whether it makes sense or not?
Jagat - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:59:49 +0530
When we start going round in circles, it could be time to stop. Though clearly, not much has been settled. The question is a little different, this time though. And the evidence is a little clearer also, though I believe it is applicable to the whole discussion: rocanArthA phala-zrutiH (11.3.47)--Descriptions of glorious results for engaging in certain religious activities are there to get up our interest in them. The threats of disastrous consequences are the other side of the coin.

pibati nimbaM pradAsyAmi khalu te khaNDa-laDDukAn |
pitraivam uktaH pibati na phalaM tAvad eva hi ||


"Take this neem juice and I will give you some nice sweets." Hearing the father make this promise, the child takes his medicine--without which there is no benefit."

Of course the context is that of karma-kanda, but I think that the same general principle is there: the fruit of bhakti is bhakti itself. Threats and promises are side shows.
Madhava - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 03:29:39 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 22 2004, 12:22 AM)
Do the commentators describe some verses of the Bhagavata, or of some other scripture, as utilizing atizayokti, the ornament of intentional exaggeration?

For example, Bhakti-sandarbha (beginning of Anuccheda 179) cites a verse from Bhagavata describing the magnificent effects of sAadhu-saGga, and Jiva comments on that being an example of atizayokti. A similar discussion surfaces on the TIkAs on Bhagavata 10.51.53, both Jiva and Visvanatha discuss the issue. There are other examples, too, such as Visvanatha's TIkA on Gita 15.1 (which I did not have the time to look into too deeply yet).

But we are not debating that such an alaGkAra exists, right? If it indeed does exist (and it does), it is quite likely that it has been occasionally employed in the various scriptures we come across. And do the AcAryas always meticulously document every alaGkAra being used? Well, sometimes they do, but they are not exactly literary critics as much as they are illustrators of philosophical principles demonstrated in the zAstra.

Surprisingly, the above post on the 15th page of this thread seemed to escape everyone's attention, though I felt it was much to the point. I am presenting the sources below:

sAdhUnAM sama-cittAnAM sutarAM mat-kRtAtmanAm |
darzanAn no bhaved bandhaH puMso’kSNoH savitur yathA || [BhP 10.10.41] iti |

"When a person attains the audience of the sAdhUs, who are equipoised and completely surrendered to me, their bondage ceases, just as when the eyes are exposed to the sun [the darkness vanishes]."

ataevAtizayokti-nAmAlaGkArasya caturtho bhedo’yam ity AlaGkArikAH | tad uktaM tad-vivRttau –

In literary critique, this is known as the fourth division of the alaGkAra known as atizayokti (hyperbolic language). It is described as follows:

caturthI sA kAraNasya gadituM zIghra-kAritAm |
yA hi kAryasya pUrvoktiH iti |

"The fourth is when a cause is said to very swiftly bring about the effect; this is known as pUrvokti [said before the fact]."

Prior to this, in the beginning of the Anuccheda, Sri Jiva has cited the bhavApavargo bhramato yadA bhavet verse (BhAgavata 10.51.53). In their commentaries on that verse, both Sri Jiva and Sri Visvanatha agree that that verse also is a case in which atizayokti is applied.

Sri Jiva cites KAvya-prakAza (10.153) along with a commentary:

kArya-kAraNayoz ca paurvAparya-viparyayo vijJeyAtizayoktiH syAt sa |

"A statement in which the places of the cause and the effect are reversed, and the the former becomes the latter, is known as atizayokti."

kAraNasya zIghra-kArItAM vaktuM kAryasya pUrvam uktau |

"To express the cause swiftly bringing about the effect, the effect may be presented before the cause."

Advaitadas wrote:

QUOTE(Advaitadas Jun 22 2004 @ 11:40 AM)
Haridas Das in his Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidhana cites 4 different types of atishayokti, only one of them being exaggaration. How do you know, when the tikakaras call something atishayokti, that they mean exaggaration instead of any other type of atishayokti?

