Google
Web         Gaudiya Discussions
Gaudiya Discussions Archive » ACADEMIC, CONTROVERSIAL
Academic views, controversies, liberal views, eclectic discussions and so forth. Also, extended debates may be moved here. May contain discussion on views that a devotee may find objectionable.

Hindu Encounters with Modernity by Shukavak N. Das - Reviewed by Suhotra Swami



jatayu - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 00:51:56 +0530

The following posting was made on Suhotra Swami's daily blog on August 12, 2004
: ( edited by moderator, question of jatayu deleted)
=====================================================

Crucifixion of the Logos

My "Search and Destroy" of Chapter 5
of Hindu Encounters with Modernity by Shukavak N. Dasa


Hindu Encounters with Modernity was published five years ago. I purchased a volume at that time but only got through about half of it. No, it is no coincidence that the chapter I am dealing with today is midway through the book. It was after I read this portion that I stopped reading more.

A few days ago I came across this statement--

"Waves of Devotion, along with Sukavaka's Hindu Encounters were potentially the most effective books that circulated widely within ISKCON for the past few years."

--which was posted to a website that attracts self-proclaimed Gaudiya Vaishnava intellectuals, many of whom are former members of ISKCON. I could not make out what the writer of this post exactly intended by the word "effective." Someone else on that site asked him to explain that, but he did not answer to the point. My guess is, he means something like "effective in provoking the kind of mental speculation that could lead the ISKCON readers of Hindu Encounter with Modernity to become like us," i.e. to become self-proclaimed Gaudiya Vaishnava intellectuals formerly of ISKCON.

After reading this post, I decided to go back and write something about Hindu Encounter with Modernity, in particular Chapter 5 which I believe is the most "effective" of the whole book (again, "effective" according to the outlook of those who flock to the website I am referring to).

Let me establish right away why I titled this essay "Crucifixion of the Logos." On the same website I found praise of Mel Gibson's recent blockbuster movie The Passion of the Christ. You see, not only are the participants of the site self-proclaimed intellectuals, they are self-proclaimed raganuga-bhaktas. In the discerning opinion of some of the leaders of this flock of intellectual Gaudiyas, Mel Gibson's film succeeds in immersing its audience in divine sakhya-rasa. Well, well, well. I found irony in the fact that St. John (shown in the film following Jesus's torturous way up to Golgotha) declares in his Gospel of the New Testament that Jesus is the logos (the Word of God) incarnate. The Passion of the Christ is about one thing: how the intellectuals of Jerusalem, the scribes and the Pharisees, conspired to have the word of God incarnate scourged and hung to die upon the cross.

Let us see what this has to do with Chapter 5 of Hindu Encounter with Modernity.

The chapter, covering pages 119 to 151, is entitled "Reason and Religious Faith." It is divided into sections with headings like "A Crisis in Faith," "The Rationalism of Bankim Candra," "Bhaktivinoda and British Orientalism," "Three Kinds of Spiritual Seekers," and "Two Modes of Religious Understanding." The focus of the chapter is a work by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur called Sri Krishna-samhita, which he wrote in 1879. Shukavak N. Dasa explains that Srila Bhaktivinoda wrote this book for the bhadraloka, the educated class of Bengal which in the nineteenth century was steeped in rationalism and thus was disinclined to a simple, faithful approach to religious topics. The Thakur's purpose was to explain Krishna to the bhadraloka according to adhunika-vada, "the modern approach" which incorporated ideas from British Orientalism (the forerunner of what is known today as Indology).

My comment at this point is that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur undertook a very grave mission of mercy in writing Sri Krishna-samhita. His transcendental son, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, used to say, Vaishnava saralata atva, "the essence of a Vaishnava is simplicity." The bhadraloka of the nineteenth century had strayed very far from that essence. Sadhu guru mahajana patita-pavana kapata-pavava noi, it is said: "The sadhus, the spiritual master, and great personalities like Lords Gaura-Nitai, come to deliver the fallen, yet they are not deliverers of crooked (kapatya) persons." The word kapatya is an opposite of the word saralata (simple). Thus it means "to make unnecessarily complicated." In this way the bhadraloka of Bhaktivinoda Thakur's time had become worse than fallen. Due to imbibing foreign ideas, these sophisticated upper-class Bengalis had become too crooked in their thinking. Anything religious, any item of simple faith, they felt obliged to deconstruct and reassemble according to the zigs and the zags of prevailing rationalist-materialist speculations. It was beneath their station, so they believed, to simply accept religion "as it is." That was for the villagers to do, not the sophisticates. Seeing the bhadraloka so shut off from the mercy of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur compassionately composed his Sri Krishna-samhita for their deliverance.

On page 136 of Chapter 5, Shukavak summarizes:

In other words, Bhaktivinoda is saying: My fellow bhadraloka, your minds are trained to accept the conclusions of rational analysis fashioned with the tools of modern scholarship, so we shall employ these tools to examine our religious traditions.

On page 128 he characterizes rational analysis a crude tool. On page 140 he points out that by today's scholarly standards the historiography Bhaktivinoda Thakur used to make the Hindu religious tradition seem rational to the bhadraloka is completely out of date.

So far I have no objection.

But then in the section subheaded "Two Modes of Religious Understanding", Shukavak trots out an argument that the adhunika-vada (the modern approach) is to be employed today.

The Krishna-samhita is as much a statement about the relationship between reason and religious faith as it is a study of the life of Sri Krishna and a summary of India's religious history. It is Bhaktivinoda's unique blend of these components that gives his synthesis of modernity and tradition its extraordinary utility even today, perhaps also beyond the realm of Chaitanya Vaishnavism.

[From page 146; I have italicized the phrase "its extraordinary utility..." to emphasize the author's intent.]

If ever there was one, this is a logical non sequitur. It is admitted that 125 years ago Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote a book he aimed at a specific section of people. Obviously, this section of people is no longer with us. Nor is the specific form of rationalism still with us that this section embraced. Rational analysis in general is admitted to be a crude tool. Yet suddenly--tah dah!--the synthesis of modern rationalism and ancient tradition is proclaimed to have extraordinary utility even today.

Who says?

Is it that Shukavak can say this because he is a learned disciple of Srila Prabhupada who took the trouble to earn a PhD at a Western university?

Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. [Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.4.26p]

The offense so described is relevent here for the reason that unless Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur can be shown to have specifically requested his disciples, grand-disciples, and great-grand-disciples to synthesize modernity with scriptural tradition, then one who claims he is authorized to do so by the Thakur's writings is being impertinent. Certainly we get from Srila Prabhupada no green light for adjusting sastra to the theories of modern scholarship. But Prabhupada, in the opinion of the intellectual crowd, is way too conservative.

So then let's take a step back in the parampara, to Srila Bhaktisiddhanata Sarasvati Thakur. From birth he was trained in Krishna consciousness by Srila Bhaktivinoda. About those who synthesize modern theories with the sastric tradition, he has this to say.

The writings of Thakur Bhaktivinoda provided the golden bridge by which the mental speculationists can safely cross the raging waters of fruitless empiric controversies that trouble the peace of those who choose to trust in their guidance for finding the truth. As soon as the sympathetic reader is in position to appreciate the sterling quality of Thakur Bhaktivinoda's philosophy, the entire vista of the revealed literature of the world will automatically open out to his reclaimed vision.

There have, however, already arisen serious misunderstandings regarding the proper interpretation of the life and teachings of Srila Thakur Bhaktivinoda. Those who suppose they understand the meaning of his message without securing the guiding grace of the acharya are disposed to unduly favor the method of empiric study of his writings. There are persons who have got by heart almost everything that he wrote without being able to catch the least particle of his meaning. Such study cannot benefit those who are not prepared to act up to the instructions lucidly conveyed by his words. There is no honest chance of missing the warnings of Thakur Bhaktivinoda. Those, therefore, who are misled by the perusal of his writings are led astray by their own obstinate perversity in sticking to the empiric course which they prefer to cherish against his explicit warnings. Let these unfortunate persons look more carefully into their own hearts for the cause of their misfortunes.

[For the entire essay of Srila Sarasvati Thakura, see In2-MeC 20 June

Shukavak argues his conviction on pages 140-142. He is authorized by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur to pursue the rational-empirical approach to sastra. "In fact, on two separate occasions he [Bhaktivinoda] encourages subsequent intellectuals to continue the study of Vedic history and geography using the adhunika-vada." Two untranslated Bengali citations are given in a footnote.

Wow. With these two Bengali sentences, we see the Thakur as, like, reaching across space and time, and right over the guru-parampara in between, to a Western-educated devotee of year 2004, authorizing him or her to engage in (I quote Shukavak on page 145) "human speculation and interpretation."

Of course, we have to take careful note that this allowance from the Thakur is specifically for intellectuals. Well, how do you know if you are an intellectual? Don't worry. It doesn't seem to be too difficult a thing to join the club. Consider again the self-proclaimed intellectuals on that website I referred to earlier. From the stories some of these fellows tell about themselves, it seems that to realize oneself an intellectual, one needs only to abandon the order of one's guru (even if the guru is Srila Prabhupada) and to go shopping for whatever "truths" can be gleaned from different sadhus (and so-called sadhus) of different traditions, from different texts--both scriptural and academic--and from different kinds of speculation: rational, empirical, historical, academic, hypnagogic, hallucinogenic, whatever floats your boat, man. Yeah, to be an intellectual, main thing is you gotta be different (nasau muni yasya matam na bhinnam).

You know--you gotta be like the bhadraloka in Bhaktivinoda's time.

Ergo, the same bhadraloka Srila Bhaktivinoda was trying to save by writing Sri Krishna-samhita, he wants devotees of the present time to become like. Yes indeed, the Thakur wants you to be puffed-up from the vantage point of material knowledge, and to look down from there upon the simple faith of the ordinary "village devotees", those who don't have the vision and gumption to be different. On pages 140-142 of Chapter 5, Shukavak describes an encounter he had with a devotee, his own Godbrother I suppose, who was pained to hear Shukavak's arguments. Shukavak classifies this devotee as a komala-sraddha, a neophyte with tender faith.

Neat formula for becoming advanced, right? Say something outrageous in the assembly of devotees: "Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur stated the Bhagavatam may only be 1000 years old, not 5000 years as the Bhagavatam itself claims" or "the Thakur adapted the Dasavataras to Darwin's theory of evolution" or "modern science has disproved the Bhagavatam atomic theory" or "even though Srila Prabhupada disapproved it, I have authorization from Bhaktivinoda Thakur to speculate in these ways." Then when devotees react by questioning "how I could make such a presentation" and by accusing you "of disturbing the spiritual peace" (to cite two of Shukavak's own phrases from page 141), you can prance and preen, glorying in the satisfaction of having proved yourself more sophisticated than the rabble.

To be fair to Shukavak, he does say that there is paramartha (transcendental) knowledge in the sastra that is not subject to human revision. It's just the history and geography of the sastra that are legitimate targets of rational scrutiny. But in an instant the mind come up with problems that call into question where such a dividing line ought to be drawn. Some people argue, for example, that the Krishna of the geographic region of Vrndavana is a historically different person from the Krishna of the geographic Mathura, and that the Krishna of Dvaraka is yet a third personality.

If that is so, then is the Bhagavad-gita really a bona fide scripture, since it was spoken by a different Krishna from Vrndavana Krishna?

Where does temporal knowledge (of history and geography) end and eternal spiritual knowledge begin?

Oh, that we have to discuss. And that's why intellectuals are important--to help us keep these discussions going ad infinitum.

That we take part in this discussions ad infinitum is, according to Shukavak, the true test of our religious faith. In a footnote on page 149, he writes:

The distinction between religious faith and belief can also be shown to exist outside the religious field. In philosophy, for example, it is not what a philosopher believes that makes him a philosopher, but rather the individual's faith in philosophy, out of which the beliefs, the particular philosophies, are produced and sustained. The same can be said about science. A person is a scientist because of his faith in science, in the spirit of science, and not because of his beliefs in the particular theorems, which unquestionably come and go.

Ergo, a devotee is a devotee because of his abiding faith in the spirit of bhakti, whatever outward form it may take from moment to moment. A devotee is not a devotee because of his belief or participation in any particular item or practice of bhakti. Such particularities unquestionably come and go.

"Gee Mom, that sounds like Mayavadi philosophy to me!"

"Hush, Junior, you're just a child. You can't understand these things!"

Shukavak's claim is that his model of what bhakti really is can be applied in other fields. OK, let's see how it would work in household life. Husband to wife: "Dear, I believe in marriage. Therefore I am a husband. It has nothing to do with you in particular. You are my wife right now, true, but tomorrow you could go. That wouldn't change my faith in the ongoing institution of marriage." Wife to husband: "Well, if that's the way you feel, then the ongoing institution of marriage can fix your dinner tonight."

Like, maybe the intellectuals will one day conclude from their discussions that the Bhagavad-gita is a myth. OK, but if you are a real devotee you will go on having faith in something Krishna taught, maybe not that particular text, but whatever text the intellectuals deem valid at the moment.

This is supposed to be reasonable?

Actually, what Shukadeva writes about philosophers and scientists as being faithful servants of the professional fields of philosophy and science can quickly be shown to be garbage. That is especially seen to be so when the revolutionaries of these fields are brought under consideration. Karl Marx is certainly an influential philosopher. But as a revolutionary who broke with the ongoing discussions of other philosophers, he famously asserted, "Philosophers have tried to explain the world. The point is to change it." Einstein, a revolutionary scientist, asserted, "I don't believe in mathematics." Einstein was well-known for not much caring if his discoveries were approved by the discussions of the scientific establishment. Until his theory of relativity triumphed over classical physics, he was an outcaste.

Take careful note that Shukavak is arguing from his own personal bias, which is that of the professional acadamician. Such fellows keep faith in the professions of being philosophers, scientists and religious scholars because that's how they earn their bread. Is it these fellows who make a difference in history? Hardly.

It's the revolutionaries who break with plodding tradition that change history. Of course, at this point I am only talking of famous philosophers and scientists, people still in mundane consciousness. When we turn to religion, we find the biggest revolutionaries are the transcendentalists. Like Lord Jesus Christ.

Christ was certainly no professional religionist. He was not interested in the ongoing discussions of the professional religionists of his time, the scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem. One of the big issues of their discussions was the coming of the awaited Messiah. At the time the scribes and the Pharisees judged Jesus, he plainly and simply--without resorting to historical and other rational justifications--declared himself the Messiah, the word of God made flesh. For this he was voted by the intellectuals to be crucified.

