Treating scripture as evidence - The fundamental dynamics of evincing

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

Slaves of the Truth

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

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

When we are conscious of the real substance of Krsna consciousness, the real wealth we are receiving from our spiritual master, then our spiritual life cannot be sahajiyaism, imitationism. We must be aware enough to detect our guru's advice when we find it in another. One who is awake will see, "Here is my guru's advice, I find it here in this man. Somehow or other, it has come here. How, I do not know, but I see my guru's characteristics, his dealings, and behavior in this person." When we are able to recognize a thing for its intrinsic value, then, wherever we find it, we cannot neglect it.

And silence prevails. Alas, so much groaning over not accepting zAstra as evidence, and now that there is a topic dedicated to examining how exactly we ought to present zAstra so as to allow it to fulfill its intent, there are hardly any comments at all.

Sri Jiva also explains the four defects thus,

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

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

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

Sure it lives. But not as a gun pointed at people's heads.

In Iskcon the idea was promoted that we were "philosophers" and not "sentimentalists." So we convinced ourselves that our collection of dogmas was a "philosophy."

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

When logic, experience and tradition are added (all are well within the parameters of bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, and karanapatava, AFAIK), then is that in itself still reasonable evidence to back it up? Who or what will be the arbiter to that?

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

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

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

On the acintyaH khalu ye bhAvA verse, let's have the whole thing and not just the first line:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not the first time that your fundamental position has been compared to that in Iskcon. Therefore you are lumped in. Your only difference with Iskcon is that you think you follow the shastra better than they do. The attitude to shastra as explained by Srila Prabhupada is exactly the same.

The attitude to shastra as explained by Srila Prabhupada is exactly the same. I find it strange that you are incapable of admitting that.

The attitude to shastra as explained by Srila Prabhupada is exactly the same. I find it strange that you are incapable of admitting that.

1. Where do you draw the line with what you will graciously accept as real or exaggarated?

If the shoe fits, wear it. This is not the first time that your fundamental position has been compared to that in Iskcon. Therefore you are lumped in. Your only difference with Iskcon is that you think you follow the shastra better than they do. The attitude to shastra as explained by Srila Prabhupada is exactly the same. I find it strange that you are incapable of admitting that.

1. Where do you draw the line with what you will graciously accept as real or exaggerated? b. Or would you consider all of Krishna's lila an exaggaration, or even worse, c. fiction?

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

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

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

Advaita is arguing that shastra represents a pure idealism, of Berkley proportions... By definition his 'Shastra' is beyond it all, even if the written texts are not.

Just a further point. ACBSP was quite happy to borrow a lot of christian teachings and adopt them into his, to fill the gaps where the Gaudiya teachings were perhaps deficient from his perspective. Eg 'personal versus impersonal', something I have not read from any other Gaudiya, or indeed from any Hindu before him.

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

If anything that only confirms my point: prakritibhyah param yacca tad acintyasya laksanam - What is beyond prakriti, or material nature, is defined as inconceivable. Certainly Ugrasena's trillions of bodyguards are not a manifestation of material nature, as all of Krishna's lilas are a manifestation of Yogamaya, who is also known as aghatan ghatan patiyasi - She who makes the impossible possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Braja, for me this is existential. You too perhaps, so we may be at loggerheads over this for ever.

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

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

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

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

Dauji is fooling himself if he believes that people became devotees because they were convinced by logic. They were convinced by many other things, but certainly not logic. (They would not have joined if the logic had been served to them by mail, on a distant-learning basis.) Most joined because of the exotic beauty, the kind of life-style, the prasad... exactly what d.h.'s quote of B. R. Sridhar says about Sri Gauranga: truth as divine ecstasy.  No thank you to dry learning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to have clear answers, a plain yes or no will suffice, to each of the questions above, please.

If Rupa and our gurus are not human beings, then all is meaningless. If Rupa and our gurus are nothing but human beings, then all is meaningless.

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

Please don't escalate and misinterpret our words.

I am neither escalating nor misinterpreting.