As you can see for example in the example Sri Jiva cites, the fourth atizayokti was specified. Visvanatha, on Bhagavad-gita 15.1:

brahmaNaH pratiSThA tvaM vA ka ity-Ady-apekSAyAM prathamam atizayokty-alaGkAreNa saMsAro'yam adbhuto'zvattha-vRkSa iti varNayati |

That is the first kind of atizayokti, in the analogy of the great azvattha-tree of saMsAra, specified. The four atizayoktis HAridas Dasji cites from Kavi Karnapura's Alankara-kaustubha (8.23) are the following:

1) upamAnadvArA nigIrNa (zabdopAtta nA haiyA luptaprAya) upameyer nirUpaNa haile 'atizayokti' alaGkAra haya | 2) prakRta-vastu-rUpa upameya vA upamAna yadi 'ihA anya vastui baTe' ityAdirUpe nirUpita haya, tabe dvitIya atizayokti haya | 3) yadi-zabdadvArA asambhAvita arther kalpanA haile tRtIya atizayokti eboG 4) kAryakAraNer viparye caturtha atizayokti haya |

All of them illustrate departures from the literal meaning: The third one, where the impossible is being stated, being the one we are after at the moment, the two first being comparisons to other objects, the other overt and the other covert, and the fourth one being the one demonstrated in the verse Sri Jiva cites, where the effect is presented as simultaneous with or preceding the cause.

In response to your statement quoted, even if these four kinds of atizayokti are not specified in a commentary and atizayokti is mentioned in a generic way, are they not easily distinguishable from each other?

Are we to expect that the third kind of atizayokti is nowhere to be found in the zAstra, though the first and the fourth, for example, are, and I dare to say in far more places than mentioned in the TIkAs?
braja - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 03:39:41 +0530
BRS 1.2.245 also indicates that sastra is not above enticing someone toward rati.
Haberman has this as,

QUOTE
For the purpose of turning around those who have turned away from the Lord, a rather insignificant fruit was sometimes mentioned...their primary fruit, however, is divine love (rati).


ACBSP in Nectar of Devotion has these comments in the same general section:

QUOTE
In these statements about devotional service, sometimes it may appear that the results have been overestimated, but actually there is no overestimation. Some devotees, as revealed scriptures give evidence, have had immediate results by such association, although this is not possible for all. For example, the Kumāras immediately became devotees simply by smelling the incense in the temple. Bilvamańgala Ṭhākura simply heard about Kṛṣṇa and then immediately gave up his beautiful girl friend and started out for Mathurā and Vṛndāvana, where he became a perfect Vaiṣṇava. So these statements are not overestimations, nor are they stories. They are actual facts, but are true for certain devotees and do not necessarily apply to all. These descriptions, even if considered overestimations, must be taken as they are, in order to divert our attention from the fleeting material beauty to the eternal beauty of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And for a person who is already in contact with Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the described results are not unusual.


It's clear that many of the fruits promised by sastra are not realized in the same direct form they are promised and rationalization must take place to explain why the effect is not there, e.g. seeing Tulasi cures disease. I think Nabadipa raised a similar point earlier also.
Madhava - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 04:00:59 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 11:30 AM)
Dont want to sound paranoid but isnt Rasamrita's reluctance to reveal his ID used as an excuse for the management to stifle him because of his opposition? He is a bit emotional in his reaction, OK, but I dont find this reason to moderate him for 4 days, and yes, Jagat and Madhava ARE de facto the only two persons in charge of this site.

A word of clarification on this for those who wonder Rasamrita's absence:

First of all, Rasamrita was not placed under moderation due to his reluctance to reveal his identity. Nobody will placed under moderation because of that. Rasamrita was placed under moderation because of the impolite language he repeatedly used. Placing someone under moderation does not mean that he would be banned from posting; it simply means that a moderator will preview such posts before they go online. Thus far Rasamrita has not made any posts in this thread, or elsewhere for that matter aside the one in the kanistha-thread, and therefore we do not see his posts around.

I also wish to reiterate that no-one will be moderated because of their opinions, unless they are diametrically opposed to the forum guidelines and nevertheless persistently preached in an inconstructive manner. However, people will become moderated members if despite warnings they do not clean up their mouths.