I'm not running down intellectuals here, i.e. people who are thoughtful. I am a thoughtful person myself. But when intellectual people adopt a bias like scepticism, empiricism or rationalism, and from that mundane standpoint try to analyze the eternal truth, they become dangerous. More so when they sit together on a panel of power and influence and cast votes. They really do think that their collegial process of discussion and voting ensures justice. But the world-shaking events in Jerusalem some 2000 years ago amply demonstrated that a panel of bent-headed intellectuals is quite capable of making a collossal error of judgement.

Christ had already walked upon water, fed the multitudes with only two loaves, healed the sick with his touch, cast devils out of the insane, and raised the dead. It was the most despicable kind of arrogance for the scribes and Pharisees, who had no power to perform such wondrous feats (in fact, being rationalists, they didn't even believe they could be done), to judge Jesus under their petty rules of reasoning, historiography and other such wooden concepts born of wooden heads and hearts.

Today's would-be Gaudiya intellectuals, who seek in Bhaktivinoda Thakur a justification for their crucifixion of sastra on the cross of dead, wooden reasoning, have no power to perform even a fraction of the wonderful service to Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu that the Thakur did. Create a movement of pure sankirtana that attracted the leaders of society? "Sorry, no can do." Write dozens of books and hundreds of songs of pure devotion to Krishna? "Sorry, no can do." Establish temples at important sites of the Lord's pastimes? "Sorry, no can do." Raise a pure devotee son to carry on the mission of Krishna consciousness to the whole world? "Sorry, no can do." Interpret scripture in a novel way--"Yes! YES! That we can do!"--wait! in order to usher jaded pseudo-intellectuals beyond their anti-religious prejudices to the exclusive shelter of the lotus feet of Krishna?

"Well, the first part about interpreting scripture in a novel way sounded good. Let's forget about the rest."

These fellows can't make a difference in the world. They are not revolutionaries, they are simply timeclock-punching wage-earners. Yet want to interpret sastra differently, as per their useless, impotent speculations, as if that was revolutionary. Challenge them and they often morph into the tragic persona of a persecuted saint. "Christ you know it ain't easy," sang John Lennon about those who criticized his outrageous behavior before the public eye, "you know how hard it can be. The way things are goin', They're gonna crucify me!"

But I won't call these guys sudras. Prabhupada already did that:

The title Ph.D. can also be interpreted as Plough Department, a title meant for the tillers in the paddy field. The attempt of the tillers in the paddy field to understand the cosmic manifestation and the cause behind such wonderful work can be compared to the endeavor of the frog in the well to calculate the measurement of the Pacific Ocean.
arekaydee - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:10:09 +0530
I believe it was Braja's post found here.
Madhava - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:24:34 +0530
Please always clearly indicate the author. The way you post it off Suhotra Swami's blog might at first glance make it appear like it was written by Shukavak. It is, however, written by Suhotra Swami.

Would be good if you repeated the indentations when you post articles with lots of quoted stuff inside.
Madhava - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:31:56 +0530
Self-proclaimed Gaudiya Vaishnava intellectuals? Cool. How about I proclaim Jagat, he proclaims me, and so forth. Then we could get rid of the image of being self-proclaimed.

I'll have to get back to this later on as time permits. I have no doubts, however, over the fact that Maharaja will keep arguing the issue until the sun no longer shines, and as such, it may not be a fruitful pursuit from my side. But that's what intellectuals do, right? I trust Maharaja would also be pleased if he had me respond to his post; that much I owe him, I suppose, that I can entertain him a bit on this.

flowers.gif
Madan Gopal - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:08:37 +0530
[Is it that Shukavak can say this because he is a learned disciple of Srila Prabhupada who took the trouble to earn a PhD at a Western university? ]

Oh my goodness, this is classic. You think that ISKCON runs out of this stuff, but they just keep dishing it up. I find myself wondering, did he read the same book I did?

Lets do some Saragrahi (essence seeking) work on his article.

1. To think is bad.
2. Being educated is even worse.
3. If you can't counter with arguments, go for fallacy.

I seem to remember plenty of evidence that Bhaktivinoda actually WAS an intellectual and that he actually believed in plenty of what he was preaching. Not just a tactic like ISKCON seems to use as an easy way around his controversial opinions. Will have to look some stuff up...

But thank you Swamiji for a good laugh. biggrin.gif
Jagat - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:20:14 +0530
Dandavats and welcome to our website, Suhotra Maharaj.

I notice that you too have proclaimed yourself an intellectual: "I'm not running down intellectuals here, i.e. people who are thoughtful. I am a thoughtful person myself."

I would say, "You are a thoughtful person who thinks just enough to run down others who might be more thoughtful than you."

At least Shukavak has his PhD, which shows that some people have indeed proclaimed him an intellectual, not he himself. Other than you and your adoring acolytes, who proclaimed you?

Your comments on the "Passion of the Christ" issue show just how superficially you read. My dear Maharaj, this site does not represent any one point of view. An honest man would have quoted the individual who said that the Passion was about "sakhya-rasa."

[I retracted what I wrote here, because it was Mina who wrote that about sakhya-rasa, and he is/was indeed a moderator. That was the very first posting and the discussion took many turns after that. I may add that I am in the process of writing an article for JVS on this subject.]

Otherwise, you seem to be, like so many of the anti-intellectual ilk, more interested in eliciting laughter and Bronx cheers from your choir than in rational discourse.

If you're a mensch, deal with some of the real issues. Come and defend the "old-time as-it-is religion." Tell us where all those four billion bodyguards went to the toilet. I guess they had spiritual bodies--they never went to the bathroom! Maybe they lived in another dimension! Maybe it was another kalpa! Four billion bodyguards--and what about their wives and kids. And did they double as farmers and street cleaners and merchants? So come on and put a little cement on that brick before this wall of Jericho comes tumbling down.

You can get a look at what people have been saying on this subject Here on GD, on Saraswata.net and on Istagosthi.

Bhaktivinoda was so gracious that he wanted to save the poor benighted bhadraloka. Modernity has come a long way since 1879. How are you going to save us? By getting all the Iskcon brahmacharis to laugh at us--for the average three years they remain in Iskcon before cognitive dissonance catches up with them?

Bhaktivinoda Thakur thought about the problem of modernity, but a "thoughtful" person like yourself can only think (uncritically I should add) as far as "this is the way it has always been, and so must it always be." Like Prabhupada said, "Molla dauray masjid parjanta."

Sorry, Suhotraji, you'll have to do better than that, I am afraid.
Madan Gopal - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:24:28 +0530
[These fellows can't make a difference in the world. They are not revolutionaries, they are simply timeclock-punching wage-earners.]

mad.gif Aarghh. Now this one gets me going. I'll tell you the difference these fellows are making. They are keeping the faith among the people you have driven out ISKCON's back door with such b.s. Possibly they are timeclock-punching wage earners because they want to follow Bhaktivinoda's instructions to earn an honest living (that means no stickers, candles or feeding the hungry in Bangladesh scams), supporting a family so that maybe they can produce pure devotee progeny. In their spare time I bet these fellows are working on writing 100 books to contribute to the siddhanta. Give me a break!
Jagat - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 06:39:48 +0530
I would further like to request Suhotra Maharaj that in the future, if he is going to refer to this website, then he should follow the convention in self-appointed intellectual circles and give a link back to his source.

This is a useful convention, otherwise anyone can say anything they like about anyone without allowing the other person a voice. Surely a Vaishnava is fair. Let your readers judge for themselves whether nothing of value is being discussed here.
jatayu - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:51:26 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 14 2004, 01:09 AM)
I would further like to request Suhotra Maharaj that in the future, if he is going to refer to this website, then he should follow the convention in self-appointed intellectual circles and give a link back to his source.

This is a useful convention, otherwise anyone can say anything they like about anyone without allowing the other person a voice. Surely a Vaishnava is fair. Let your readers judge for themselves whether nothing of value is being discussed here.

Please treat him nicely, he suffers badly from chronicle depressions ( inherited as grandson of Aleister Crowley?). By now he is at least that hopeful, that his writings free others from this bad disease and feels optimistic to help his readers to advance their spiritual live ( although still known in northern Europe as Harikesa's hangman - hundreds of senior Vaishnavas left under his regime, due to asking the wrong questions? )..... "I also requested that I be admitted to the SAC (Shastra Advisory Committee)."

"....As a transcendentalist, I am imperfect. From the time I was elected chairman of the GBC in 1996 until 2002, I suffered terribly from overt depression. It is the nature of the kapha body I have to sink into depression; moreover, on the maternal side of my family are many relations who suffer depression. This is an illness that is inherited, and I have definitely inherited it. And because for years I did not deal with this depression, it made me pay a spiritual penalty. Finally, in years 2001 and -2, I took Ayurvedic treatment, which was helpful. I resigned from the GBC in 2003 and that definitely helped. Plus, over the past year I've been on a radically sattvic diet of raw fruits, vegetables, nuts and pure milk products. Recently I've come under the care of a Czech homeopathic doctor. Her treatment, though it seems very unusual, is really very promising. At present I really feel I have entered a bright new period of my life....."

http://www.in2-mec.com/J4-3-2003.htm


"........Here's an update about myself. I attended the GBC meeting which began on February 20 and ended on March 1. This was the first meeting I participated in for two years. That was because in 2001 I took a leave of absence from the GBC for reasons of health. In particular, I was suffering from depression. In those two years I was able, by the grace of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Krsna, to (after a great struggle) overcome the depression by a four-pronged attack of 1) Ayurveda, 2) arcana-seva to Shaligram-shila, 3) spending more time in India, and 4) what HH Bhaktividya Purna Maharaja calls "an extreme sattvik diet."

During the two-year leave of absence I put the question of, "Shall I stay on the GBC Body?", completely out of my mind. My plan was to answer that question at this last GBC meeting in year 2003. And answer it I did.

I came into the first day of the meeting feeling quite refreshed and optimistic after my preaching tour in Maharashtra. But after four or five days I found myself sinking into depression again. A number of reasons became very clear to me why I am not able to continue with this service........."

http://www.in2-mec.com/J-Pages/J030807.htm
Keshava - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:08:36 +0530
Well, here's my 2-paise worth as a self-appointed pseudo-intellectual:

I know Shukavak personally (hey, I also know Suhotra Swami, not so personally) and I proclaim him to be not only a true follower of Bhaktivinode Thakur but a veritable incarnation of him.

My proof:

Bhaktivinode was an intellectual.
Shukavak is an intellectual.

Bhaktivinode was influential in society.
Shukavak is currently the most influential Hindu priest in Southern California.

Bhaktivinode had many children.
Shukavak has many children.

Bhaktivinode wrote many influential independent Vaishnava books.
Shukavak writes influential independent Vaishnava books.

I rest my case.

Anyway even if you don't accept Shukavak as a direct incarnation, I know the influence Bhaktivinode has upon him. He immersed himself in the Thakur's writings. He took the trouble to visit India with me and we personally visited the Thakur's birthplace at Birnagar and microfilmed his Sva-likhita-jivani (autobiography in his own hand writing, a letter to Lalita Prasad Thakur). We then went all over Bengal tracking down followers of the Thakur who were outside the the Saraswata Tradition (i.e., GM and ISKCON).

What Shukavak found in the Thakur's writings especially in the autobiography is one of the most inspiring things that any of us can find. A real person, like you or I, not a nitya siddha saktyavesa avatar descended to save us, but a person born in a Shakta meat-eating family, a conditioned soul who strove and succeeded in becoming not only a great Vaishnava but also one of the most successful and influential people in Bengal of that day. A person who was not afraid to admit his material frailties. Who studied, preached and wrote on Vaisnavism even before he gave up eating meat. Who was criticized for not wearing neck beads. Who replied that when he met his eternal gurudeva that they would be given by him. Who successfully got the Jagannath Puri temple act made into law and regulated the temple and stopped the deities from being ripped off by counterfeit devotees and pandas.

Shukavak found in Bhaktivinode the human side of devotion. This is more important to me than any amount of so-called nitya siddha devotee avataras. Why? Because how important is it for me to know about the nitya siddhas activities in this world? After all whatever they do or don't do it is all lila for them. But if a conditioned person like myself becomes a great devotee, that's exciting to me. That gives me real hope. That a person like myself, born mleccha, has a chance to follow in the footsteps of someone who actually made it. Actually became perfected. Was conditioned and achieved perfection. Not just someone who was already perfect and just came to show me the way. Where is the hope if not one person I read about who became perfect was not a nity siddha (perfect already). Where, therefore is the proof that the process works? The proof is in the lives of people like Ajamila, Bhaktivinode and other persons who were conspicuously ordinary souls like us who applied themselves to the process and made it.

And how did he do it? Not in the sanitized way in which the GM or ISKCON might have you believe. As many of us know, he was a treaditionalist to the max. Taking diksa from Bipin Bihari Goswami in the line of Jahnava Mata (Nityananda's Shakti). Even giving favorable comments about the Kartabaja sect of so-called sahajiyas who had helped him overcome a disease in his youth.

So may say, "How can we know the real Bhaktivinode?" To this I answer, if not from his autobiography then how else?

And what a dichotomy! Not only is Bhaktivinode a traditionalist to the max, but he also shows the ability to bridge the traditional with the modern. To accept the rational and the sastric (something which I have found in the Sri Sampradaya also.) How exciting is that? Not a blind faith is his but a reasoned understanding built on a foundation of true sraddha.

In India, I have found that being an intellectual or scholar and being a devotee are not mutually exclusive of one another. Is it not in the west that a Christian or Jewish scholar is usually a follower of that faith also? So the same is there for India. I met so many Vaishnava intellectuals in my position of running the Matsya project. Does it mean that all those scholars were sceptics and atheists. No, most are indeed very devoted individuals. They are however openminded, unlike some of the dogmatically blind followers of the religious status quo.

These devotional intellectuals remind us of the great acharyas and exceptional religious and philosophical thinkers of the past. They are the ones who have the vision to see beyond the small-minded followers of literal religious dogma.

Saraswati Thakur was also an intellectual, a scholar, and though he significantly changed his appraoch to the spreading of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's message. He had his reasons. And his vision of what he could achieve. The same can be said of Srila Prabhupada. They were visionaries. They were traditional, but did not flinch to introduce changes that would take the tradition in the direction they felt could benefit the masses. Whether we agree with all or any of these innovations is a separate issue. However we must concede that they were able to have great effect with their strategies.

As for the ramblings of the blind followers exemplified by Suhotra Swamiji's disjointed tirade, I have this to say:

QUOTE
You see, not only are the participants of the site self-proclaimed intellectuals, they are self-proclaimed raganuga-bhaktas.