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

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

I would like to suggest that discsussions can take place without having to call someone who has a differing opinion an apostate or calling on others to express their outrage at what appears to you, Adwaita, to be outrageous.

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

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

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

What do you mean with judgemental statements? Statements of personal opinion? What is wrong with expression one's judgements? Or if you mean anything else, could you quote examples?

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

I heard that the Srimad Bhagavatam is the spotless purana.  Not here.

That was Advaita's own guru, wasn't it? Marvellous contradictions. Looking for your own individual way does not mean that we are not guided in basic principles by guru and sastra.

Let me say this: It is more important that I love Rupa Goswami than that I think of him as a god.

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

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

So your suggestion appears to fail.

Now, this is what I like to see from you, Advaita! Now tell me why I cannot agree with everything above, and still scoff at 10 quadrillion or 300 billion bodyguards for Ugrasena as historical truth?

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

Exactly. This is called faith and/or revelation, as opposed to big big intellect. Has Mahaprabhu mercifully revealed to you from within the heart that the Acaryas' tikas are unfortunate, that dope can be favorable and that Rupa Gosvami is an ordinary guy?

For the umpteenth time, please do not twist our statements. Jagat has never said that Rupa Gosvami is an ordinary guy, and has indeed already on several occasions clarified his stand on the issue when you blamed him of the same.

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

Now, this is what I like to see from you, Advaita!

why I cannot agree with everything above,

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

The guru is God. There is no ambiguity. Now you are introducing ambiguity? You are capable of nuance?

I repeat: If the guru is not human, then everything we do is a waste of time. If the guru is merely human, then everything we do is a waste of time.

I am not very knowledgeable and such statement confuse me.

If they are not human, we share nothing with them. Madhava was right, two hands, two legs, breathing, eating, sleeping, shitting, pissing, vomiting, this is all human. That which is common to us is "human."

Guru is God. Rupa is Guru. I don't see any difference in tattva. Call it nitya-siddha or whatever you like. The shakti and shaktiman are one. We are all God, aren't we?

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

shitting, pissing,

You are not very knowledgeable, yet you come in preaching to everybody. Isn't that a contradiction there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madhava!  I have constantly express my gratitude every time I received your help I admire your compassion, dedication, sincerity of your service and scriptural knowledge. However, I cannot accept that some verses of the Bhagavatam are just mere prose and that Rupa Goswami is a special human being.

There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds.

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

I think saying any 4-letter word is therefore wrong. Instead of 'shit' anyone can say 'pass a big one' 'excrement' or 'stool'.  I plead guilty, but I also plead that others clean up their act, especially the senior devotees.

Dear Adwaita:

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

he did not swerve from the Hindu-schools of thought or practise

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

Jagat - My final word is this: A 15th century mentality cannot function in the 21st century. Times have changed, and we must recognize that a superficial acceptance of all things ancient is impossible.

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

Let me just say that I agree with Advaita that realization is more important than book learning. However, sastra has a significant place, because sravanam is the sine qua non for entering into raganuga bhakti. Everywhere it is hearing, hearing, hearing.

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

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

I am so far away from this kind of thinking that I almost despair of going back all this territory that has already been covered. I can only suspend disbelief so far, I am sorry.

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

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

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

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


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

Madhavendra Puri's body is like that of Krishna. He was sweating in the battle of Kuruksetra and bleeding when the hunter Jara shot Him. This is nara lila indeed....

I've decided not to continue on this thread. My final word is this: A 15th century mentality cannot function in the 21st century. Times have changed, and we must recognize that a superficial acceptance of all things ancient is impossible.

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

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

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

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

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

It is assumed that you support a 15th century perspective, while we live in 21st century.

If I compare the 'Yesterday' of this forum with 'today'; I have to come to the final decision that today, there is an absence of inward transcendental joy in the moderators.

My reference to the Amish seems to have brought this thread totally off-track. Advaitaji, can you undo it in your mind? I never even thought such outlandish things of you...

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

Adwaita wrote a few weeks before: one should consult one's guru. I think this is nice, even though I would add that one should also consult one's common sense and one's heart before accepting or rejecting anything.