We have had several members, including our dear Anand, placed under moderation, and for example in Anand's case I cannot remember a single post that would not have been approved once she was placed under moderation and kept posting.

If there's more on this, a separate thread or PMs, please.
Anand - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:08:59 +0530
Dear Madhava,

Could you please clarify to the readers that I was not moderated because of use of bad language. I have never used any 'bad' words in my postings. Not in English or any other language.

I actually, to this day, am not sure why I was moderated...
Jagat - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:23:53 +0530
Wondering where Rasamrita went?

Originally posted by BhaktiCakra on Saraswata.net

QUOTE
Yes sir! Those wise men at GD after so much bhava in raganuga came down just to be regular and ordinary atheist or seculars scholars. From a unique kind of suburban group to just regular folks in downtown Las Vegas.

Yes sir! In their website you can learn how to practice illicit sex and be religous while kicking around the scriptures and the holy men!

Yes sir! In their website you can can legalize the ways of being stone, I believe they call that stuff with a new name, ganja. The raga of the smoke!

Yes sir! They want your picture, your name, where you from, interest, and they got already you e-mail address, I guess they want to be sure. Are you asking if they work for the government? My son, these days who knows, my son. Who knows!


The Finnish Government and the Canadian Government are taking over the world. Be careful, my son, very careful!
Madhava - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:26:19 +0530
Yes, Anand wasn't moderated because of bad language. The moderator log shows "negativity" as the reason, I'd have to review the old threads if you wanted anything more educated on that.

Those who are wondering still about why Rasamrita is moderated and why it is quite possible that he will be moderated for more than those four days, read here, and please don't discuss that in this thread. We are thinking of a separate area where moderation issues etc. can be dealt with.
Bhrigu - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:42:16 +0530
I am the one who was "smashed" by Suhotra Swami in a text referred to earlier in this thread, so I thought I could add a few thoughts. In my view, the main problem with a literalist/ fundamentalist reading of our scriptures is that it depends on a static view of the world, i.e. that nothing really changes.

Shastra is the meeting point between eternity and temporality, eternal and absolute truths presented in a relative way, through a particular language, idiom, etc, of a particular time, and primarily directed to a particular audience. There is no problem in this, after all, revelation must be presented in a way that is somehow understandable to the audience. If the author of the Bhagavatam had given examples from quantum physics, how much would the audience have understood? When speaking about the universe, he uses a model familiar to the audience -- in order to make a spiritual point. After all, according to Jiva Goswami, the whole idea of the Bhagavatam is to help people attain devotion to Krishna, not to be a primer in astronomy, we might add.

Also, he would use literary techniques familiar to his audience. Anyone who has read sanskrit texts knows how fond their authors are of exaggeration: we constantly hear of tens of millions of moons, women with waists the size of a fist, and so on. That exaggeration is a common scriptural method is also evident from how the list of namaparadhas cautions us from believing that the glories of the holy name would be exaggerated! To me at least, it seems natural that Vyasa would use the same kind of language in the Bhagavatam.

All of this becomes a problem when the world changes. The tika of Vamsidhara shows that reconciling the astronomy of the Bhagavatam with later Indian astronomy was a problem already in 19th century Bengal, what to speak of today. We live in a completely different world today, and if we wish to communicate Gaudiya Vaishnavism to a broad audience -- or indeed at all -- I believe that we must deal with this topic in a way understandable by modern people. A fundamentalist understanding is not likely to attract more than other fundamentalists -- and they are already convinced about us being into the wrong book! We run the risk of being lumped in with all kinds of weirdoes by insisting on taking every syllable of the texts as true in every respect. Alternatively, trying to "explain" everything that contradicts the modern understanding (demonic plot of scientists, more dimensions, treta-yuga vision, levels of consciousness, etc, etc)
seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

I belive it was Jagat who made the point that this is what the acharyas have been doing all along. The world view of the Bhagavatam is also competely different from that of, for example, the Chandogya Upanishad. The CC is a another good example: broadcasting the theology of the Goswamis in Bengali, intertwined with the life of Sri Chaitanya. Why then did nobody deal with this particular question before? Perhaps because there was no need: even though Indian astronomy long since moved on from the "mandala-model", it had little practical implication for common people. But today, with Hubble telescopes, Moon landings, Mars explorers etc, the situation is quite different. Had Vyasa written the Bhagavatam today, is it likely that he would have spoken in the same way?