Untrue, as Jagat pointed out. Admittedly some are but many are not proclaiming to be raganuga bhaktas. And since when does the term raganuga bhakta become pejorative amongst Gaudiya Vaishnavas? Is he admitting by this that the GM and ISKCON simply focus only on Vaidhi bhakti.

QUOTE
His transcendental son, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, used to say, Vaishnava saralata atva, "the essence of a Vaishnava is simplicity."

That's why he was such a big scholar and wrote and published so many books. (sarcasm) Give me a break! This quote is completely out of context. What gall using a quote from Saraswati Thakur to criticize the publishing work of his father.

QUOTE
But then in the section subheaded "Two Modes of Religious Understanding," Shukavak trots out an argument that the adhunika-vada (the modern approach) is to be employed today.

And why not? Mahajano yena gatah sah panthah.

QUOTE
If ever there was one, this is a logical non sequitur. It is admitted that 125 years ago Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote a book he aimed at a specific section of people. Obviously, this section of people is no longer with us.

Why should we accept this conclusion of Suhotra's? Where is his proof of this? Do we not have people all over the world today just like the bhadraloka of Bengal? People who have completely forgotten their traditional ways and simply worship at the altar of science alone. I don't mean those able to accept the modern and traditional and see the synthesis of the two. I mean those who have completely given up the transcendental philosophical truths of sastras exactly because they have been told by their sastra-bashing teachers that they must accept the literal understanding of even obviously empirically incorrect facts.

QUOTE
Is it that Shukavak can say this because he is a learned disciple of Srila Prabhupada who took the trouble to earn a PhD at a Western university?

Sour grapes!

QUOTE
Although one may be well versed in the transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality.

If Ramanuja had not thought to surpass Sankara where would we be? I put it to you that it is not the ability of the acharyas to exactly repeat the previous acharyas words that makes them stand out and be remarkable, but it is their ability to expound and expand their own acharyas teachings and to make them relevant for today that really sets some acharyas apart from others. These innovative thinkers are the life blood of a tradition and without such charismatic persons who act to re-interpret a tradition in terms that are relevant to the masses a sect becomes sidelined by history and stultified in its dogma. It will die the death of blind faith and literalism.

Anyway this is clearly argumentum ad hominem. (The "you're offensive, prabhu" argument without actually defeating the argument.)

QUOTE
The offense so described is relevent here for the reason that unless Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur can be shown to have specifically requested his disciples, grand-disciples, and great-grand-disciples to synthesize modernity with scriptural tradition, then one who claims he is authorized to do so by the Thakur's writings is being impertinent.

Just because you refuse to see that this is Bhaktivinode's message doesn't mean that it is NOT. Why else would Bhaktivinode discuss his methodology if he weren't advocating it. On the contrary, by proclaiming it he IS advocating it. And the onus is on you, Swamiji, to refute it. So please show that Bhaktivinode didn't mean for this methodology to be used by any openminded seekers of the truth, in any place, at any time and under any circumstance. The burden is on you to show that this methodology is limited only to a specific time, place and ciircumstance.

QUOTE
]The writings of Thakur Bhaktivinoda provided the golden bridge by which the mental speculationists can safely cross the raging waters of fruitless empiric controversies that trouble the peace of those who choose to trust in their guidance for finding the truth. As soon as the sympathetic reader is in position to appreciate the sterling quality of Thakur Bhaktivinoda's philosophy, the entire vista of the revealed literature of the world will automatically open out to his reclaimed vision.

Nice quote. So by praising Bhaktivinode's writings and philosophy doesn't that also include Krsna Samhita and the methodology by which Bhaktivinode wrote it? This quote proves nothing, but you have misunderstood the applicability of the Thakur's methodology, which we have already pointed out above. You have to do better than this. You have to defeat the methodology itself or prove that it is inapplicable.

QUOTE
There have, however, already arisen serious misunderstandings regarding the proper interpretation of the life and teachings of Srila Thakur Bhaktivinoda.

Right! Since the coming to light of Bhaktivinode's autobiography, which has to be admitted to be the primary source for understanding his life, the sanitized versions presented by the GM and ISKCON become null and void. And the Krsna Samhita also gives us a methodology to help us interpret Vasinavism in modern terms.

How should we understand Bhaktivinode? From his own words or from the words of others? Even if those others happen to be our elders, they cannot eclipse the words of the Thakur himself. When are our elders going to allow us access to our spiritual legacy? Mahajano yena gatah sah panthah, means to follow in the footsteps of the Mahajanas, plural. Mahajana is a collective noun therefore it means that we are able to follow as siksha gurus not just one person like Saraswati Thakur or Srila Prabhupada (ACBVS), but all the purva acharyas including Bhaktivinode.

QUOTE
Those who suppose they understand the meaning of his message without securing the guiding grace of the acharya are disposed to unduly favor the method of empiric study of his writings.

And how do you suggest that we secure the grace of Bhaktivinode? By following Saraswati Thakur and/or Srila Prabhupada (ACBVS)? But that is not the point. To follow a purva acharya one reads there works, understands their teachings and methods and follows in their footsteps. One who does this surely does have the grace of the purva acharya, for what else but their teachings and examples IS the grace of the purva acharyas? Their grace is not just some vague thing, it is exactly what they have left us, their legacy to us.

QUOTE
Wow. With these two Bengali sentences, we see the Thakur as, like, reaching across space and time, and right over the guru-parampara in between, to a Western-educated devotee of year 2004, authorizing him or her to engage in (I quote Shukavak on page 145) "human speculation and interpretation."

And if you knew Bengali you would probably criticize them too, but since you don't you can't. Or at least you haven't bothered to find out the exact translation because you are so closed-minded that you don't care what they say. So here you clearly show that you are not interested in understanding the argument, only refuting it.

QUOTE
"even though Srila Prabhupada disapproved it, I have authorization from Bhaktivinoda Thakur to speculate in these ways."

Again please give direct reasons against the methodology don't simply "wrap yourself in the flag" by claiming (without any proof) SP's disapproval.

QUOTE
It's just the history and geography of the sastra that are legitimate targets of rational scrutiny.

Right! Because these can be empirically proved to be false or at least analogies and at most beyond human comprehension. Note that we no long accept that the Earth is flat and neither does the Catholic Church, yet somehow or other Christianity goes on, amazing! Maybe this is because its core trancendental philosophy does not hinge on the shape of the Earth.

QUOTE
Some people argue, for example, that the Krishna of the geographic region of Vrndavana is a historically different person from the Krishna of the geographic Mathura, and that the Krishna of Dvaraka is yet a third personality.

If that is so, then is the Bhagavad-gita really a bona fide scripture, since it was spoken by a different Krishna from Vrndavana Krishna?

I'm not going to touch this one, because I know that there are traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas out there who do believe that Vrindavan Krsna is different to these other Krsnas. What can I say, this seems to be a theme of modern scholars and traditional Gaudiyas but for different reasons. (For the record, Sri Vaishnavas only believe in one Krsna)

QUOTE
Where does temporal knowledge (of history and geography) end and eternal spiritual knowledge begin?

That seems to be a pretty simple question. The answer is that anything beyond our senses (pratyaksha) and logic (anumana) has to be understood through sabda/sastra. That which is not empirical is transcendental. Simple as that.

QUOTE
Ergo, a devotee is a devotee because of his abiding faith in the spirit of bhakti, whatever outward form it may take from moment to moment. A devotee is not a devotee because of his belief or participation in any particular item or practice of bhakti. Such particularities unquestionably come and go.

Yes, I agree with this even though you post it with sarcasm. Ramanuja's definition of Bhakti is anusmrti or constant remembrance which is like the uninterrupted flow of oil. Therefore any particular activity is secondary. One my be doing any type of Bhakti but the underlying "spirit" as you call it is that of constant remembrance. Always remember Lord Visnu and never forget Him, these two are the essence of all rules and regulations (from BRS)

QUOTE
"Gee Mom, that sounds like Mayavadi philosophy to me!"

How is it so? Just because you facetiously say so does NOT make it so. Argumentum ad hominem again. You are attacking the speaker not the idea. This doesn't work in this forum.

QUOTE
Like, maybe the intellectuals will one day conclude from their discussions that the Bhagavad-gita is a myth.

The importance of the Gita is not whether or not it is literal history or myth. The importance of the Gita is the transcendental instructions in it. Whether those instructions were actually spoken in those exact words or not, at that exact time or place, or not is irrelevant. Those instructions contain universal truths which ring true generation after generation for all humanity. Whether it is a historical incident or not does not matter as much as the fact that the instructions of the Lord are some how or other given to us though this media. Admittedly, the Gita is a part of the Mahabharata and scholars have analysed it and other parts of the Mahabharata and how it came to be composed and whether there are interpolations, etc, etc. But none of this negates the message given in the text about trancendental realities beyond empirical understanding. It is not accepted as canonical as the Veda but is definitely in line with the spirit of the Upanisads. So much so that it is commonly referred to as Gitopanisad.

At this point I would like to point out that the text of the Gita that is accepted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas has an extra verse not accepted in standard editions. The Gita has exactly 700 verses however due to editing differences the Gaudiya edition and the standard (Gita Press) edition both have 700 verses yet the Gaudiya edition has one extra sloka.

QUOTE
Take careful note that Shukavak is arguing from his own personal bias, which is that of the professional acadamicien.

Actually I would say that Shukavak is more of a professional Hindu priest and devotee rather than a professional acadamicien. He sucessfully runs the Riverside Lakshmi Narayan mandir in LA and is the most sought-after priest in the LA-Orange County area. He also writes and teaches at the tertiary level, but mostly he spends his time teaching Indian kids about their culture and religion and doing weddings, funerals and other Hindu/Vaishnava sacerdotal functions. Hardly the role of a hardened professional acadamicien.

QUOTE
When we turn to religion, we find the biggest revolutionaries are the transcendentalists.

Yes, it's a pity you can't recognize one when you see one.

QUOTE
I'm not running down intellectuals here, i.e. people who are thoughtful. I am a thoughtful person myself.

Ah! Another self-appointed intellectual. If you are not "running down intellectuals" then want the hell is the rest of this nonsense about? At least be consistent. Don't confuse us even more. Please stick to a point and make it. However, I don't believe that you are thoughtful, Swamiji. If you were really thoughtful you would not just spew a party line.

QUOTE
But when intellectual people adopt a bias like scepticism, empiricism or rationalism, and from that mundane standpoint try to analyze the eternal truth, they become dangerous.

Agreed! However WHAT IS ETERNAL TRUTH? It is beyond empirical knowledge, not part of it. We cannot say that "the earth is flat because the Bible says so," because it is not a subject of Eternal Truth. It is an empirical subject which falls under the domain of pratyaksha and anumana. Therefore there is no reason to resort to sastra or sabda for knowledge of it.

QUOTE
These fellows can't make a difference in the world. They are not revolutionaries, they are simply timeclock-punching wage-earners

Again agumentum ad hominem. You don't even know Shukavak how can you criticize him like this?

QUOTE
The title Ph.D. can also be interpreted as Plough Department, a title meant for the tillers in the paddy field. The attempt of the tillers in the paddy field to understand the cosmic manifestation and the cause behind such wonderful work can be compared to the endeavor of the frog in the well to calculate the measurement of the Pacific Ocean.

Again wrapping yourself in the SP flag won't work. This puerile attempt at levity and derision is actually beneath you. Give it up. Again sour grapes. If you had a PhD would it be bad then? What about your friends Krsna Ksetra and others like Tamal Krsna, Hrdayananda and a score of other devotees all working in academia or trying to get their degrees? Your problem is not with the academic process but with individuals within it. You attack their characters without even knowing them. You reject their methodologies even though they are identical to your own purva acharya's. You have so much blind faith that you are unable to see the different between eternal truths and empirical knowledge. Your intellect is stunted because you are unable to see beyond your own narrow conceptions. You are not even able to consider others ideas in a rational way. And the saddest thing is that you not only hold such small-minded narrow opinions but also are revered by others as a teacher / guru / leader / preacher / guide.
Madhava - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:59:52 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 14 2004, 09:38 AM)
QUOTE
Some people argue, for example, that the Krishna of the geographic region of Vrndavana is a historically different person from the Krishna of the geographic Mathura, and that the Krishna of Dvaraka is yet a third personality.

If that is so, then is the Bhagavad-gita really a bona fide scripture, since it was spoken by a different Krishna from Vrndavana Krishna?

I'm not going to touch this one, because I know that there are traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas out there who do believe that Vrindavan Krsna is different to these other Krsnas. What can I say, this seems to be a theme of modern scholars and traditional Gaudiyas but for different reasons. (For the record, Sri Vaishnavas only believe in one Krsna)

There is a gulf of difference between the view of different historical Krishnas and the Gaudiya view on "different" Krishnas. The Gaudiya idea should be accepted by all, whether traditional, ISKCON or otherwise, as it is directly derived from the writings of Sri Rupa Gosvamin. Citing from Yamala-tantra:

kRSNo'nyo yadu-sambhUto yaH pUrNaH so'sty ataH param |
vRndAvanaM parityajya sa kvacit naiva gacchati || LBhag 461 ||

"The Krishna born among the Yadus is another from the complete one (Vrajaraja); he does not leave Vrindavana ever, at any time."

The section goes on to explain that the Krishna who goes to Mathura (from Vraja) is Vâsudeva-Krishna, a prakaTa-rUpa, who sometimes manifests two arms, and sometimes four, and again the one who goes to Dvaraka (from Mathura) is similarly a caturvyuha-prakAza, who also manifests the forms of Aniruddha and Pradyumna there.

This, however, is not a case of historical disconnectivity. The two positions simply are not related. The Gaudiya position is a matter of fine-tuned theological study of the way bhagavat-svarUpas manifest in transitions between different dhAmas.
Jagat - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:17:55 +0530
I agree wholeheartedly with Gaura Keshava's remarks. As Shukavak's friend who participated with him in part of his research, your contribution is most welcome and authoritative here.

About the "conditioned soul/nitya-siddha" dichotomy, I have been trying to get people to think about this in a slightly different way. For this reason my "shitting-pissing Rupa Goswami" remark that so insulted Advaitaji. The shastras tell us not to think of the guru as human so that we will offer him the appropriate respect, but the fact of the matter is that if he were not human he would have no meaning for us at all. Once the guru has become that iconic symbol of achieved perfection, he is a nitya-siddha, but that does not mean that his voyage per ardua ad astra has become null and void. Rather it endows it with a greater significance.