So is this acceptable for both parties?

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

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

Oh, I almost forgot about this.

Jambudvipa is described as one of the seven dvipas of Bhu-mandala, the great plateau of the mid-planetary-system shaped like the whorl of a lotus. (BhP 5.16.2) Jambudvipa is divided into nine varshas (divisions of earth), one of which is Bharata-varsha, or the great India as we have come to call it. (BhP 5.16.6) Therefore, Jambudvipa must be synonymous to earth, unless we are to conclude that the events of the Bhagavata occured on some other planet or in another dimension. There are some questions that arise from this:

• Is the width/diameter of Earth one million yojanas (ca. 13.000.000 km)? (BhP 5.16.5)
  
  
  
• The way the varshas are described, with Ilavrita being in the center of Jambudvipa shaped akin to a lotus leaf (BhP 5.16.5), it appears that the earth is thought of as a flat platform, since in a globe there could be no center. Is the Earth flat?
  
  
  
• Is there a mountain as tall as the width of the Earth and 26.000 km wide at its base in Ilavrita-varsha somewhere on Earth? (BhP 5.16.7)
  
  
  
• All varshas are separated from each others with great mountains, such as the Himalayas. The mountain chains Nila, Sveta and Sringavan separate some of the varshas, and they are described as being 26.000 km in length. Do we found such mountain chains on earth? (BhP 5.16.8)
  
  
  
• Are the Himalayas 130.000 km high? (BhP 5.16.9)
  
  
  
• Does the Sun move around counterclockwise at the speed of 54.000.000 km/h? (BhP 5.21.8-9, 12)
  
  
  
• If an object moves around at 54.000.000 km/h, it would cross the entire length of the Earth (13.000.000 km) in approximately four hours. Is that possible, and does that correspond to our experience of 24 hours per day?
  
  
  
• It is then explained, perhaps in an attempt to reconcile the above contradiction,  that sun is said to have three speeds, namely slow, fast and moderate, at which it travels throughout the cosmos. (BhP 5.22.7) Do we have experience of varying speeds of the sun?
  
  
  
• The Moon is said to be 1.300.000 km above the sun. Is this the fact? (BhP 5.22.7)
  
  
  
• Venus is 52.000.000 km above the Moon, and is said to move around at almost the same pace as the sun, namely slow, fast and moderate. (BhP 5.22.12) Is this accurate?
  
  
  
• The planets come in the following sequence in the solar system: Sun - 28 Stars - Moon - Venus - Mercury - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - The Seven Sages. (BhP 5.22.8-27) Is this accurate?
  
  
  
• There is an invisible planet called Rahu which causes the eclipses of the Sun and the Moon. (BhP 5.24.2-3) Is this the fact?
  
  
  
• Are there planets below Earth the same size as the Earth where darkness prevails due to Earth's blocking the sunlight? (BhP 5.24.11)
  
  
  

If I am not entirely mistaken, the commentators have nowhere stated that these would be in any way poetic statements or otherwise anything but literal statements.

Let's call the bluff of all the literalists. I would like to have clear answers, a plain yes or no will suffice, to each of the questions above, please.

And electricity, well like I said, I know the phenomenon for more than 48 years.....

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

I consider this half-a-hen logic. I accept technology, but do not accept the process that got there--the scientific method.

So you think that there is nothing in the Bhagavatam that encroaches on the terrain of the sciences? Like, for instance, the relative distance of the sun and the moon from the earth?

No objection to that attitude, but it is when one holds fast and insists that somehow accepting the existence of a million mount Merus in Amsterdam (not bad alliteration, Advaitaji!) is a building block to prema. Accepting the infinite possibility of God's power is not the same as saying it is so in the world we are living in.

Is that true that the Vedic scriptures had never been changed, nothing had been added, as we learned in Iskcon? Devotees often tell people that the Bible had been changed according to the timely interests of the church, consequently it cannot be accepted as absolute. How about the Vedic scriptures? Did they remain exactly the same throughout the ages without any interpolations?

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, it seems our friend Rasamrita is indeed a literalist.