Yours,

Bhrgumuni Dasa
nabadip - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:10:54 +0530
Welcome to this discussion from my unimportant side .
That is a really great contribution of yours. Well thought, well written.
Just want to express my appreciation for your post.
Joy Nitai
jiva - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:24:40 +0530
QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Jun 22 2004, 06:39 PM)
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 22 2004, 06:27 PM)
...

...As to apologies, I will most humbly apologize to you if you have taken offense. I have stated more than once that I appreciate what you have done to further awareness of Radha-Krishna lila around the world. Many people are grateful to you for the services you have rendered. This makes me happy.

We happen to disagree on matters that we both feel strongly about. I hope that we will be able to find points of agreement that will make it possible for us to renew and strengthen our friendship.

Your servant, Jagadananda Das.


Thank you for the apologies Jagat. However, note that I don't seek apologies for the entire debate we had, but only for the innuendo that I am related to Iskcon in any way. It is pretty hurtful, it is like accusing a Holocaust survivor of being an SS camp guard or so. I have suffered many types of abuse in Iskcon, physical, psychological and also doctrinal. Shastriya shraddha is shastriya shraddha, that is all. ...

iti.
advaitadas

This discussion between Jagadanandaji and Advaitadasji reminds me on the words of Melville Kennedy in his book entitled ''Caitanya Movement'' -pp.150-151 :

'' True to the characteristics that distinguished the two leaders ( Nityananda and Advaita ) , their descendants have continued to exhibit sharp differences .''

with respect, smile.gif
Jagat - Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:41:44 +0530
QUOTE(jiva @ Jun 23 2004, 12:54 PM)
'' True to the characteristics that distinguished the two leaders ( Nityananda and Advaita ) , their descendants have continued to exhibit sharp differences .''

Kind of cool, actually. And who says we have abandoned the tradition? biggrin.gif
Madhava - Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:04:33 +0530
Discussion on the cosmology of the Bhagavata has been split into a separate thread.
Madhava - Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:38:20 +0530
In case someone missed it, Bhrigu's essay is now available here, in the Editorials-section.
Madhava - Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:41:04 +0530
I would like to hear Advaita comment on this post of mine discussing atizayokti and the TIkAkAras.
jiva - Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:51:02 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 22 2004, 05:04 PM)

Anway, so is there any way these positions can be reconciled? Or is it all "no quarter to the apostates"?

At the beginning of the Krsna-samhita (Upakramanika ) , Bhaktivinoda writes:

Scripture is of two types ; that which relates to phenomenal matters ( artha-prada ) and that which relates to transcendent matters ( paramartha-prada ) . Geography , histor , astrology , philosophy ...are all sciences which are artha-prada...( On other hand ) that scripture which discuss the supreme goal of life is paramartha-prada , or transcendent. (Appendix V ,13 )

As Shukavak das points out in his book ''Hindu Encounter with Modernity'' , according to Bhaktivinoda , knowledge relating to this world , even if it is derived from the scripture , is subject to human analysis and logical scrutiny , whereas knowledge pertaining to transcendence is not subject to the logic and reasoning of this world.

To illustrate how a sacred text may be scrutinized Bhaktivinoda shows how a specific verse of the Srimad Bhagavatam is incorrect . Bhagavatam verse 12.1.19 states that the kings of the Kanva dynasty will rule for 345 years. Through logical analysis and he conjuction with other Puranic texts , Bhaktivinoda concludes that the correct figure is 45 years and not 345 years. Bhaktivinoda even says that Sridhara Svamin , the original commentator of the Bhagavatam , is mistaken in accepting the defective reading of 345 years .