One of the things that Suhotra Maharaj criticizes in Shukavak's book (but I wonder if he read Krishna-samhita?) is his use of the word "komala-sraddha." Yet this is precisely one of Bhaktivinode Thakur's most significant contributions in that discussion, and one that we must all ponder on carefully. He accuses the literalists of having "baby" faith. As a matter of fact, Suhotra Maharaj's entire article is typical of the komala-sraddhavan.

They think that memorizing the scriptures makes them "sastre sunipuna," but in fact their sraddha hasn't moved an inch. They go on the attack with these fatuous criticisms, but in fact they are all the time scared that their walls are about to come tumbling down. Bhakti is unassailable.

Another thing typical of the komala sraddhavan, which equates him with the kanistha Bhagavata, is his inability to see who is a bhakta. Keshava touched on this, too. They find individualism confusing--even though I am sure that Suhotra Maharaj himself is old and self-aware enough and has gone through enough of life's ups and downs to be convinced of his own individuality, and to forgive himself the detours he has taken on the road to bhakti, he cannot extend that same courtesy to others. As soon as someone drops the dogmatic straight-jacket and leaves the asylum, he is no longer one of the group and so somehow lost forever. He's the crazy one.

This is just so wrong, as I pointed out recently in my comments on Madhurya Kadambini. The Holy Name holds on to his own, even the aparadhis. It is not for us to judge that someone is not a devotee. This is why the numerous "argumentum ad hominem" are so infinitely wrong when engaging in this kind of discussion. The kanishtha adhikari (na tad-bhakteSu cAnyeSu) fails to take this into account; he mistakes disagreement for the absence of devotion and uses the Gattling gun approach to rain bullets on everyone outside the pillbox. The offensiveness of this mentality is unfortunately lost on the kanistha, and no amount of light seems capable of removing the blind spot.

Another thing Keshava also brought up that also bothered me was Suhotra Maharaj's lack of Sanskrit/Bengali knowledge. Someone like Shukavak, who had studied Sanskrit and Bengali for many years before undertaking his study of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, likely has insights into the tradition that those who have only read translations (or what passes for translation) can rarely claim. This is something that deserves and demands respect. Suhotra Maharaj cannot even quote two little Bengali phrases without making them totally incomprehensible (I was unable to even correct them when editing his document on this site). This is another of those things that I personally find nefarious about the whole "everything's in Prabhupada's books" coterie. Not only do they cut themselves off from the dynamism of independent thought, but from their own tradition as well.

Iskcon is hanging in oxygen-starved air, forced to develop independently of Western scientific knowledge on the one hand, and the experientially-rich practitioners of traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism on the other (and here I include both Gaudiya Math and others). What results is years and years of ad hoc-ism that flounders on, the only guiding principle being that "we will not go to the Gaudiya Math for advice." This is resulting in something rather amusing--the subtle rise of pop psychology as the leading intellectual force in Iskcon--the sales seminar approach to self-realization.

And all this is not to be mean to Suhotra Swami. It is an appeal to his "thoughtfulness." vidyA dadAti vinayam--even for a devotee.
Perumal - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:54:26 +0530
quote from suhotra swami:

The offense so described is relevent here for the reason that unless Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur can be shown to have specifically requested his disciples, grand-disciples, and great-grand-disciples to synthesize modernity with scriptural tradition, then one who claims he is authorized to do so by the Thakur's writings is being impertinent. Certainly we get from Srila Prabhupada no green light for adjusting sastra to the theories of modern scholarship. But Prabhupada, in the opinion of the intellectual crowd, is way too conservative.


I believe that Srila Saraswati Thakur promoted a "modernist" way of thinking. The fact that Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada didn't choose to see things in this "modernist" way is something I personally find very perplexing. I am sure he was exposed to this way of thinking but he chose to present a very literalist translation of scripture, more in the literalist tradition than his own Guru.

In the early years of the Gaudiya Math, Srila Saraswati Thakur published an edition of Sri Krishna Samhita. Many devotees were influenced by the line of reasoning in that book, notably Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaj, who presents a similar way of reasoning in his book Sri Bhagavat Samlap, and Prof Nishikanta Sanyal, the author of "Sri Krishna Chaitanya".

Srila Sridhar Maharaj remarked that a second edition of Sri Krishna Samhita was published by Srila Saraswati Thakur after several years. I guess the original copies had all been sold. Clearly, Srila Saraswati Thakur was promoting this book and its ways of thought. And I have in fact seen several "modernist" concepts presented by Srila Saraswati Thakur himself, ideas found in Sri Krishna Samhita, notably the correspondence between human evolution and the Avatars that a human will adore.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj is also on record, saying that the "Aryans" came to India from Southern Russia, the Caspian sea area. This, of course, is one of the contorversial things presented in Sri Krishna Samhita.
Perumal - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:08:52 +0530
QUOTE (jatayu @ Aug 13 2004, 07:21 PM)
Suhotra Swami:

Neat formula for becoming advanced, right? Say something outrageous in the assembly of devotees: "Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur stated the Bhagavatam may only be 1000 years old, not 5000 years as the Bhagavatam itself claims" or "the Thakur adapted the Dasavataras to Darwin's theory of evolution"

Sri Chaitanya's Teachings
a collection of articles and discourses by
Prabhupada Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati

Chapter VIII
Colloquies with Foreigners

Discussion with Prof Albert Suthers of Ohio University, January 1929

Prof Suthers:

Q: In the scriptures of india, adorable Deities have been represented as creatures of the lower creation like fish, tortoise, boar, etc. Is this approved in the sense of decency of civilized humanity? Some again are in favour of supporting such representations as allegorical symbols.

Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati
A: Imagination does not find a place in Vaishnava philosophy. In it or in the Shrimad Bhagavatam which is the highest scripture for all men in the universe has been described the topmost ontology of God, million times better than what the most civilized races of humanity five thousand years old, nay, as old as several millions of years, can conceive of in imagination. The eternal transcendental forms of God that descend or are manifested accoding to the gradual evolution of the aptitude for offering service by the totally purified soul quite aloof from the regions of the body and mind, when man becomes the worshipper of the ultimate Reality at the loftiest stage of civilization, are never idols of imagination or allegories like unreal things manufactured in the mental factory of man or like imaginary animal deities of the barbarians such as tiger-god, serpent-god, horse-god, etc. The worship of the Vishnu incarnations, like Fish, Turtle, etc. is not fabrication of imagination like that of the five deities of the Henotheists formed out of imagination, based on the coinage of set speeches like the imaginary conception of the forms of Brahman (as in the Panchadasi of the monistic school). The Henotheists do not admit the Transcendental Personality of Godhead....

... the pure and real doctrine of the Avataras of Fish, Turtle, etc. of the Vaishnavas is not a kind of imagination of the barbarian taste, nor the idolatry of the Mayavadins on the basis of their aphorism of forms of Brahman, (which is) imagined for the convenience of the practicants...

The real, eternal and transcendental Divine Forms reveal themselves to the pure souls according to the nature of their serving mood in the evolutionary growth thereof. The only cause of these Divine Descents is the intense Mercy of God towards jivas. In Europe the theories of physical evolution of Darwin and Lamarck have been considered. But it is in the Vaishnava philosophy alone that we see the fully scientific and real conception of each eternal and transcendental Divine Form for worship by the freed souls according to their evolutionary growth of serving mood.

We can notice the different stages of animal life from the invertebrates to the fully grown human beings. These stages have been classified by the Indian sages of a scientific outlook in ten orders, viz. (1) the invertebrate, (2) testaceous or shelly, (3) vertebrate, (4) erectly vertebrate, as in the combined form of man and beast, (5) mannikin, (6) barbaric, (7) civilized, (8) wise, (9) ultra-wise and (10) destructive. These are the historical stages of the jivas. According to the gradation of these stages as indicators of evolution of the serving mood of the jiva soul, there are manifested the ten Incarnations of God, viz., Matsya (Fish), Kurma (Turtle), Varaha (Boar), Nrsimha (Man-Lion), Vamana (Dwarf), Parasurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha and Kalki, as worshippable Deities with eternal transcendental Names, Forms, Attributes and Sports. Those, who have aquired a true knowledge about Incarnations with a thorough culture thereof, will be able, with the grace of the philosophers trained in the school of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, to appreciate the ontology of Sri Krishna, specially the intense sweetness of His Sports in Braja (i.e. Vrindaban and the neighbour-hood).
Perumal - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:14:46 +0530
Notice, in the reference to Charles Darwin, that Srila Saraswati Thakur does not say "Darwin is bogus", but rather that Vaishnavism's concept of spiritual evolution is a more "scientific and real conception"; and moreover we see that Srila Saraswati Thakur was clearly trying to tell Professor Suthers that spiritual evolution is a paradigm that can accomodate the "theory of evolution" in a harmonising way.

Given that Suhotra Swami's whole argument is based upon the proposition that modernist ways of thinking are "not Parampara", and that it can be shown that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Saraswati Thakur were given to thinking in this modernist way, we may suggest that it is Suhotra Swami himself, along with his "literalist" associaties, who are out of step with their predecessor Acharyas.
Jagat - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:23:59 +0530
Interesting and valuable points, Perumalji. Sridhar Maharaj was one of the few in the Gaudiya Math who seems to have had a perception of this side of the equation. Keshava said that Bhaktivinode combined both the traditional and the progressive, and these are hard thing to harmonize.

Perhaps the most painful thing about Suhotra Maharaj's article is his failure to see how this is our job, too. Most of the intellectual activity in Iskcon (including much of Suhotra's own) is about defending arcane aspects of the Puranas in order to "defeat" ("search and destroy") the "atheistic scientists."

Like the two disciples in that "Ugrasen conversation," there are many who are looking for a reason to believe (i.e. zraddhAvAn hoy bhakti-adhikArI), but instead of giving it to them, as we are duty bound ("jAre dekho tAre koho kRSNa-upadeza"), we throw them into the street because they are not submissive or surrendered enough, they ask uncomfortable questions, or their hair is too long.

They are the Plough Department, ha ha ha!
We are the Brahmin intellectuals, ha ha ha!

This is not killing by crucifixion, but suffocation,
less spectacular, but murder anyway.
Rasaraja dasa - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:09:17 +0530
Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Just wanted to voice my appreciation for Gaura Keshava's post. You provided great insights into the making of Shukavak's book and made very specific and articulate points to counter Srila Suhorta Swami's sweeping tirade.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa
Keshava - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:34:12 +0530
Thanks to Jagat for his elaboration on the komala sraddha (I prefer to call this tender faith but baby faith will work for me too)

Thanks to Perumal for pulling the quotes from Sarasvati Thakurs writings about evolution spiritual and material. And for showing that the methodology used by Bhaktivinode was also used by Sarasvati Thakur and some of his disciples.

Regarding why Sarasvati Thakur was progressive and ACBVS not so. Consider their missions. BSST was mainly preaching to the Indians trying to deal with their preconceived ideas and false notions of sastric literalism and caste consiousness where as ACBVS was preaching to the westerners immersed in the culture of science. Naturally their approaches differed. Yet both were trying to get people to think beyond their conditioning.

Thanks also to Madhava for clearly making the point about the different forms of Krsna. Something which I felt reluctant to present because it has less (or different) meaning for me than for all of you.
Keshava - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:56:03 +0530
QUOTE
Iskcon is hanging in oxygen-starved air, forced to develop independently of Western scientific knowledge on the one hand, and the experientially-rich practitioners of traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism on the other (and here I include both Gaudiya Math and others). What results is years and years of ad hoc-ism that flounders on, the only guiding principle being that "we will not go to the Gaudiya Math for advice." This is resulting in something rather amusing--the subtle rise of pop psychology as the leading intellectual force in Iskcon--the sales seminar approach to self-realization.

Jagat, I thought that this point was so good that it deserved a separate post all by itself.

This sums up the ISKCON attitude to a "T" for me. ISKCON unfortunately is a victim of it's own propaganda. However to carry the "oxygen-starved" analogy a little further I would say that there are definitely many individuals within ISKCON who realize (consciously or unconsciously, on some level) that they are "oxygen-starved" and who are secretly "buddy breathing" (to use a scuba term) with the rest of the Gaudiya tradition. Unlike those who have chosen to leave entirely there are those who are simply receiving small doses of more traditional wisdom mostly by reading "forbidden" books or now perhaps by visiting "forbidden" websites.

My feeling is that eventually this attitude of spiritual and material isolationism will subside but it may take a generation for it to occur. If not ISKCON runs the risk of becoming increasingly sidelined and irrelevant.
Bhrigu - Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:47:09 +0530
Just out of curiosity, what do the "two untranslated footnotes" on page 142 of Shukavak's book say? Could someone who has the book at hand post them?
Kishalaya - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 03:04:18 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 14 2004, 01:08 PM)
The importance of the Gita is not whether or not it is literal history or myth. The importance of the Gita is the transcendental instructions in it. Whether those instructions were actually spoken in those exact words or not, at that exact time or place, or not is irrelevant. Those instructions contain universal truths which ring true generation after generation for all humanity. Whether it is a historical incident or not does not matter as much as the fact that the instructions of the Lord are some how or other given to us though this media.

Where does all this symbolism and myth deconstruction end? Seems to me this reductionism will just gobble up one's whole faith and we end up with a big zero or some nebulous "instructions of the Lord", if you like.
Perumal - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 04:35:39 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 14 2004, 09:34 PM)
Where does all this symbolism and myth deconstruction end? Seems to me this reductionism will just gobble up one's whole faith and we end up with a big zero or some nebulous "instructions of the Lord", if you like.

From Srila Sridhar Maharaj, following Thakur Bhaktivinode, I have learned to see that all the shastras have been written by men. Men inspired by a divine vision, as in the case of Sanjaya who narrated the Bhagavad gita to Dritarastha.


Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur:
"jnanasuryasyehi rasmayah sastrani"
(Revealed scriptures are the rays of transcendental knowledge).
- Tattva Sutra verse 41
All the Vedic literatures, the holy scriptures, are like rays of light shining or coming from the sages and great devotees.
Madhava - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 04:39:34 +0530
You're joining the Self-Appointed Inc.? flowers.gif
Jagat - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 07:46:48 +0530
From an article by Dhyana-kunda Dasi, deservedly archived in many places on the net, Spiritual Pain and Painkiller Spirituality: Issues of Spiritual Abuse, Religious Addiction, and Codependency in ISKCON

Approaches to scripture recommended by spiritual masters of the Vaishnava religious tradition will be illustrated here by quotes from two works by Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who calls for approaching scriptural revelation with awakened intuition and conscience. The first quote comes from an early work entitled The Bhagavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its Theology, the other - from Shri Tattva Sutra, written by the Thakura many years later, at the peak of his literary activity.