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

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

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

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


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

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

What silliness. A word means something because it has been given a meaning. A word exists because it designates something, a concept that is being communicated.

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

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

Nityananda was considered very liberal in his day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I may not have heard it from any sadhu or guru. But my point was, why should that cause any doubt in sastra. All our goswamis and mahajanas are the greatest poets, fully conversant with the devices of poetry, however the English translations that we read are done in plain, modern language (mostly). Having said that, the cosmology portions in the fifth skanda are in prose. Anyway there was no intention of undermining the sastras in what I said, out of haste maybe, you took it that way, my apologie

So rather than run the risk of being deprived of prema, the cherished result of offenseless chanting, I will decline to react to Madhava's lengthy and, dare I say, rather aggressive, challenge on the arithmetics of the Bhagavata's cosmology. For me there can be a million mount Merus in Amsterdam from today onward if the Bhagavata says so, I will say 'yes' and 'amen' and get prema rather than start arguing and attacking both the Bhagavata and its nitya siddha commentators by taking a scientific approach.

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

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

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

Wow! Whom am I reading?

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

All The Above!

I would caution against the idea that uttama, madhyama and kanistha can be reduced to the mental or intellectual sphere.  One may be very liberal and have very little substantial faith and may in fact have little to no genuine standing or development of faith.  It may be true that weak faith requires an enemy or that the kanistha tends to view things in black and white terms - but merely making an intellectual adjustment does not necessarily correlate with the proper development of shraddha.

One may be very liberal and have very little substantial faith and may in fact have little to no genuine standing or development of faith.

My very simple point and contribution in this regard is that one can spend considerable time thinking

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

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

Uttering threats.  Why?  Because I do not like the ill odored skunk of your skepticism. 
...
Therefore, suddently you want to change the rules.  It seems that I am saying the right things.  Your apparently position is control others by legislation while I do whatever I want. I guess such behaviour was learned while training at ISKCON/Gaudiya Math. Bad habit are hard to break. 

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

My last post, Rasamrita out.

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

Jagat: But as to whether any tikakara has ever said: "This is exaggeration." I am sure I have seen it somewhere, but unfortunately, I can't remember exactly where. It would make an interesting area of research, to examine all the uses of atizayokti in the Gaudiya Vaishnava literature, tikas.

Jagat: And, as a matter of fact, if you insist on terms from the tradition, I will use kanistha adhikari, for I consider that the kanistha mentality includes this rather literalist attitude to scripture.

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

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

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

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

Mud: For Caitanya Mahaprabhu coming from a brahmin family, a sannyasi, and associating with "low birth" personalities, making Haridasa the namacarya, embracing Sanatana with sores all over his body, these are intensely liberal actions. Yes I know they are transcendental (please don't argue this), but socially in the actual time this is unheard of and the behavior of madmen.

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

My faith does not depend on believing such things.

I am getting really tired being lumped in with Iskcon.

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

Dont want to sound paranoid but isnt Rasamrita's reluctance to reveal his ID used as an excuse for the management to stifle him because of his opposition? He is a bit emotional in his reaction, OK, but I dont find this reason to moderate him for 4 days, and yes, Jagat and Madhava ARE de facto the only two persons in charge of this site. The third one, Ramdas, rarely comes to this site and if he did he would definitely side with Jagat and Madhava. As a matter of fact this site is entirely in the hands of the sceptic intellectuals.

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

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

And I am not an intellectual!

Look, Advaita, you are also attacking my loyalty, are you not?

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

Yes dear Malati, simple housewives are what are needed here badly. And you are not an intellectual, that speaks for you too. I do hope you will have sufficient influence to make a balance. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've cited your views on these topics at

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

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

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

Thanks for that, Braja. If it's not clear by now, it verifies that common features between Advaita and certain elements in Iskcon exist.

Surprisingly, I find that there is some useful material on that Cultural Journal site. I have long been for "feminisation", so that entire discourse is interesting to me, even coming from an opponent.

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

In other words, the exaggerations are meant to convince us of Krishna's greatness. But I am not interested in his aisvarya, but in his madhurya. So what difference does it make to me whether he has sixteen thousand palaces in Dwarka?