Shukavak further said that there is significant value in making the distinction between what lie within the realm of empirical observation and what lies beyond that realm because it allows the religious insider to differentiate between the two dimensions of the religious experience .This allows him to treat each area separately and thus keep the door open for higher perceptions .

with respect,
betal_nut - Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:24:41 +0530
Below is something taken from www.siddhanta.com
What do you all think?


Excerpts from Sarva-samvadini on sastra and reasoning

QUOTE
What follows is excerpts from Sarva-samvadini of Srila Jiva Gosvami along
with a translation [1] and my notes.

These excerpts deal with reliability of sastra and the role of (human)
reasoning vis-a-vis accepting knowledge from the sastra.
---

There are some statements in sastra which appear to contradict human sense
perception. Srila Jiva Gosvami first presents a sample of such statements:

TEXT: nanu vede 'pi "gravanah plavante", "mrd abravid apo 'bruvan"
ity-adi-darsanad anaptatvam iva pratiyate.

TRANSLATION: [One might ask:] "We see even in the Vedas [Satapatha Brahmana
6.1.3.2, 4] statements like 'The stones float' and 'The ground spoke and the
water spoke,' which seem to indicate that the Vedas are unreliable."

NOTE: In other words, the statements of sastra seem to contradict our sense
perception. So aren't these statements indicate that the Vedas are
unreliable? The answer, as we shall see is "no". All statements of the
Vedas, including the above quoted ones, are reliable. How it is so will be
explained here.

TEXT: ucyate, karma-visesangi-bhutanam gravnam virya-vardhanaya stutir iyam.

TRANSLATION: This we answer -- this praise of the stones is for the purpose
of increasing the potency of the stones, which serve a role in a particular
ritual.

TEXT: sa ca sri-rama-kalpita-setu-bandhadau prasiddhatvena yatha-vad eveti
na dosah.

TRANSLATION: And this is indeed feasible, since it is well known that the
same sort of address to stones occurred in such contexts as the building of
the bridge which was arranged by Sri Rama. Thus there is no fault in this
praise.

NOTE: In other words, the statement in sastra, "the stones float" is true as
is proved in particular cases such as when Lord Ramacandra built a bridge of
floating stones. In other words, Lord Ramacandra proved the truth of the
Vedic statement, "The stones float."

TEXT: tatha, "mrd abravid apo 'bruvan" ity-adau tat-tad-abhimani-devataiva
vyapadisyata iti jneyam.

TRANSLATION: And in statements like "The ground spoke", "the water spoke,"
we should understand that the demigods presiding over these elements are
being referred to.

NOTE: This is commonly known among sampradayic scholars of sastra.

TEXT: tad evam sarvatraiva sarvathaivapta eva vedah.

TRANSLATION: Therefore the Vedas are in all situations and in all respects
reliable authority.

NOTE: "In all situations" and "in all respects" indicate that *all portions*
of sastra are reliable, and *not that only some* portions (dealing with
devotional life, etc.) are reliable. It also indicates that they are
reliable authority for all time, not that in the modern age of "scientific
progress and advancement", the Vedas somehow lose their authority.

TEXT: kintu sarvajnesvara-vacanatvenasarvajna-jivair duruhatvat
tat-prabhava-labdha-pratyaksa-visesavadbhir eva sarvatra tad-anubhave
sakyate, na tu tarkikaih.

TRANSLATION: But since they consist of the words of the all-knowing Supreme
Lord, finite living beings who do not know everything have difficulty
construing what they mean, and so only those who have by His power received
special perceptive capacity are able to in all instances realize their
meaning. Mental speculators are not able to do this.

NOTE: Therefore it is important to listen to the recognized, accomplished
liberated Vaisnava acaryas to understand the meaning of sastra. I propose
that in ISKCON we accept Srila Prabhupada as such a person (devotees in
ISKCON used to accept Srila Prabhupada as such, but now some of them appear
to have become overintelligent enough to understand the Bhagavatam
"directly" bypassing Srila Prabhupada). People who are merely adept in logic
and / or having degrees from the nondevotee academia especially those who
have associated with members of the nondevotee academia and whose beliefs,
attitudes, understandings and desires have become distorted can neither
understand, nor honestly claim to understand, the meaning of sastra.