"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. . . . Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. . . . Liberty then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth, and absolute love. The other characteristic is progress. Liberty certainly is the father of all progress. Holy liberty is the cause of progress upwards and upwards in eternity and endless activity of love. Liberty abused causes degradation, and the Vaishnava must always carefully use this high and beautiful gift of God." (Thakura, Bhaktivinoda, undated)

"The Divine Knowledge is characterized as the sun whereas all the scriptures (shastra) are rays of that sun. This saying reveals that no scripture can contain the Divine Knowledge to the fullest extent. The self-evident knowledge of the jivas [living beings] is the source of all the scripture. This self-evident knowledge should be understood as God-given. The sages endowed with compassionate hearts have received this self-evident knowledge (axiomatic truths) from the Supreme Lord and recorded the same in the scriptures for the benefit of all jivas. . . . The independent cultivation of the self-evident knowledge is always necessary. This is the important thing needed in understanding the Truth along with the study of the scriptures. Since the knowledge itself is the origin of the scriptures, those who disregard the root and depend upon the branches cannot have any well-being. . . . Since knowledge itself is the root of the scriptures the one who has attained that self-evident knowledge will not be ruled by the scriptures, but only they will guide him with advises. In case of ignorant people, this is not so. They must be governed by the rules of the scriptures for their upliftment, if not they will have their inevitable down fall due to the sensual addictions." (Thakura, Bhaktivinoda, undated)

Both quotes from Bhaktivinoda reproduced above end with warnings: liberty can be abused; creative attitude toward scripture requires personal integrity and a measure of spiritual advancement. The writers discussing spiritual abuse acknowledge this, too. Uncritical reliance on external guidance and authority is not always a sign of religious addiction. It is also typical for an early stage of faith development.

"If reliance upon external authority helps provide security and structure for continued growth into higher stages, then it seems to us a part of healthy development. However, if reliance upon external authority is a way of compulsively avoiding one's own reality, then it seems to us more likely a sign of religious addiction. A measure of whether a particular religious behavior is healthy and stage-appropriate, or addictive, might be our ability to tolerate and gradually move toward respect for and even dialogue with those who are different." (Linn, Linn & Linn, 1994)


============


Though the translation of Tattva-sutra is a little rough, I think that it would be a major improvement if "revelation" or "revelation from within" was used instead of "self-evident knowledge." I imagine that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was looking for a Bengali equivalent for "revelation" and this is what he came up with. A look at English-Bengali, English-Sanskrit, or English-Hindi dictionaries shows why the equivalents given there would not have been particularly satisfying. The 1866 Forbes English-Hindustani dictionary, for instance, gives "AkAza-vANI" for both revelation and inspiration. So you can see why that would not have been particularly useful. The Arabic word "wahi" would not have been particularly useful either, as it specifically means the revelation to Mohammad, which has always been seen as an external revelation, or AkAza-vANI.
Keshava - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:40:29 +0530
QUOTE
Just out of curiosity, what do the "two untranslated footnotes" on page 142 of Shukavak's book say? Could someone who has the book at hand post them?


Quoted from kRSNa saMhita

32. Ibid.,40: hauka, bhaviSyat sAragrAhI paNDitera e viSaya adhikatara anu..Ana-sahakAre sthira karite pAribena/p. 61: bhaviSyat paramArtha-vAdI vA buddhimAna artha-vAdIdigera nikaTe haite aneka AzA karA yAya/
Keshava - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:51:04 +0530
QUOTE
The 1866 Forbes English-Hindustani dictionary, for instance, gives "AkAza-vANI" for both revelation and inspiration.


Of course these days AkAza-vANI means All India Radio just as dUr-darzan means All India Television. laugh.gif
Perumal - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:53:38 +0530
Jagat,
The second quote by Dhyana-kunda Dasi, in regard to the scriptures being rays of the sun of transcendental realization, is a verbatim quote of the commentary to Sri Tattva Sutra, verse 41, in the English edition published by Madras Gaudiya Math
Kishalaya - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:04:31 +0530
QUOTE

In case of ignorant people, this is not so. They must be governed by the rules of the scriptures for their upliftment, if not they will have their inevitable down fall due to the sensual addictions.


ISKCON will get you on this Jagat ji.

QUOTE

liberty can be abused; creative attitude toward scripture requires personal integrity and a measure of spiritual advancement. The writers discussing spiritual abuse acknowledge this, too. Uncritical reliance on external guidance and authority is not always a sign of religious addiction. It is also typical for an early stage of faith development.


No matter how much the point needs to be made clear, the situation is somewhat precarious. We are all in the same boat here. I say, if somebody wants to adhere to the scriptures, let them do like the Maadhvas (I mean those who do follow), otherwise stop pontificating and give others some room with a joyful mood. Why become a Trishanku, neither here nor there? (edited out - "Puranjana [not of the PADA fame]" - I seem to confuse between Trishanku and Puranjana, however the Puranjana of PADA will also do as an illustration smile.gif ) Why assume the supersoul is inoperative or is subject to one's conception? If somebody is not a nuisance, then how much of the integrity factor can one gauge in another (unless one is a self declared telepathist)? Or are we supposed to gauge that? Isn't there any integrity concerning this?

QUOTE

Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. . . .


Coming back to the point, if one's conscience can allow that the Absolute Truth is a dark bluish teenager chasing girls (married to other men) in the highest heaven, what's the problem with the number of Ugrasena's guards? I mean, if He is God, then surely He could have provided them (and their families) with toilets ahem! restrooms. Do we have the payroll records to definitely say that he employed no more than twenty bodyguards? I don't understand what's all the big fuss about? May be we can give Advaita Das ji his space to hold on to his beliefs as, probably, you would like to have your freedom to view this as utter nonsense.
Indranila - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:39:54 +0530
QUOTE
Take careful note that Shukavak is arguing from his own personal bias, which is that of the professional acadamician. Such fellows keep faith in the professions of being philosophers, scientists and religious scholars because that's how they earn their bread. Is it these fellows who make a difference in history? Hardly.


It doesn't take much carefulness to note how the author is also arguing from his personal bias, which is that of the professional Swami. Such fellows keep faith in the professions of being gurus, GBC's and sannyasis because that's how they earn their bread. Is it these fellows, some of whom embarrass themselves beyond any human decency, who make any difference at all? I don't think so.
Jagat - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:27:35 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 15 2004, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE
Just out of curiosity, what do the "two untranslated footnotes" on page 142 of Shukavak's book say? Could someone who has the book at hand post them?


Quoted from kRSNa saMhita

32. Ibid.,40: hauka, bhaviSyat sAragrAhI paNDitera e viSaya adhikatara anu..Ana-sahakAre sthira karite pAribena/p. 61: bhaviSyat paramArtha-vAdI vA buddhimAna artha-vAdIdigera nikaTe haite aneka AzA karA yAya/

1. "Anyway, some essence-seeking scholars in the future will be able to understand these matters more clearly with [?]."

2. "We hope for much from future transcendentalists or astute philologists."
Jagat - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:03:19 +0530
QUOTE
ISKCON will get you on this Jagat ji.

Don't they always.

As to the rest of your argument, I agree with much of it, but I don't know what you mean "like the Maadhvas do."

However, as members of the Gaudiya sampradaya, we do have the duty to at least try to understand what the purva acharyas said and to do it honor, even if we wish to disagree with it. Vishwanath disagreed with Jiva, and Jiva with Sridhar, but this does not mean that they do not exist in a certain true relationship of grace.

With regards the bodyguards question. First, you can believe anything you want. There is little that I or anyone else can do about it. When creating a society around a set of beliefs, why needlessly stretch the limits of people's gullibility by asking them to accept ever-increasing absurdities as literal fact? Of course, if we are talking about God being all-powerful, sure, why not? Why stop there? Why not 400 trillion bodyguards dancing on the head of a pin?

Krishna's form and pastimes are certainly achintya. God has an infinity of forms, but this form of Krishna has been revealed to a certain group of people as being especially full of rasa. Therefore, they have meditated on it, shared it with others, and created a culture around it. It is acceptable because it is about a particular vision of God that is persuasive due to its beauty and sweetness.

God may reveal himself to you in a typewriter, or a toilet bowl. As an individual religious experience it may be explosive. As a foundation for community, it will be limited.

Religious traditions build up cultural and theological momentum. This might not seem quite the same as objective truth, but such matters operate on a different plane. Ultimately, it is not the historical truth of Krishna that matters at all.

I think I recently posted something about the difficulties created by the search for the "historical Jesus." A Protestant theologian (Thomas Harpur) was arguing that Christians should just abandon the idea that Jesus was anything but a myth and deal with it face value as a myth--a vehicle for eternal truths ("what never was but always is"). In the same way, Krishna may or may not have been a historical figure. That is not really the important thing. Historical or not, he exists in our minds as a myth. And, in a conjuring trick of theological legerdemain, He can be and IS that.

tvaM bhakti-yoga-paribhAvita-hRt-saroja
Asse zrutekSita-patho nanu nAtha puMsAm
yad-yad-dhiyA ta urugAyava vibhAvayante
tat-tad-vapuH praNayase sad-anugrahAya

O Lord! You take your seat in the lotus of a heart that has been conquered by bhakti-yoga. The way for people to reach you is seen through the Sruti. Even so, out of your kindness toward your devotees you take different forms according to the way your devotees think of you. (3.9.11)

I have long been saying that Prabhupada also is a myth. What does "transcending humanity" mean anyway? It means "becoming mythology." Prabhupada incarnates an archetype, one that inspires his disciples and granddisciples. For the IRM, this myth is more powerful and inspiring than that of Saraswati Thakur, Bhaktivinoda or Mahaprabhu, who nevertheless all fall into the metanarrative of the parampara myth, which tells a story of divine grace. A sampradaya is a group of people who share a parampara myth.

Sampradayas fall apart on questions of myth interpretation, one of which is the myth of historical truth. The billions of bodyguards is a "myth" with no content except "many." (As such is barely counts as myth, it is a story-teller's embellishment.)

On the other hand, the blue boy Krishna is dripping with significance. rasenotkRSyate kRSNo rUpa eSa rasa-sthitiH. And, I might add, so is Gaura: as I have stated before, Gaura (combined Radha-Krishna and all variants on that theme) is internally more meaningful than the other knock-offs (combined Rama and Krishna, combined Gaura and Nitai, combined Gaura and Jesus, like Keshub Sen).

So we have a theological level, on which we argue for the existence of a personal God. And we recognize the limits of reason here. Ultimately, we stretch the limits of reason with theology, but as long as it strives to be coherent and universal, it is meaningful.

And then we have a mythical level, which brings theology to life with rasa. Rasa is the key. The insistence on literal truth is a red herring in religion, though not the insistence on rationality. But rationality in religion must recognize that in this realm at least, myth is greater than reason, or for that matter, history. There is no history that is not in some way shaped by mythopoetic thinking.
Madhava - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:08:06 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 15 2004, 09:34 AM)
Coming back to the point, if one's conscience can allow that the Absolute Truth is a dark bluish teenager chasing girls (married to other men) in the highest heaven, what's the problem with the number of Ugrasena's guards? I mean, if He is God, then surely He could have provided them (and their families) with toilets ahem! restrooms. Do we have the payroll records to definitely say that he employed no more than twenty bodyguards? I don't understand what's all the big fuss about? May be we can give Advaita Das ji his space to hold on to his beliefs as, probably, you would like to have your freedom to view this as utter nonsense.

Well, in the end it isn't about whether it's possible. Of course we all accept that in the realm of lIlA everything is ultimately possible, and the stool, that is, if they need to pass it at all, can just go flying up the sky. And if it should suit someone's fancy, ten thousand angels can dance on the point of a needle and sing jolly songs. That is not the issue. And, for the record, we do not view it as "utter nonsense".

The issue is whether it factually happened. First of all, we do not find narrations (ahem, that would be zabda) of Ugrasena marching around with that many bodyguards anywhere. This alone should be sufficient, in harmonizing the Bhagavata-statement with the broader context, to conclude that it is exaggerated. Moreover, the sheer logistical impossibilities involved give us a good reason to conclude that the third variety of atizayokti-alaGkAra, in other words "stating the impossible", is being employed here. A bit more on atizayokti in general is discussed here, lost at the end of that long discussion.
Dhyana - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:35:56 +0530
QUOTE
So we have a theological level, on which we argue for the existence of a personal God. And we recognize the limits of reason here. Ultimately, we stretch the limits of reason with theology, but as long as it strives to be coherent and universal, it is meaningful.


Thank you for this verywisewisdom, Jagat. I agree with your points about the relative roles of reason and "that-which-is-beyond-reason". For people brought up in the Western culture with its reliance on reason as an important basis of judgment, I think what works best in matters of transcendent truth is to exercise their reason as far as it takes them; to come to their own interpretation of scripture and myth. Once one has arrived at the limits of reason, one will have (hopefully) accepted so much of the essence along the way, so much will "make sense", that one will have no fear of laying down arms.

Of course the only meaning of the four billion number was "many, many". And it's such an utterly insignificant point -- not even a myth, as you point out, just an embellishment. Why wreck someone's spiritual quest over something as insignificant as this? For crying out loud!

The insistence on accepting everything exactly as it is, with no slightest selectiveness, betrays, to me, a radical dismissal of one's own subjectivity as having any relevance. But without making space for subjectivity, without RELATING to the message of God, how will you ever feel love for Him?

It's like you are asked to convey a message that you don't believe you can understand; so you learn the message by heart because you don't believe you would be able to paraphrase it. Well, we all did it before examinations at school, and we know the result. You don't understand the content, and worse even, you end up hating it.

Ultimately, such a self-negating attitude betrays the conviction that the spiritual potency of the message resides not in its meaning to the listener (in what it may stir up in the mind of the listener) but in its AUTHORSHIP. As soon as anything is subtracted or changed, the message is no longer God's -- and loses its magic power.

There is a passage from the (rather embarrassing) ISKCON book where ACBS discusses various Western philosophers with his disciples. Hayagriva takes up Aquinas' approach to scripture. Aquinas says that firstly, scripture is never false, and secondly, “No one should try to restrict scripture to one meaning to such an extent that other meanings containing some truth and quite possible in relation to the context would be excluded. In fact it belongs to the dignity of Divine scripture to contain many meanings in one text, so that in this way it may be appropriate to the various understandings of men.”