Jagat, June 22, 2004. If it's not clear by now, it verifies that common features between Advaita and certain elements in Iskcon exist.

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

Now about me having common features with certain elements in Iskcon, let us have some evidence for this. Please quote some examples or apologise.

but you just insist again and again and again that your vision is THE vision - after all, all you do is quote sastra! REAL CLEAR HERE: THIS IS THE SIMILARITY WITH ISKCON - your insistence that you are on the side of the Goswami's and therefore right, and damn everybody else who disagrees or heaven forbid extracts their own meaning.

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

This was a private correspondence, so I am rather surprised to see it publicly presented in this way. Looks like it got sent to you by accident. Nevertheless, I will stand by it. Are you not a "vociferous anti-Iskcon voice"? Are you not "pretty idiosyncratic"? I would think you would take pride in such a description. You could even put it on the jacket flap of your next book!

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

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

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

Your servant, Jagadananda Das.

If any of you gentlemen here plan to take diksa from a trad. line, be in for a surprise unless you heed my warning - these saints have never heard of 'left wing liberals', 'right wing conservatives' and will certainly not take Jagat's opinions as being free from bhrama pramada vipralipsa and karana patava, or more valuable than those of the tikakaras and other foundational acaryas. Rather, they will be appalled by his arrogant and defiant attitude.

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

Oh, and apologies to other readers for the length and self-indulgence of this message

"the Bhagavata Purana is literally true, and if you don't accept it you are a demon aparadhi."

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

Mud and whoever shares your train of thought - what do you really need a Guru for then?

Prove your point or apologise Jagat.

I must stop counting the devotees who have put words in my mouth. I request all those who utter false accusations against me to study Bhagavad Gita 16.23 in this regard. I hope you understand that the Speaker of that verse is not a member of Iskcon.

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

It is a wonderful post, eloquenty capturing the thoughts of many.

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

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

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

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

Do the commentators describe some verses of the Bhagavata, or of some other scripture, as utilizing atizayokti, the ornament of intentional exaggeration?

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

But we are not debating that such an alaGkAra exists, right? If it indeed does exist (and it does), it is quite likely that it has been occasionally employed in the various scriptures we come across. And do the AcAryas always meticulously document every alaGkAra being used? Well, sometimes they do, but they are not exactly literary critics as much as they are illustrators of philosophical principles demonstrated in the zAstra.

Haridas Das in his Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidhana cites 4 different types of atishayokti, only one of them being exaggaration. How do you know, when the tikakaras call something atishayokti, that they mean exaggaration instead of any other type of atishayokti?

For the purpose of turning around those who have turned away from the Lord, a rather insignificant fruit was sometimes mentioned...their primary fruit, however, is divine love (rati).

In these statements about devotional service, sometimes it may appear that the results have been overestimated, but actually there is no overestimation. Some devotees, as revealed scriptures give evidence, have had immediate results by such association, although this is not possible for all. For example, the Kumāras immediately became devotees simply by smelling the incense in the temple. Bilvamańgala Ṭhākura simply heard about Kṛṣṇa and then immediately gave up his beautiful girl friend and started out for Mathurā and Vṛndāvana, where he became a perfect Vaiṣṇava. So these statements are not overestimations, nor are they stories. They are actual facts, but are true for certain devotees and do not necessarily apply to all. These descriptions, even if considered overestimations, must be taken as they are, in order to divert our attention from the fleeting material beauty to the eternal beauty of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And for a person who is already in contact with Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the described results are not unusual.

Dont want to sound paranoid but isnt Rasamrita's reluctance to reveal his ID used as an excuse for the management to stifle him because of his opposition? He is a bit emotional in his reaction, OK, but I dont find this reason to moderate him for 4 days, and yes, Jagat and Madhava ARE de facto the only two persons in charge of this site.

Yes sir! Those wise men at GD after so much bhava in raganuga came down just to be regular and ordinary atheist or seculars scholars. From a unique kind of suburban group to just regular folks in downtown Las Vegas.