TEXT: tad uktam purusottama-tantre, "sastrartha-yukto 'nubhavah pramanam
tuttamam matam / anumadya na svatantrah pramana-padavim yayuh" iti.

TRANSLATION: This is stated in the Purusottama-tantra: "Realization
incorporating the ideas taught in sastra is considered the most excellent
means of correct knowledge. Inference and the other means of knowing cannot
independently claim authority."

NOTE: Inference means reasoning, and independent inference refers to
reasoning not based on sastra, that is, (fallible human) reasoning based on
(fallible human) sense perception.

TEXT: tathaiva matam brahma-sutra-karaih, "tarkapratisthanat", "srutes tu
sabda-mulatvat" ity-adau. tatha ca srutih, "naisa tarkena matir apaneya
proktanyenaiva su-jnanaya prestha", "niharena pravrta jalpyas ca" ity-adyah.
jalpa-pravrttas tarkika iti sruti-padarthah.

TRANSLATION: This is also the opinion of the author of the Brahma-sutras in
such sutras as "Because logical speculation is never final" (2.1.11) and
"No, because the revealed scriptures say otherwise, and knowledge of the
Supreme is derived from transcendental sound" (2.1.27). There are also such
statements of sruti as: "My dear boy, this knowledge cannot be obtained by
mental speculation. It can be properly understood only when an especially
qualified person speaks it" (Katha Upanisad 1.2.9) and "They are enveloped
in a fog and prone to useless talk." (Rk-samhita 10.82.7) The sense of the
word jalpyah in this sruti text is "speculators engaged in useless talk."

NOTE: Upon seeing Brahma-sutra 2.1.27 quoted above, one might think that for
knowledge of the Supreme, yes, one must depend on sastra, but in other
cases, such as within the empirical field, can one depend on sastra? That is
clarified here:

TEXT: ata eva varaha-purane, "sarvatra sakyate kartum agamam hi vinanuma /
tasman na sa saktimati vinagamam udiksitum" iti.

TRANSLATION: Thus it is said in the Varaha Purana: "In all situations one
can always apply the traditional authority of scriptures even without using
logic. Therefore logic is impotent to see the truth without the help of
scripture."

NOTE: Yes. "In all situations" one can always depend on the authority of the
sastra, *even without using reasoning*.

Baradraj: So knowledge is not necessary for faith but faith is necessary
for knowledge.

Prabhupada: Yes. Therefore devotee, without any knowledge he becomes
devotee. That faith, only faith. The devotee advances. Jnanam ca yad
ahaituki. Later on, they become automatically full of knowledge because
they have strong faith. That is also stated in the Bhagavad-gita. Tesam
evanukampartham aham ajnana-jam tamah nasayamy: [Bg. 10.11] "Because he
is faithful, therefore I help him how to get knowledge." Again you come
to that. Mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca [Bg. 15.15]. Everything is
there. (Morning walk; July 21, 1975)

We also find that Srila Prabhupada wanted us to accept the Fifth Canto *even
when we don't understand it*.

The Western ethos of education appears to be that *first* you understand
things *and then* you believe. But the sampradayic ethos of sastric
education is that you accept the validity of scriptures *whether you
understand any portion of it or not* [2] and *then* you try to study and
understand it to whatever extent you can. And it is not that all human
beings can understand all statements of the scriptures.

[...]

TEXT: yat tv agame kvacit tarkena bodhana drsyate, tat tatraiva sobhanam
agama-rupatvat, bodhana-saukaryartha-matroddista-tarkatvat.

TRANSLATION: And when we see sometimes in the revealed scriptures that
information is provided by speculative logic, it is in those cases
praiseworthy because it is part of scripture, being speculation offered only
for the sake of making understanding easier.

NOTE: The scriptures also teach very reasonably in order to make
understanding easier.