ACBS disagrees with the notion that a scripture can have many meanings "appropriate to the various understandings of men."

Prabhupada: No. If one's mind is perfect, he may give a meaning, but, according to our conviction, if one is perfect, why should he change the word of God? And if one is imperfect, what is the value of his change?

Disciple: Aquinas doesn't say "change."

Prabhupada: Interpretation means change. If man is imperfect, how can he change the words of God? If the words can be changed, they are not perfect. So there will be doubt whether the words are spoken by God or by an imperfect person. [...] As soon as you interpret or change the scripture, the scripture loses its authority.

The passage above is the book version; the conversation forming its basis is in the VedaBase but is rather disjointed. One relevant statement that got lost in the book is reproduced below:

Prabhupada: Meaning is one, but interpreter are different.

Hayagriva: But here he says that the scriptures may contain many meanings according to one’s degree of realization.

Prabhupada: Yes. Not many meaning. Meaning is one, but if one is not realized, then he can make many meanings. Otherwise meaning is one. What can be any other meaning? Suppose God created this universe. This is stated in the Bible, or in the Bhagavad-gita the same thing is expressed in a different way, aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate: “From Me everything emanates.” So that’s a fact, that everything is coming out from God’s energy, so why there should be second meaning and second interpretation unless one is godless? What is the possible second meaning?

Literalists believe meaning is an objective property of the message, that it has nothing to do with the receiver. The scripture means what God meant by it, and ours is to accept it without adjustment, because as long as the original meaning is mechanically preserved, it will purify us whether or not we can relate to it. This is what Adiyen has called the alchemical theory of purification (in paraphrase).

Below, I would like to take the freedom to quote a long letter on the subject I received from a dear friend several years ago. Warning: he is an impersonalist. His diksha name is Shivananda Sarasvati, a disciple of Svami Akhandananda Sarasvati, and he spent many years studying Vedanta in his guru's ashrama in Vrndavana. The gurukula kids at Krsna-Balaram temple used to point fingers at him and shout, "Mayavadi!" when he passed by. Anyway, he loves Bhagavatam more than I do. I owe him a lot for putting me back together as a person with spiritual aspirations, after I left ISKCON and felt just crashed, seeing nothing but matter and meaninglessness all around.

Says Shivananda:

"Your unwillingness to ignore "what is", traditionally speaking, places you closer to traditions that emphasize "jnaana" over "bhaavanaa" (or upaasanaaa). "Jnaana", in all forms, basically illuminates "what is", while "bhaavanaa" and "upaasanaa" always have an element of ideation, of projecting something on top of something else. And this is for a good reason too! Even though upaasanaa does not fully correspond to facts (which nobody really claims) it works all the same! And as I have said before: perhaps in a way unexpected by the practitioner himself! The matters, for example, relating to Murtipuja, and our relationship to the sacred objects is quite gently resolved on this basis (at least within the Smarta or Shankarite fold).

"Let us take a very neutral example: Ganapati in the Betelnut. To perform the Ganapatipuja it will do with a betelnut as the objective support. By scriptural injunction and willing participation or ideation (bhaavanaa) the priest superimposes the presence of Ganapati on the betelnut, and for all practical purposes the Betelnut, in the perception and behavior of the priest, IS Ganapati during the duration of the puja. After the "visarjana" when the deity is asked to return to his more permanent abode, the same betelnut may well end up in the priest's pan! I think you already got the point here... For the upaasanaa to be valid and to yield its result, both in terms of karmaphala and bhakti, it is not dependent on a silly notion that betelnuts are permanently sacred. The truth and beauty of Upaasanaa go much deeper than that! It works within, where it really matters. Correctly handled it yields concentration, devotion, willingness to undergo restraints and self-control... and all the rest of the vital qualities of the spiritual path. Ultimately it will be instrumental in the realisation of the real "Ganapati" as well!

"So, there is no cynical humbug about all this, no disgusting discoveries that we are cheated into worshiping betelnuts... Well, this is from the perspective of those who understand the process from within, the perspective of the simple devotee might be different, and one problem of the matter is that if this is to work for the average devotee, they would have to believe in the objective facts about this... those crutches and illusions you mention. In the hands of a good teacher however, it is not likely to backfire and make you a permanent betelnut-devotee! In a way, the marvelous legends of the puranas are also all-inclusive and sustained Upaasanaas, full of value and spiritual truth, that should be revered as unique means of liberation leading up to the same goal, even though every statement they rely upon indeed would be hard to accept "objectively". True spiritual change is a matter for the heart, never mind the status of stones and betelnuts!

"In all traditions, including the one I was schooled in, you will find a certain tension between a naive and spiritually rather unrewarding interpretation, and a deeper more enlightening interpretation or understanding. The deeper interpretation can do away with all irrelevant factors and give us an actual access to genuine experience. This is what I would call the "Adhyatmika" interpretation, and this alone is what ultimately gives validity to the whole of the religious endeavor! Fortunately, I was in company of teachers who cultivated the deeper realisation, not opposing it! This lets the student grow, from the simple to the sublime, while going deeper and closer to yourself, you maintain respect for the "levels" or "points" transcended and far from discarding them in disgust as "untrue", they maintain meaningfulness as signs, representations and means for the higher realisation. Perhaps this is one of the things lacking in the teachings of ISKCON?

"I want to suggest to you that you could very well in a similar way actually make sense of the spiritual truths of your tradition by translating them into actual facts, bringing them closer to home, exploring what they actually mean... Most traditions would stand such a handling, and as long as you end up in the actual siddhanta of Vaishnavism, which I understand as an inner intuition of an inviolable relationship between the very core and being of man and the Unconditioned, you can't really go wrong, can you? Find out whether such a relationship really demands all the trappings of conceptual religion, all the stifling restrictions and stupefying nonsense that mostly really have their source in human fears...! Whether such a brave enterprise by necessity would lead you away from your present moorings remains to be seen; I suggest that even if ISKCON probably would be to narrow to accommodate you comfortably, Shrimadbhagavatam, understood in its deepest and fullest intentions, and Vaishnavism as well, would probably be spacious enough!"

Dhyana
Kishalaya - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:42:23 +0530
QUOTE

Don't they always.


I mean everybody finds their emphasis where it suits them.

QUOTE

but I don't know what you mean "like the Maadhvas do."


Not all those who claim themselves to be maadhavas are rigorous practitioners. That all.

QUOTE

However, as members of the Gaudiya sampradaya, we do have the duty to at least try to understand what the purva acharyas said and to do it honor, even if we wish to disagree with it. Vishwanath disagreed with Jiva, and Jiva with Sridhar,


If by Sridhar, you mean Sridhar swami, I don't know if he can be included as a Gaudiya vaishnava. Whatever, I can understand that your conscience (and for some others, mainly a sense of obligation) dictates you to remain, more or less, true to your sampradaaya. I think that is appropriate and I appreciate that very much.

What I wish to add is that people outside your sampradaaya may not be so much limited by their conscience so as to find it difficult to disagree completely when it comes to accepting such injunctions for themselves. They don't have any problem you follow whatever you want, however, they will object if your puurvaacaaryas declare certain of your precepts being universal. Like the "don't take diikshaa, turn into an animal". Frankly this comes across as intimidation, to me.

How many within the sampradaaya agree in the first place? Even if they do, certainly it does not show, even outside this board.

Let me tell you why I am able to speak with you. Because the manner in which you present yourself makes certain individuals think that you are the "approchable face" of Gaudiya vaishvavism. Somebody with whom some meaningful dialog can be established. But then, whether you like it or not, you have succeeded in presenting yourself as the thoughtful spokesperson of the Gaudiya sampradaaya. I see the true Gaudiya sampradaaya as being filtered through your writings. You certainly give us hope. However (I will allow myself to be blunt here), I am yet to see a truly broad understanding. May not be possible because of the aspirations of the sampradaaya and also because the domain has been strictly defined by your aachaaryas.

QUOTE

but this does not mean that they do not exist in a certain true relationship of grace.


May be true. But I guess, people like myself can only pay obeisances as a matter of decency. Nothing more. For those who can sense the "grace", it would be a matter of life and death.

QUOTE

Why not 400 trillion bodyguards dancing on the head of a pin?


I would have no problem, if Bhagavatam were to describe it like this. I would not feel an urgent need to reject it. If light can measure the same speed, however fast you move, then maybe maybe MAYBE 400 thousand trillion bodyguards on a pinhead. Who knows? Anor aniyaan, mahato mahiyaan. At least I can conceptualize 400 thousand trillion bodyguards on a pinhead, how do I think of the former?

QUOTE

The billions of bodyguards is a "myth" with no content except "many." (As such is barely counts as myth, it is a story-teller's embellishment.)

On the other hand, the blue boy Krishna is dripping with significance.


What to speak of persons outside, I think even within Gaudiya sampradaaya, "the billions of bodyguards" has significance for many. Advaita Dasa ji being just one example. It certainly signifies Krishna's opulence and compassion. I find these reasons quite persuasive for accepting all of Ugrasena's bodyguards as described. it is quite possible that what you do not find as meaningful could be "dripping with significance" for another.
Kishalaya - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:49:21 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 15 2004, 07:08 PM)
The issue is whether it factually happened. First of all, we do not find narrations (ahem, that would be zabda) of Ugrasena marching around with that many bodyguards anywhere. This alone should be sufficient, in harmonizing the Bhagavata-statement with the broader context, to conclude that it is exaggerated. Moreover, the sheer logistical impossibilities involved give us a good reason to conclude that the third variety of atizayokti-alaGkAra, in other words "stating the impossible", is being employed here. A bit more on atizayokti in general is discussed

You can deliberate on whatever the possibilities are (and harmonize the apparant contradictions if you so feel the need smile.gif ), but as far as Advaita Dasa ji is concerned, he will simply ask for the payrolls. As long as we do not provide him with this, we could at least grant him the courtsey of keeping his viewpoint in consideration.

Of course, you are quite in your right to expect a reciprocal attitude from him.
Kishalaya - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:11:20 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 15 2004, 07:08 PM)
And, for the record, we do not view it as "utter nonsense".

That was just figurative. A symbol conveying the essence, if you wish tongue.gif
Madhava - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:13:04 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 15 2004, 04:12 PM)
They don't have any problem you follow whatever you want, however, they will object if your puurvaacaaryas declare certain of your precepts being universal. Like the "don't take diikshaa, turn into an animal". Frankly this comes across as intimidation, to me.

For the record, this is not written by the Gosvamins, it is quoted.

tatraiva zrI-rukmAGgada-mohinI-saMvAde, viSNu-yAmale ca -
adikSitasya vAmoru kRtaM sarvaM nirarthakam |
pazu-yonim avApnoti dIkSA-virahito janaH || HBV 2.6 ||

It is quoted to make a certain point. Frequently, you see the Gosvamins citing verses which have an emphasis different from their flow of text, but which supports the point they are making, and therefore the quotation is inserted.
Kishalaya - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:23:02 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 15 2004, 08:13 PM)
For the record, this is not written by the Gosvamins, it is quoted.

Thank you for making the point clear, Madhava ji. I would really like to see some "harmonizing" being done here! smile.gif
dirty hari - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:20:54 +0530
Are there really garden parties on the moon ? Are there really flower airplanes ? Are there really flying horses or elephants ? Are there really billions of bodyguards ? etc etc etc ?

We may find in the Puranic world view a systemized manufacturing of a mythic magical reality. Is the philosophy alone what these writings are meant for ? I believe not. They serve a dual purpose. The first is teaching philosophy. The second is in creating a magical world view. The mundane world view informs us that all possibilities must be accounted for by our measuring capability. Reality and the limits of its permutations are categorized by the mundane philosopher as acceptable or not based on the possibilities that science and reason provide to him. The Puranic world view is meant to transport the reader to an alternate reality. As Alice discovers a wonderful and magical terrain through the looking glass, the Puranic myths are the looking glass to an enchanted realm.

Those whose faiths are not encumbered by the overly educated and overly investigative mentality, they are transported into the mythic realm, through the Puranic looking glass . They are the most fortunate souls. They live with elves and Giants and flower airplanes, they romp the light fantastic.
Madhava - Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:21:12 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 15 2004, 04:19 PM)
You can deliberate on whatever the possibilities are (and harmonize the apparant contradictions if you so feel the need smile.gif ), but as far as Advaita Dasa ji is concerned, he will simply ask for the payrolls. As long as we do not provide him with this, we could at least grant him the courtsey of keeping his viewpoint in consideration.

Of course, you are quite in your right to expect a reciprocal attitude from him.

Certainly we grant him the right to hold on to his view, and yes indeed we would be fond of seeing a reciprocal attitude in this regard.

However, in this particular case, I should note that, all logic and whatnot notwithstanding, if we just take the traditional approach of studying the zAstra and understanding statements according to their broader context, the fact still remains that there are no narrations (that I'd know of, anyway) relating Ugrasena moving around and engaged in activities with that many guards. This is an isolated instance. That alone should prompt one to ask for alternative explanations to the verse.

Let us again look at the statement in the context of the scriptures. The figure of Ugrasena's guards is said to be 30.000.000.000.000 (30 trillion). Let us give this figure a context by looking at the battles narrated in the Bhagavata. First of all, the greatest of all battles, that of Kurukshetra.

A formation of 21.870 chariots, 21.870 elephants, 109.650 infantry and 65.600 cavalry is called an akSauhiNI (MBh Adi 2). This makes a total of 218.990 units. According to BhP 3.3.14, eighteen akSauhiNIs fell in the battle of Kurukshetra. That would make a total of 3.941.820 units. BhP 1.16.34 and 10.18.24, however, speak of 100 akSauhiNIs falling, which would make a total of 218.990.000 units, and both verses describe Mother Earth as having been relieved of the burden of such military strength.

In BhP 3.3.14, however, Krishna suspects that the Yadu-dynasty might turn out to be even greater a burden to the Earth. Is this to suggest that the numbers of the Yadu-armies were even greater, and therefore a burden? Let us reflect on the numbers of the Yadu military force. BhP 10.50.4 describes Jarasandha mounting the greatest endeavor against the Yadus, surrounding their capital, Mathura, with 23 akSauhiNIs (5.036.770 units). This force was described as akin to a great ocean surrounding the Yadu-capital. From this, we may deduct that the quantity of Jarasandha's army must have been at least equal to the troops of the Yadus, for otherwise the attack would not have been described as great.