Yes sir! In their website you can learn how to practice illicit sex and be religous while kicking around the scriptures and the holy men!

Yes sir! In their website you can can legalize the ways of being stone, I believe they call that stuff with a new name, ganja. The raga of the smoke!

Yes sir! They want your picture, your name, where you from, interest, and they got already you e-mail address, I guess they want to be sure. Are you asking if they work for the government? My son, these days who knows, my son. Who knows!

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

iti.
advaitadas

'' True to the characteristics that distinguished the two leaders ( Nityananda and Advaita ) , their descendants have continued to exhibit sharp differences .''

Anway, so is there any way these positions can be reconciled? Or is it all "no quarter to the apostates"?

What follows is excerpts from Sarva-samvadini of Srila Jiva Gosvami along
with a translation [1] and my notes.

These excerpts deal with reliability of sastra and the role of (human)
reasoning vis-a-vis accepting knowledge from the sastra.
---

There are some statements in sastra which appear to contradict human sense
perception. Srila Jiva Gosvami first presents a sample of such statements:

TEXT: nanu vede 'pi "gravanah plavante", "mrd abravid apo 'bruvan"
ity-adi-darsanad anaptatvam iva pratiyate.

TRANSLATION: [One might ask:] "We see even in the Vedas [Satapatha Brahmana
6.1.3.2, 4] statements like 'The stones float' and 'The ground spoke and the
water spoke,' which seem to indicate that the Vedas are unreliable."

NOTE: In other words, the statements of sastra seem to contradict our sense
perception. So aren't these statements indicate that the Vedas are
unreliable? The answer, as we shall see is "no". All statements of the
Vedas, including the above quoted ones, are reliable. How it is so will be
explained here.

TEXT: ucyate, karma-visesangi-bhutanam gravnam virya-vardhanaya stutir iyam.

TRANSLATION: This we answer -- this praise of the stones is for the purpose
of increasing the potency of the stones, which serve a role in a particular
ritual.

TEXT: sa ca sri-rama-kalpita-setu-bandhadau prasiddhatvena yatha-vad eveti
na dosah.

TRANSLATION: And this is indeed feasible, since it is well known that the
same sort of address to stones occurred in such contexts as the building of
the bridge which was arranged by Sri Rama. Thus there is no fault in this
praise.

NOTE: In other words, the statement in sastra, "the stones float" is true as
is proved in particular cases such as when Lord Ramacandra built a bridge of
floating stones. In other words, Lord Ramacandra proved the truth of the
Vedic statement, "The stones float."

TEXT: tatha, "mrd abravid apo 'bruvan" ity-adau tat-tad-abhimani-devataiva
vyapadisyata iti jneyam.

TRANSLATION: And in statements like "The ground spoke", "the water spoke,"
we should understand that the demigods presiding over these elements are
being referred to.

NOTE: This is commonly known among sampradayic scholars of sastra.

TEXT: tad evam sarvatraiva sarvathaivapta eva vedah.

TRANSLATION: Therefore the Vedas are in all situations and in all respects
reliable authority.

NOTE: "In all situations" and "in all respects" indicate that *all portions*
of sastra are reliable, and *not that only some* portions (dealing with
devotional life, etc.) are reliable. It also indicates that they are
reliable authority for all time, not that in the modern age of "scientific
progress and advancement", the Vedas somehow lose their authority.

TEXT: kintu sarvajnesvara-vacanatvenasarvajna-jivair duruhatvat
tat-prabhava-labdha-pratyaksa-visesavadbhir eva sarvatra tad-anubhave
sakyate, na tu tarkikaih.

TRANSLATION: But since they consist of the words of the all-knowing Supreme
Lord, finite living beings who do not know everything have difficulty
construing what they mean, and so only those who have by His power received
special perceptive capacity are able to in all instances realize their
meaning. Mental speculators are not able to do this.