TEXT: yadi ca yat tarkena sidhyati, tad eva veda-vacanam pramanam iti syat,
tada tarka evastam, kim vedeneti vaidikam-manya api te bahya evety ayam
abhiprayah sarvatraiva.

TRANSLATION: Persons who imagine themselves followers of the Vedas may say
"If something is proven by logic then it must be the very words of the Vedas
and authoritative. So let us use logic; what need have we of the Vedas?" But
those who speak thus are actually opponents of the Vedas, and this is
indicated everywhere.

TEXT: ata eva tesam srgalatvam eva gatir ity uktam bharate.

TRANSLATION: Thus it is stated in the Mahabharata (Santi-parva, 180.47-49)
that these people will become jackals in their next lives.

TEXT: yat tu srotavyo mantavyah ity-adisu mananam nama tarko 'ngi-krtah,
tatraivam evam uktam yatha kurma-purane, purvaparavirodhena ko nv artho
'bhimato bhavet / ity-adyam uhanam tarkah suska-tarkam ca varjayet iti.

TRANSLATION: And when speculation under the name of "reflecting" is
acknowledged in such statements as "It should be heard about and reflected
on" (Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.5), it is in the following sense that such
is being said, as stated in the Kurma Purana: "Speculation means to
conjecture in such ways as asking which meaning of a text is appropriate
without contradicting what precedes and follows it. Dry speculation,
however, should be rejected."

NOTE: In other words, reasoning is okay when we use it to understand the
meaning of sastra.

This is also stated by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana in the conclusion of his
commentary to verse 9 of Laghu-bhagavatamrta:

tatha ca veda eva vyasasya pramanam tarkas ca tad-anusari na nivaryate
suska-tarkas tu praheya eveti tad-anuyayino me tad eva.

And so, Veda is the accepted source of valid knowledge for Vyasa; logic
which follows the Veda is not opposed, but dry speculation should
definitely be rejected. This is the opinion of Vyasa's followers and
(hence) for me. [3]

Srila Prabhupada clarified the matter by explaining the difference between
mental speculation and acceptable philosophical speculation:

As for the difference between mental speculation and philosophical
speculation, we take it that everything is known by the psychological
action of the mind, so that philosophical speculation is the same as
mental speculation if it is merely the random or haphazard activity of
the brain to understand everything and making theories, "if's" and
"maybe's." But if philosophical speculation is directed by Sastra and
Guru, and if the goal of such philosophical attempts is to achieve
Visnu, then that philosophical speculation is not mental speculation. It
is just like this: Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita that "I am the taste of
water." Philosophical speculation in the accepted sense then means to
try to understand, under the direction of Sastra and Guru, just how
Krishna is the taste of water. (Letter to Chaturbhus, 21 January 1971)

So, the approach of trying to understand *how* a sastric statement such as
"I am the taste of water" is correct is acceptable.

But the approach of trying to understand *if* such a statement is correct is
*not acceptable*. However, this is the approach of the nondevotee academia
and despite knowing that it is so, some of our devotees don't seem to mind
getting trained up by the nondevotee academia to approach the scriptures in
such unacceptable ways.
---

ENDNOTES:

[1] Regarding the translation, I had taken the help of Sri Gopiparanadhana
Prabhu of NE-BBT last year on Sarva-samvadini (but translation of the
section presented here in this article is not checked by him). I have also
consulted a Bengali version of Tattva-sandarbha published along with
Sarva-samvadini and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary (edition
published by Gopinath Gaudiya Math (Mayapur, 1998)). The sections excerpted
in this article appear as additional explanations to text 9 of
Tattva-sandarbha.

[2] More of this perhaps in a separate article.

[3] Laghu-bhagavatamrta of Srila Rupa Gosvami, published along with the
commentaries of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana and Vrndavanacandra Tarkalankara
(Bengali script) by Haribhakta Das, Gaurabda 503.

Submitted by Vidvan Gauranga das (JPS)
Jagat - Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:50:20 +0530
Since Betal Nut has started a new thread with this same posting, I think it is time to lock this one up and send the discussion there:

Sarva Samvadini