However, Sri Krishna set up his bow and released endless torrents of arrows (quite a stock he must have had) resembling a blazing circle of fire. Together with Baladeva they wiped out the entire army. As Jarasandha preparing to attack for the 18th time, the barbarian Kalayavana with his tens of millions of soldiers (each 10 million is roughly 45 akSauhinIs in quantity) attacked the Yadu-capital. Kalayavana hoped to finally battle against a worthy rival, the Vrishnis, as he had never before found a worthy opponent. Having first delivered Mucukunda and had him slay Kalayavana, Sri Krishna destroyed the entire army of Kalayavana.

Shortly thereafter, Jarasandha attacked the two with his 23 akSauhiNIs, at the sight of which Krishna and Baladeva fled to a burning mountain approximately 140 km high, from which they jumped down and traveled to Dvaraka.

Now, if Ugrasena, the king of the Yadus, had 30.000.000.000.000 guards alone, all certainly the cream of well-trained soldiers, then who can fathom the rest of his military power? His body-guards alone would make up 136.992.500 akSauhiNIs. This number makes the invasions of Jarasandha and Kalayavana seem utterly ridiculous, like a single ant trying to take on a huge elephant. Their armies certainly would not have seemed like an ocean surrounding the Yadu-capital from all directions, given that their forces, were an insignificant percentage (23 and 45 akSauhiNIs, ca. 0,0017% and 0,0033% respectively) of the minimum possible Yadu military force, namely Ugrasena's guards. Moreover, the battle of Kurukshetra, often eulogized as the grandest battle of all times, would insignificant in comparison to the military strength of the Yadus.

I believe the reasoning herein, based on shastric evidence, should prompt us to reconsider our stance on the literality of the figure of Ugrasena's guards.

I rest my case.
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:09:15 +0530
Thank you for your extensively researched reply. I have just a few things to reply to.

QUOTE

That alone should prompt one to ask for alternative explanations to the verse.


Should I buy Madhvaacaarya's position regarding the gopis and who are (is) the greatest bhakta because he has shaastric evidence for his conclusins and prefers to reject some part depending on his convenience (and his logic of course) to find harmony in the "broader context". Why not just accept that "God's falling in love" is a concept straight out of greek mythology?

You have your reasons, others have theirs.

QUOTE

First of all, the greatest of all battles, that of Kurukshetra.

From this, we may deduct that the quantity of Jarasandha's army must have been at least equal to the troops of the Yadus


Why has the Mahabharata's being the greatest of all battles have any bearing on the number Ugrasena's bodyguards? Did the bodyguards take part in any battle? I guess you understand that there was some code of conduct in what was appropriate to be included in battle and what was not. I have never heard the "presidential bodyguards" fighting wars?

Finally I mean, does Krishna need to fight so many wars and do an escape job to save His people? Perhaps you are reading too much history into your own myth. For me, the reason is simple, He did not want people to die.
Madhava - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:15:45 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya)
Why has the Mahabharata's being the greatest of all battles have any bearing on the number Ugrasena's bodyguards? Did the bodyguards take part in any battle? I guess you understand that there was some code of conduct in what was appropriate to be included in battle and what was not. I have never heard the "presidential bodyguards" fighting wars?

The battle of Mahabharata is cited to give an understanding of the quantities of men included in warfare. Since Kurukshetra was the biggest of all battles, it would naturally follow that the biggest armies had assembled. Generally, the quantity of the king's guards is smaller than the total army. Also, the "Vedic" kings do fight their battles on the field as far as I know, so one would expect the guards to be somewhere around, too.
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:33:41 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 16 2004, 01:15 AM)
The battle of Mahabharata is cited to give an understanding of the quantities of men included in warfare. Since Kurukshetra was the biggest of all battles, it would naturally follow that the biggest armies had assembled. Generally, the quantity of the king's guards is smaller than the total army. Also, the "Vedic" kings do fight their battles on the field as far as I know, so one would expect the guards to be somewhere around, too.

How far are the generalizations valid? Why not Krishna making some nice arrangement for Ugrasena as a matter of obliging Him? and if people can fight wars "on the field", why should his bodyguards be with him?

BTW, I really don't know if Ugrasena fought in Mahabharata?
Madhava - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:37:41 +0530
I'm not saying Ugrasena participated at Kurukshetra. I couldn't find that mentioned anywhere. I'm giving Kurukshetra as an example of a real big war and giving an idea of the number of warriors there, to put things in proportion.

The attacks on Mathura are more directly related with Ugrasena, since he was the king of the Yadus. Even there you see that 23 akSauhiNIs was considered a really big army. It is, however, doubtful that it would have seemed big at all if it was but a tiny fraction (ca. 0,0017%) of just the king's guards.
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:01:49 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 16 2004, 01:37 AM)
I'm not saying Ugrasena participated at Kurukshetra. I couldn't find that mentioned anywhere. I'm giving Kurukshetra as an example of a real big war and giving an idea of the number of warriors there, to put things in proportion.

The attacks on Mathura are more directly related with Ugrasena, since he was the king of the Yadus. Even there you see that 23 akSauhiNIs was considered a really big army. It is, however, doubtful that it would have seemed big at all if it was but a tiny fraction (ca. 0,0017%) of just the king's guards.

Madhava ji, what I am trying to say is that you can doubt because you have your reasons and some pattern of reasoning. Perhaps Advaita dasa ji and myself find accepting the number, as it is, much more comfortable. I do not see what was the number of men in Ugrasena's army or if it really needed to be bigger that the number of guards in this case. If Krishna can provide in Dvaraka each queen with a palace four square miles in area (I think I read something like that) and live with each of them simultaneously and do a lot of improbables like wiping out armies singlehandedly etc., then I guess I would rather have some faith in the number as well, and hope that he really did take care of the "logistics and movement". This is my line of reasoning.
Madhava - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:28:35 +0530
1. We all accept that there is such things as alaGkAras, literary embellishments which are not intended as the literal truth.

2. There is an instance involving grand numbers, an instance which does not appear harmonious with the rest of the scriptural narrations.

It is only reasonable to interpret the disharmonious passage in such occasions.

In one place, Ugrasena is said to have had 30.000.000.000.000 bodyguards. This verse appears in a series of verses that are an eulogy of the greatness of the Yadu-dynasty, a rather typical context in which one might exaggerate. On the other hand, there are no narrations where Ugrasena would be described as moving around with that many guards.

Is it not reasonable for a student of the scriptures to then understand the grand possibility of the presence of a literal embellishment instead of a literal fact?

If not, then how do you explain the absence of narrations describing Ugrasena going around with literally that many men?
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:32:40 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 16 2004, 02:28 AM)
If not, then how do you explain the absence of narrations describing Ugrasena going around with literally that many men?

Who is a student of scripture here? Do you mean me, then I would have been in the Madhva camp. BTW, isn't Bhagavatam on earth supposed to be an abridged version? I think I am repeating it for the fourth time, you have your reasons - "grand possibility of the presence of a literal embellishment instead of a literal fact", and I have mine - my primary reason is that such improbable things can and do happen with Krishna. And there is a mention of the number. That is sufficient for me.
Keshava - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:38:54 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 15 2004, 01:33 AM)

As to the rest of your argument, I agree with much of it, but I don't know what you mean "like the Maadhvas do."


Kishalaya is in Bangalore which is the heart of Madhva country, I understand what he is saying. He means that there are many Madhvas who are also scriptural literalists.

QUOTE
However, as members of the Gaudiya sampradaya, we do have the duty to at least try to understand what the purva acharyas said and to do it honor, even if we wish to disagree with it. Vishwanath disagreed with Jiva, and Jiva with Sridhar, but this does not mean that they do not exist in a certain true relationship of grace.


I am not worried by a person who says that I disagree with such and such philosophy because of this, that and the other. But what really scares me is the person who says "I completely agree with such and such philosophy (blindly), even though I don't understand it and I don't know why, but I just do."

QUOTE
God may reveal himself to you in a typewriter, or a toilet bowl. As an individual religious experience it may be explosive. As a foundation for community, it will be limited.


Very good point. Thats why we find that the most universal religions and religious experiences have to do with things that are universal like the erotic love experience or the common sensual experiences of see, feeling, touching, tasting, smelling, etc beautiful things.

In a Gaudiya context this might mean that one might need to make the kirtan musucally sweet so as to considered more palatable for western (or even eastern) ears. Whereas one may make a point that screaming of Harinama at the top of one's lungs with no idea of musical structure, style or harmony may be philosophically acceptable, but practically most people will not be attracted to this type of chanting despite it being philosophically pure.

QUOTE
Ultimately, it is not the historical truth of Krishna that matters at all.


Perception is reality. Historical truth is truth through the eyes of the historian. It is very subjective. Philosophy is supposed to be about absolute truth. The absolute truth is not subjective. Although it may appear differently to different persons it is one. People tend to mirror their own conditioning and experience in their conceptions of the absolute and since they are also part of the absolute this is acceptable but in fact the absolute is far more than just that. As Jagat says Achintya. (I certainly accept the use of this word in this context.)

QUOTE
I think I recently posted something about the difficulties created by the search for the "historical Jesus." A Protestant theologian (Thomas Harpur) was arguing that Christians should just abandon the idea that Jesus was anything but a myth and deal with it face value as a myth--a vehicle for eternal truths ("what never was but always is"). In the same way, Krishna may or may not have been a historical figure. That is not really the important thing. Historical or not, he exists in our minds as a myth. And, in a conjuring trick of theological legerdemain, He can be and IS that.


If there was a historical Jesus he was probably a terrorist. He preached overthrow of the Roman goverment and was killed for it. (See Marvin Harris' Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches and also Cannibals and Kings) But with the overthrow rhetoric toned down in the Bible and the emphasis on achieving the kingdom of God in heaven and not the kingdom of God here on Earth here and now, the religion became more acceptable. SO much so that it eventually becomes the official religion of the very Romans the historical Jesus (if there was one, more likely he is an amalgamation of many upstart Jewish terrorists) wanted to overthrow. Then down through history many reform movements have made Christianity even more universal and acceptable. The protestant reformation, and today even the rise of "prosperity" evangelism. All these myriad of lifestyles and dogmas emanating from the same Jesus myth.

Thanks for using the word "legerdemain", I had to look it up.

QUOTE
I have long been saying that Prabhupada also is a myth. What does "transcending humanity" mean anyway? It means "becoming mythology." Prabhupada incarnates an archetype, one that inspires his disciples and granddisciples. For the IRM, this myth is more powerful and inspiring than that of Saraswati Thakur, Bhaktivinoda or Mahaprabhu, who nevertheless all fall into the metanarrative of the parampara myth, which tells a story of divine grace. A sampradaya is a group of people who share a parampara myth.


Not only is Prabhupada (meaning ACBVS) a myth but certain of his followers have endeavored to include themselves in that myth. By writing the lilamrta Satsvarupa was in the unique position of being able to write the official haigiography of Srila Prabhupada. He could edit in or out who and what he liked (or at least he had a lot of influence on the substance of the book being the author) (This is again why I suggest the people interested in a real lifestory of a Vasinava read Bhaktivinodes AUTO-biography rather that a haigiographic version). Thus I would be very surprised if somewhere down the line Satsvarupa is not declared an incarnation of Veda Vyasa Himself, just as Vrndavan das Thakur was for his work Caitanya Bhagavata. Tamal Krsna was eager to get on this bandwagon by re-writing the dissapearance lila of SP and writing himself and Bhakti Caru in as "the greatest secretary of SP" and "the greatest (personal) servant of SP". (If you read the book he does not have these characters self proclaim these things but they do proclaim them of each other. Thus within a few years no one knows what is history or myth. The lesson: Publish or Perish!

QUOTE
Sampradayas fall apart on questions of myth interpretation, one of which is the myth of historical truth. The billions of bodyguards is a "myth" with no content except "many." (As such is barely counts as myth, it is a story-teller's embellishment.)


Yes, actually westerners are not used to the type of poetic over-use of superlatives that occurs in Indian languages especially Sanskrit. Indians think nothing of declaring something the greatest and in the same breath declaring something else even greater. ie the greatest mantra, river, mountain, holy place, temple, God, Goddess, form, vrata, sin, etc, etc, etc.

QUOTE
On the other hand, the blue boy Krishna is dripping with significance. rasenotkRSyate kRSNo rUpa eSa rasa-sthitiH. And, I might add, so is Gaura: as I have stated before, Gaura (combined Radha-Krishna and all variants on that theme) is internally more meaningful than the other knock-offs (combined Rama and Krishna, combined Gaura and Nitai, combined Gaura and Jesus, like Keshub Sen).


Jagat, Could you elaborate on how you see this dynamic of the erotic relationship as more significant.


QUOTE
Ultimately, we stretch the limits of reason with theology, but as long as it strives to be coherent and universal, it is meaningful.


Agreed.

QUOTE
But rationality in religion must recognize that in this realm at least, myth is greater than reason, or for that matter, history. There is no history that is not in some way shaped by mythopoetic thinking.


Very well said.
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:58:09 +0530
Frankly last night I did not find much time to think over the replies. However some issues have been really occupying my mind.

1. I do think such isolated cases with narrow literalistic interpretation have significance for those who have some importance attached to such an interpretation. The Gaudiya case should be sufficient illustration where a whole theology hinges on a verse "krishnas tu bhagavaan svayam". Others probably would reject such a Gaudiya slant citing it to be an isolated case, where Vishnu puraana is supposed to say something like Krishna was manifested from a black hair of Vishnu. Infact, Madhva anticipates such an interpretation and in his Gitaa Bhaashya uses some syntactic arguments to vindicate his position. I have no doubt Jiiva Gosvaami would have used the finer nuances of sanskrit grammar to support his position as well. For people like ourselves, a simple reading is enough to see what the verse is supposed to mean and our underlying motivations (relative importance to Krishna) decide whether to accept such a meaning or reject it. We all find our reasons to support our interpretations. The ones learned in sanskrit just sound a bit more sophisticated.

2. Please don't take it otherwise, but I really need to know the intent behind doggedly pursuing the "trillions of bodyguards" issue and prove it false. I would say that such an effort to dig out the exact numbers in an army from Mahaabhaarata would certainly require some sort of a truly inspiring reason. I have mine which I stated, it helps me to build up an image of Krishna. Not that I just go on and pick up everything that any Tom, Dick and Harry has to say about Krishna. But that the stated incident is from Bhagavatam which is revered as a holy scripture by millions. If not in deference to their faith and devotion, then at least, in consideration of the saadhus whose character and integrity, if not their rational and philosophical capacity, which I cannot deny.