NOTE: Therefore it is important to listen to the recognized, accomplished
liberated Vaisnava acaryas to understand the meaning of sastra. I propose
that in ISKCON we accept Srila Prabhupada as such a person (devotees in
ISKCON used to accept Srila Prabhupada as such, but now some of them appear
to have become overintelligent enough to understand the Bhagavatam
"directly" bypassing Srila Prabhupada). People who are merely adept in logic
and / or having degrees from the nondevotee academia especially those who
have associated with members of the nondevotee academia and whose beliefs,
attitudes, understandings and desires have become distorted can neither
understand, nor honestly claim to understand, the meaning of sastra.

TEXT: tad uktam purusottama-tantre, "sastrartha-yukto 'nubhavah pramanam
tuttamam matam / anumadya na svatantrah pramana-padavim yayuh" iti.

TRANSLATION: This is stated in the Purusottama-tantra: "Realization
incorporating the ideas taught in sastra is considered the most excellent
means of correct knowledge. Inference and the other means of knowing cannot
independently claim authority."

NOTE: Inference means reasoning, and independent inference refers to
reasoning not based on sastra, that is, (fallible human) reasoning based on
(fallible human) sense perception.

TEXT: tathaiva matam brahma-sutra-karaih, "tarkapratisthanat", "srutes tu
sabda-mulatvat" ity-adau. tatha ca srutih, "naisa tarkena matir apaneya
proktanyenaiva su-jnanaya prestha", "niharena pravrta jalpyas ca" ity-adyah.
jalpa-pravrttas tarkika iti sruti-padarthah.

TRANSLATION: This is also the opinion of the author of the Brahma-sutras in
such sutras as "Because logical speculation is never final" (2.1.11) and
"No, because the revealed scriptures say otherwise, and knowledge of the
Supreme is derived from transcendental sound" (2.1.27). There are also such
statements of sruti as: "My dear boy, this knowledge cannot be obtained by
mental speculation. It can be properly understood only when an especially
qualified person speaks it" (Katha Upanisad 1.2.9) and "They are enveloped
in a fog and prone to useless talk." (Rk-samhita 10.82.7) The sense of the
word jalpyah in this sruti text is "speculators engaged in useless talk."

NOTE: Upon seeing Brahma-sutra 2.1.27 quoted above, one might think that for
knowledge of the Supreme, yes, one must depend on sastra, but in other
cases, such as within the empirical field, can one depend on sastra? That is
clarified here:

TEXT: ata eva varaha-purane, "sarvatra sakyate kartum agamam hi vinanuma /
tasman na sa saktimati vinagamam udiksitum" iti.

TRANSLATION: Thus it is said in the Varaha Purana: "In all situations one
can always apply the traditional authority of scriptures even without using
logic. Therefore logic is impotent to see the truth without the help of
scripture."

NOTE: Yes. "In all situations" one can always depend on the authority of the
sastra, *even without using reasoning*.

Baradraj: So knowledge is not necessary for faith but faith is necessary
for knowledge.

Prabhupada: Yes. Therefore devotee, without any knowledge he becomes
devotee. That faith, only faith. The devotee advances. Jnanam ca yad
ahaituki. Later on, they become automatically full of knowledge because
they have strong faith. That is also stated in the Bhagavad-gita. Tesam
evanukampartham aham ajnana-jam tamah nasayamy: [Bg. 10.11] "Because he
is faithful, therefore I help him how to get knowledge." Again you come
to that. Mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca [Bg. 15.15]. Everything is
there. (Morning walk; July 21, 1975)

We also find that Srila Prabhupada wanted us to accept the Fifth Canto *even
when we don't understand it*.

The Western ethos of education appears to be that *first* you understand
things *and then* you believe. But the sampradayic ethos of sastric
education is that you accept the validity of scriptures *whether you
understand any portion of it or not* [2] and *then* you try to study and
understand it to whatever extent you can. And it is not that all human
beings can understand all statements of the scriptures.

[...]

TEXT: yat tv agame kvacit tarkena bodhana drsyate, tat tatraiva sobhanam
agama-rupatvat, bodhana-saukaryartha-matroddista-tarkatvat.

TRANSLATION: And when we see sometimes in the revealed scriptures that
information is provided by speculative logic, it is in those cases
praiseworthy because it is part of scripture, being speculation offered only
for the sake of making understanding easier.

