The Aim of Gaudiya Discussions -

“There is, first, the state of Samsaya or doubt about the point to be discussed. Next comes the Prayojana or motive for discussing it. Next follows a Drishtanta or example which leads to the Siddhanta or established conclusion. Then comes the objector with his Avayava or argument, split up into five members. Next follows the Tarka or refutation, and the Nirnaya or ascertainment of the true state of the case.”

***************

I found this process of acquirement of Knowledge fairly aiming, therefore,
I would like to ask for the learned audience how those requirements or goals could be applied in GD. In other words, where is the GD going to, and what are its aim, real aspirations and endenvours?

PS; this time I will not take part on the discussions. I’m inquiring to understand what the core of GD is?

Thanks!

Hare Krishna!

I think Madhava has summarized it quite well in the Board Guidelines:Realistically, this site serves a wide audience and does the best I think it can to serve beginners, senior members and even those that are out and out inimical. I think its a tribute to the moderators that this board has never degenerated into the kind of spitting and eye poking you see at other sites.

I believe this formula is better applied within the context of a single discussion. The constituents of a discussion, such as above, cannot be applied over a broad range of discussions on diverse topics.

The only item that can really be defined is prayojana, and that, as Dharmachakra kindly supplied, is already quite clear.

There is more to Hari Saranji's quote:


Swami Sivananda

Cavilling apparently means "to raise trivial and frivolous objections" (Merriam-Webster.)

Of course, who is to decide when each of those states are taking place. Human nature dictates that we will see in others what we won't see in ourselves--"I am firm. You are obstinate. He is a pig-headed fool."

That's all from nyAya-zAstra.

The dictionary meaning for vitaNDa is "perverse or frivolous argument".

vitaNDa is actually the worst of the three kinds of discussions, in each of which one of the three modes of nature predominate.

vitaNDa is the discussion in which one tries to prove the other wrong without being able to establish a proper conclusion, or indeed even the basic premises on which one argues. These discussions are clueless and painful to wade through.

jalpa is the discussion in which both are convinced they are right and go to great lengths to convince the other, presenting arguments from all varieties of angles with the aim of establishing one's view as correct. These discussions sometimes end up as vitaNDa after the debater becomes frustrated and convinced that the other is a hopeless retard without the ability to understand the proper conclusion.

vAda is the discussion in which two individuals, commonly peers, review matters in a dispassionate manner with the aim of establishing the truth without regard to from whom it may come. In this mode of discussion, a subdivision is saMvAda, which is a discussion between the student and the teacher.

Here at Gaudiya Discussions, we would hope to host discussions of the last variety. In an ideal situation, those who are well grounded in Gaudiya theology would review varieties of matters for their mutual enlightenment, and those who are newcomers would inquire in a polite and respectful spirit from those further ahead in their studies.

We would hope to avoid discussions of the first two varieties, that commonly come about when (1) someone from a rival group comes to challenge our views without interest in considering the possibility of our position's veracity (jalpa), and (2) someone without a clear conception of either his own or of others' views comes to teach, to debate or to correct others' views.

Radhe Radhe!

I agree with Madhava's post above as the real essence of GD. This is a form of sanga where we can discuss the various discoveries we make in our devotional lives, discuss points of our theology that either inspire or trouble us and organically develop a sense of community with the common goal being the service of Sri Radhika and the Vaisnavas.

In areas of controversy or disagreement there must be a common respect for one another as aspiring Vaisnavas and be approached in a very civil and delicate manner. Otherwise, we risk the destruction of our devotional creeper. All too often others are simply dismissed or riiculed without any thought on the actual result of such treatment will have on them. As Vaisnavas there should be a sense of affection even in correcting someone. If one presents a conclusion that is contrary to siddhanta one should present proper siddhanta as well as politely ask what has brought one to reach a contrary conclusion. If done in a passionate or harsh way you generally don’t get positive results for anyone involved. Again it comes back to having proper respect and affection for other Vaisnavas.

Radhe Radhe!

Rasaraja dasa

As I said, I would not take part in this discussion. However, I want to say thanks to everyone here that on my humble request, shared some thoughts, and good intent to contribute to the continue progress of this outstanding device of Vaishnava communication, GD.

Hare Krishna!