What is it that is being driven at here? Is it just a viewpoint? Which could have been stated in one sentence that one finds such a thing improbable on some shastric/literary interpretative grounds and common sense.

3. Probably people find such narrations as blatantly insulting to their intellect. But is the issue more important than the kinds of quotation, such as that from Vishnu yaamala, which others find as an insult to human dignity itself. Why is the effort not concentrated there?

4. Which brings me to the last point. I am really confused what is the official position of the Gaudiyas on the "trillions of bodyguards issue". Going by the way Madhava ji argues, I would assume all the Gaudiya (and other) commentators must have explained the occurance away, but why is Advaita Dasa ji so very insistent on the literal interpretation?
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:24:05 +0530
QUOTE
He means that there are many Madhvas who are also scriptural literalists.

On the side note, this is not to be used as an argument for blanket condemnation.
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:49:54 +0530
QUOTE

The absolute truth is not subjective. Although it may appear differently to different persons it is one. People tend to mirror their own conditioning and experience in their conceptions of the absolute and since they are also part of the absolute this is acceptable but in fact the absolute is far more than just that. As Jagat says Achintya. (I certainly accept the use of this word in this context.)


The absolute truth may not be "subjective" in a manner in which the word is used in idealism, but definitely the absolute truth could present itself in reciprocation to the way it is approached which would again make it "subjective". "ye yathaa maam prapadyante", "tam yathaa yathopaasate tadaiva bhavati", "yad yad dhiiyaa .. tad tad vapuh".

avataaraa hy asankhyeyaa hareh (I prefer the literal meaning)
Talasiga - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:21:32 +0530
QUOTE (from the first post which is quoting some article)

..........................[referring to this forum]
this flock of intellectual Gaudiyas ..........


biggrin.gif

Please Ji!
Do not lose your block with me
I am the BLACK sheep in this flock .....

laugh.gif
Talasiga - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:30:35 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 15 2004, 11:08 PM)
I am not worried by a person who says that I disagree with such and such philosophy because of this, that and the other. But what really scares me is the person who says "I completely agree with such and such philosophy (blindly), even though I don't understand it and I don't know why, but I just do."

I don't know why I see irony in this paragraph of yours.
I just do. Scary huh?
laugh.gif
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:34:45 +0530
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Aug 16 2004, 03:30 PM)
I don't know why I see irony in this paragraph of yours.
I just do. Scary huh?
laugh.gif

Could you be a bit more clear
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:56:41 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 16 2004, 04:38 AM)
Kishalaya is in Bangalore which is the heart of Madhva country, I understand what he is saying. He means that there are many Madhvas who are also scriptural literalists.

Prompted by Talasiga ji, I had a relook at your post. If those were not meant for me, I apologize.

I think everybody knows that the Maadhvas are the interpretors of the millenium. Gaudiyas are more literalistic.

QUOTE

I am not worried by a person who says that I disagree with such and such philosophy because of this, that and the other. But what really scares me is the person who says "I completely agree with such and such philosophy (blindly), even though I don't understand it and I don't know why, but I just do."


One verse does not make a philosophy. Some just use that to build up their faith in Krishna. If the use of the word "achintya" is warranted in one context, then perhaps one could extend the courtesy to another to apply the same in another place, especially where the opposing party is just trying to point out "grand possibilities". If that is scary, fine. But perhaps the symbolists are now trying to throw the literalists into the guillotine.
Madhava - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:16:45 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 16 2004, 08:28 AM)
2. Please don't take it otherwise, but I really need to know the intent behind doggedly pursuing the "trillions of bodyguards" issue and prove it false. I would say that such an effort to dig out the exact numbers in an army from Mahaabhaarata would certainly require some sort of a truly inspiring reason. I have mine which I stated, it helps me to build up an image of Krishna. Not that I just go on and pick up everything that any Tom, Dick and Harry has to say about Krishna. But that the stated incident is from Bhagavatam which is revered as a holy scripture by millions. If not in deference to their faith and devotion, then at least, in consideration of the saadhus whose character and integrity, if not their rational and philosophical capacity, which I cannot deny.

The reason it is being "doggedly pursued" is that someone has decided to make it a point that anyone who dares to interpret instead of accepting the literal meaning is a heretic. I am offering valid grounds for interpretation.

The issue itself is not of such great importance. The fact that some are making its interpretation a landmark of heresy is.


QUOTE
4. Which brings me to the last point. I am really confused what is the official position of the Gaudiyas on the "trillions of bodyguards issue". Going by the way Madhava ji argues, I would assume all the Gaudiya (and other) commentators must have explained the occurance away, but why is Advaita Dasa ji so very insistent on the literal interpretation?

As you know, there are rarely "official interpretations". As Jagadananda ji has pointed out earlier, the commentators mainly concern themselves with explaining the figures. While some may take this as a confirmation of the literal meaning, I see this as a way of relishing the heights of the hyperbole.

Say, for example, if I said: "Now, does this sound familiar? I've heard it undecillion times!" If this were recorded, generations later commentators might explain that in particular, undecillion refers to 10^66, as the author is European and more likely to follow the British conventions, as the American undecillion would be 10^36, the equivalent of a British sexillion. This certainly would not mean that their intention was to confirm that truly that many times I had heard it before; rather, their intention would be to enjoy the magnanimity of my familiarity with the matter through studying the heights of the hyperbole.
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:51:00 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 16 2004, 05:16 PM)

The issue itself is not of such great importance. The fact that some are making its interpretation a landmark of heresy is.


If you had mentioned this earlier, perhaps some forum space could have been saved. As you already know, I may agree with the literalistic approach, however, I certainly do not share this view of regarding, as heretics, those who prefer to interpret in an attempt towards "harmony".

QUOTE

As you know, there are rarely "official interpretations". As Jagadananda ji has pointed out earlier, the commentators mainly concern themselves with explaining the figures. While some may take this as a confirmation of the literal meaning, I see this as a way of relishing the heights of the hyperbole.


I truthfully declare that I do not know any commentator's opinion. BTW, who said what?

QUOTE

Say, for example, if I said: "Now, does this sound familiar? I've heard it undecillion times!" If this were
[snip]
This certainly would not mean that their intention was to confirm that truly that many times I had heard it before;


I really find it hard to agree with you on this. This seems not to be a vague statement about a count (vague like undecillion). I mean why not just say "shata shata sahasra koti" etc. Why 30 trillion. What is the 3 for. I would rather say the verse gives a round figure of the number of guards. But the thing important to me that there could be so many guards depicting some sort of Krishna's potency. Again I say, you have your reasoning, I have mine. Can it end at that?
Madhava - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:44:06 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 16 2004, 02:21 PM)
I really find it hard to agree with you on this. This seems not to be a vague statement about a count (vague like undecillion). I mean why not just say "shata shata sahasra koti" etc. Why 30 trillion. What is the 3 for. I would rather say the verse gives a round figure of the number of guards. But the thing important to me that there could be so many guards depicting some sort of Krishna's potency. Again I say, you have your reasoning, I have mine. Can it end at that?

As a matter of fact, a preceding verse says:

yadu-vaMza-prasUtAnAM puMsAM vikhyAta-karmaNAm |
saGkhyA na zakyate kartum api varSAyutair nRpa || 10.90.40 ||

"O king, even in tens of thousands of years, one couldn't count the great men who were born in the dynasty of the Yadus, and whose deeds are celebrated."

The verse under review itself reads as follows:

saGkhyAnaM yAdavAnAM kaH kariSyati mahAtmanAm |
yatrAyutAnAm ayuta-lakSeNAste sa AhukaH || 10.90.42 ||

"Who can count the Yadavas, those great souls? The king had tens of thousands, ten thousand, hundred thousand, in his company."

The plural tens of thousands, the ten thousand and the hundred thousand are taken as multipliers of each other, and thus trillions are reached.

The figure of 30 trillion comes from Visvanatha, who argues that according to Mimamsha, three is the default number when no specific number is given, and therefore the number must have been 30 trillion instead of just tens of trillions.

On its own, the verse is pretty much a zata-zata-sahasra-koTi, as you put it.

The verse preceding that gives, however, a bit more speficic number on its own.

tisraH koTyaH sahasrANAm aSTAzIti-zatAni ca |
Asan yadu-kulAcAryAH kumArANAm iti zrutam || 10.90.41 ||

"Three ten millions and eighty-eight thousand hundreds, that many, I have heard, were the teachers of the children of the Yadu-dynasty."

That being said, I would like to point out the recurring theme in verses 40 and 42, namely the fact that it was very hard to count the members of the Yadu-dynasty -- even if one had ten thousand years of time to count! How, then, did someone just count them all and give us specific numbers? If specific numbers were given, what would be the point of twice mentioning how it was impossible to count them all?
Perumal - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:07:27 +0530
In the Vedanta Sutra, Vyasa says "sastra yonitvat", meaning that shastra or scripture is the foundation of knowledge of God. It is also said that the Veda is unborn and that the Veda is manifest in this world in different epochs if some rishi or seer of the Veda envisioned that sabda brahma, that divine knowledge, and reveals it to humankind.

However, unlike religions such as Islam and Christianity which state that a mere human cannot "see the face of God and live" (Exodus 33:18-33), Vaishnavism says that a soul, any soul, can know God directly, personally.

So Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur sees and says this:

QUOTE

The souls of the great thinkers of the by-gone ages, who now live spiritually, often  approach our inquiring spirit and assist it in its development. Thus Vyåsa was assisted by Nårada and Brahmå. Our shastras, or in other words, books of thought do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father. No book is without its errors. God’s revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th skandha of the Bhågavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be. Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyåsa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Purånas and composed in the Mahåbharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from inside "No, Vyåsa! you can’t rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of by-gone days! You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the Fountain-head of truth where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind." Vyåsa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so. Liberty then is the principle, which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the 23rd text 21st Chapter 11th skandha of the Bhågavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the shastras and not the words. The Bhågavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love.


Scripture, then, is given to us by Krishna to help us reach the stage where we directly realize the reality of Krishna.

There are stories in the Bhagavatam such as the story of King Puranjana in the Fourth Canto which I think everyone will agree are allegories. But the very issue of whether various stories in the scriptures are allegories or "statements of facts" is something we need to consider very deeply. My own Guru Maharaj sees things somewhat like what we see in Carl Jung's writings, that is, that myths are not simple fables but rather archetypal ideas. Indeed, our whole existence is embedded in myth. Even George Bush is living in a myth - he is the cowboy lawmaker and the hanging judge from Texas. In Srila Sridhar Maharaj's view, the realm of consciousness is closer to us than we realize, but unfortunately we are always thinking we are in the material world when we are actually living in a materialistic dream state.

The Bhagavat, then, is a myth we can enter into and travel through. It is a myth that can give us keys to unlock the secrets of our own soul. The Bhagavat shows us how to realize the Soul of the Universe. Literalism is a type of rationalism. But we need to go beyond rationalism and enter the domain of love. The Bhagavat can take us there.

Yet this will only happen if we are prepared to step outside our present existence and enter into transcendental existence.
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:21:24 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 16 2004, 06:44 PM)
That being said, I would like to point out the recurring theme in verses 40 and 42, namely the fact that it was very hard to count the members of the Yadu-dynasty -- even if one had ten thousand years of time to count! How, then, did someone just count them all and give us specific numbers? If specific numbers were given, what would be the point of twice mentioning how it was impossible to count them all?

Vyaasa had revelation. All I want to add I would presonally favour Vishvanaath. He must have had *some* reason behind it. That's OK. Especially when I can relate to it in the context of Krishna's opulence.

The quote about not being able to count is itself an indicator of how large the quantity could be. Granted that smaller quantities could also not be counted in a lifetime, but I would like to stick to the original magnitude.
Jagat - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:25:04 +0530
Your explanation, Muralidhar, is very close to what I have been saying for several years now, though I must say I never heard it from anyone in the Gaudiya Math before today.
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:41:36 +0530
QUOTE (Perumal @ Aug 16 2004, 07:07 PM)
But the very issue of whether various stories in the scriptures are allegories or "statements of facts" is something we need to consider very deeply.

Muralidhar ji, such a discussion is useless and has no end unless we have some solid historical facts. At least to me.
Madhava - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:51:10 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 16 2004, 03:51 PM)
All I want to add I would presonally favour Vishvanaath. He must have had *some* reason behind it.

I did not suggest not favouring Visvanath. I have already explained the way I read his, and others', nitty-gritty explanation of the numbers. I favour it too, but I understand it in a different way.
Kishalaya - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:07:02 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 16 2004, 07:51 PM)
I did not suggest not favouring Visvanath. I have already explained the way I read his, and others', nitty-gritty explanation of the numbers. I favour it too, but I understand it in a different way.

Needless to say, here too, I understand him literally (as you have presented him, so kindly don't try to trap me with word jugglery. You know exactly what I mean). If I were to understand him differently, I would reject his interpretation altogether, which as you may be aware, I have already demonstrated on this board. This is, again, for the umpteenth time, my personal attitude and I am not against you taking a different approach. Ok?
Satyabhama - Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:15:48 +0530
You know, it's just like Krishna to make a question like this sit in your brain. How many guards were there? You are told "More than you can count..." and then they count them for you. Ok, so now we know the number of guards. Does it really matter? Is that number really conceivable to our small minds? If they say "more than you can count" you will think ah! Bhagavatam is exaggerating. And then you will imagine an amount in your mind, which is small enough for your mind to handle; not a specific number, but you will have a mental image. If a specific number is mentioned then you will realize, ah yes, that is more guards than I can truly comprehend...

How many guards are there? More than you can comprehend. Are you exaggerating? No, there were exacty 30 trillion, which is more than you yourself can count, and more than you can comprehend...

Anyway, wow, how exciting this topic is! tongue.gif hehehe
Perumal - Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:21:17 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 16 2004, 01:55 PM)
Your explanation, Muralidhar, is very close to what I have been saying for several years now, though I must say I never heard it from anyone in the Gaudiya Math before today.

This way of reading things was very clearly given to us by Srila Guru Maharaj. The quote of Bhaktivinode Thakur is printed as the Introduction to "Search For Sri Krishna, Reality The Beautiful". The idea that this is not a material world but a materialistic dream is explained in "Subjective Evolution of Consciousness". The quotes I gave earlier, where Srila Saraswati Thakur speaks about the avatars, is in a book personally edited and published by Bhakti Vilas Tirtha Maharaj from Chaitanya Math.
Madhava - Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:09:03 +0530
The discussion on Madhva and Eternal Hell has been split into a separate topic. Some of our recent encounters suggest that there should probably also be a topic called "Madhava and Eternal Hell".