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

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



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--


--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:


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.


[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?


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.


[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:


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:

I believe it was Braja's post found here.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

You're joining the Self-Appointed Inc.?

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.


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.





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.

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

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.

Thank you for your extensively researched reply. I have just a few things to reply to.

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.

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?

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?

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:

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.

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! hehehe

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".