NOTE: The scriptures also teach very reasonably in order to make
understanding easier.

TEXT: yadi ca yat tarkena sidhyati, tad eva veda-vacanam pramanam iti syat,
tada tarka evastam, kim vedeneti vaidikam-manya api te bahya evety ayam
abhiprayah sarvatraiva.

TRANSLATION: Persons who imagine themselves followers of the Vedas may say
"If something is proven by logic then it must be the very words of the Vedas
and authoritative. So let us use logic; what need have we of the Vedas?" But
those who speak thus are actually opponents of the Vedas, and this is
indicated everywhere.

TEXT: ata eva tesam srgalatvam eva gatir ity uktam bharate.

TRANSLATION: Thus it is stated in the Mahabharata (Santi-parva, 180.47-49)
that these people will become jackals in their next lives.

TEXT: yat tu srotavyo mantavyah ity-adisu mananam nama tarko 'ngi-krtah,
tatraivam evam uktam yatha kurma-purane, purvaparavirodhena ko nv artho
'bhimato bhavet / ity-adyam uhanam tarkah suska-tarkam ca varjayet iti.

TRANSLATION: And when speculation under the name of "reflecting" is
acknowledged in such statements as "It should be heard about and reflected
on" (Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.5), it is in the following sense that such
is being said, as stated in the Kurma Purana: "Speculation means to
conjecture in such ways as asking which meaning of a text is appropriate
without contradicting what precedes and follows it. Dry speculation,
however, should be rejected."

NOTE: In other words, reasoning is okay when we use it to understand the
meaning of sastra.

This is also stated by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana in the conclusion of his
commentary to verse 9 of Laghu-bhagavatamrta:

tatha ca veda eva vyasasya pramanam tarkas ca tad-anusari na nivaryate
suska-tarkas tu praheya eveti tad-anuyayino me tad eva.

And so, Veda is the accepted source of valid knowledge for Vyasa; logic
which follows the Veda is not opposed, but dry speculation should
definitely be rejected. This is the opinion of Vyasa's followers and
(hence) for me. [3]

Srila Prabhupada clarified the matter by explaining the difference between
mental speculation and acceptable philosophical speculation:

As for the difference between mental speculation and philosophical
speculation, we take it that everything is known by the psychological
action of the mind, so that philosophical speculation is the same as
mental speculation if it is merely the random or haphazard activity of
the brain to understand everything and making theories, "if's" and
"maybe's." But if philosophical speculation is directed by Sastra and
Guru, and if the goal of such philosophical attempts is to achieve
Visnu, then that philosophical speculation is not mental speculation. It
is just like this: Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita that "I am the taste of
water." Philosophical speculation in the accepted sense then means to
try to understand, under the direction of Sastra and Guru, just how
Krishna is the taste of water. (Letter to Chaturbhus, 21 January 1971)

So, the approach of trying to understand *how* a sastric statement such as
"I am the taste of water" is correct is acceptable.

But the approach of trying to understand *if* such a statement is correct is
*not acceptable*. However, this is the approach of the nondevotee academia
and despite knowing that it is so, some of our devotees don't seem to mind
getting trained up by the nondevotee academia to approach the scriptures in
such unacceptable ways.
---

ENDNOTES:

[1] Regarding the translation, I had taken the help of Sri Gopiparanadhana
Prabhu of NE-BBT last year on Sarva-samvadini (but translation of the
section presented here in this article is not checked by him). I have also
consulted a Bengali version of Tattva-sandarbha published along with
Sarva-samvadini and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary (edition
published by Gopinath Gaudiya Math (Mayapur, 1998)). The sections excerpted
in this article appear as additional explanations to text 9 of
Tattva-sandarbha.

[2] More of this perhaps in a separate article.

[3] Laghu-bhagavatamrta of Srila Rupa Gosvami, published along with the
commentaries of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana and Vrndavanacandra Tarkalankara
(Bengali script) by Haribhakta Das, Gaurabda 503.

Submitted by Vidvan Gauranga das (JPS)