Relating to academic views of Gaudiya Vaishnavism -

Are academics the only breed for whom scepticism is allowed?

I think we've been down this road before. Regardless of the author, if there are claims with little factual reference, what do you expect? In too many a case we find our academic authors presenting their theories on the basis of assumptions based on circumstantial evidence, and then find people repeating their theories as factual records of how events took place.

I would suggest that, if the source text you are reading does not offer any further leads on how the assumption was reached, posts were worded as "Mr. Kennedy suggests that this was so", instead of "this was so, as seen in Mr. Kennedy's text", followed by "I have no reason to doubt Mr. Kennedy". No-one is exempt from having their theories proven.

With regards to the note on Virabhadra and the Goswamis of Vrindavan, it should not be hard to present the historical sources for the idea. On the other hand, if flimsy circumstantial evidence is all its based on, then perhaps it deserves to be seen as all it is, one of many possible theories, a suggestion.

And if that is "poo poohing", then perhaps that is the healthy thing to do, if it is the alternative of bowing down to ipso dixit from a secular source.

Thank you, Madhava! I just wanted to say that I think this was a really inspired post. Especially this statement: No-one is exempt from having their theories proven.

It is not just on this thread alone, there is a general 'poo pooing' that seems to go on here on thread after thread towards any viewpoint that is 'outside the box', and I simply was not eager to be put under the fundamentalistic measuring stick. I used to have Christians do the same thing to me when I was a kid, quoting the Bible here and there and if I couldn’t back up my opinions with quotes from their scriptures I was a fool.

Like I mentioned when angrezi brought up 'Char Dham' this very same general attitude was there, it seems to have become a common thing here. Or when Nabadip brings to light how India is not the 'airy fairy spiritual Disney land' that westerners are mislead about, he gets some angry challenge like he is committing some apradha.

In this case my first post on this thread mentioned how a notable scholar saw with his own eyes 'Tantric' symbols' on the temples in Kardaha and immediately there was some condescending challenge, coz it is outside the standard presentation of orthodox Gaudiyaism I assume.

* * * * *

I know many will poo pooh Kennedy here who was accepted by Dimock and who quoted him extensively as have many other scholars..

Its funny so many here extol Dimock’s CC as being so wonderful and far superior to ACBV’s ..But his research is poo poohed if it goes against the grain..Like so many others.

I can get more into all this later, however I would like to see some feed back on the ‘Fish and Mango’ miracle if possible.

Aacha,



jijaji

(Just a disclaimer : I am not an acedemic, though I am required to read acedemic texts and associate with such types for my undergraduate studies)

The often overlooked fact is that the scrutiny that acedemics face before (and after) they release a publication is intense. They must be able to stand by their research, or their credibility as scholars is irreparably damaged. In most fields publications have a stringent peer review process (Jagat could say much more of this than I). Or imagine publishing a book and knowing that every PhD in the world within that particular field is going to pick through everything you say and compare and critique it with everything else that has ever been published, both acedemic as well as devotional .

Of course some theories are indeed crap, and get published because they fit in some trend or such, I'm certainly not here to defend acedemics. But I have to say I think the above quote is a bit broad, and doesn't take into account the actual acedemic environment.

Mistakes and faulty transmission and analysis of records do not rest only with acedemics, the same can happen within a religious tradition (e.g. many here feel that BSS & ACBS are guilty of faulty transmission of tradition and texts).

jijaji, there is a large difference between Dimock finding sahajiyaism seemingly everywhere versus his verbatim translation of a text. He has been "poo poohed" by other scholars, including Haberman I believe, for some of the more outlandish claims. That is par for the course--call it peer review, criticism, analysis, or even plain old discussion. If you make statements in public, expect the public to ask questions; if you engage in research, expect others engaged in similar research to ask questions. These guys are/were scholars--I'm sure they can stand on their own feet. And if they are not capable of weathering a few challenges, they probably chose the wrong profession.

BTW: care to highlight some instances of angry responses Nabadip has received? There is a report this post feature on each page, please use it if you see inappropriate responses. I'm not aware of any but, as I've said, we probably understand the word "discussion" differently.

I would also seriously suggest that you try to not take these things so personally. Please show others some degree of trust and respect by not believing that a disagreement indicates that they are judging you personally. Maybe you are a "heart" person trying to breathe in a realm where the "head" predominates but please don't keep making so much out of these disagreements, especially as it results in you putting others into little boxes while trying to support more thinking outside of the box.

QUOTE

BTW: care to highlight some instances of angry responses Nabadip has received?

Maybe the word 'angry' was inappropriate, I should have said..'passive aggressive'

QUOTE

He has been "poo poohed" by other scholars, including Haberman I believe, for some of the more outlandish claims

can you show a reference for this..?

In general I do appreciate the manner in which you responded here braja...

Why is it that challenges to academics almost invariably get labeled as fundamentalism? Now, of course that is convenient, because it becomes a reason to brush off anything that inconveniently questions the holy academic ipso dixit.

More often than not, I remember calling into question some statements that seem to have next to no basis, that are but fanciful guesses based on circumstantial evidence at best. If some scholars do their job sloppily and fail to document the evidence they've seen or the rationale they've applied when reaching a particular conclusion, one would assume that any thinking person would wonder why they'd say such a thing and whether their statements are accurate at all.




Hmm... I asked for a general definition of some terms? Besides that, the thread largely consists of posts by yourself and angrezi. It escapes me where you see fundamentalism there. If presenting scriptural and traditional points of reference in the context of a theological discussion translates into fundamentalism, one has to wonder whether the people whom it bothers are spending their time discussing the right genre to begin with. Are you suggesting we should not find reference in the shastra and should brush aside the tradition? They are both fundamentalist elements, after all.

Indeed - Whatever the scriptures and the tradition say must be classified as superstition, fundamentalism and fanaticism and one must go to great lengths before any of it can be taken seriously, while on the other hand any old statements from the academica must be considered de facto divine revelations, or otherwise practically infallible statements, the authors worshiped as pure-hearted, unmotivated messengers of truth.

Isn't that an interesting reversal of roles we have there?



What happened in the thread is Nabadip said that sometimes people do that. If I am not reading with my eyes closed, nobody in the thread did any such thing. This, however, is an interesting case of projecting attitudes to others, don't you think?




I already said that I am not questioning the presence of Tantric influence on the Gaudiya tradition, as there is ample evidence of that in Gaudiya texts.

However, since nothing specific was given on the kinds of symbols mentioned, I questioned their significance. To make a meaningful conclusion, one would have to know the specific evidence involved.

An attentive reading of the thread shows that I did not object to the conclusion implied. That in itself should clear me as far as motivations for challenging the proposal are concerned. Does it not? All I questioned was whether the statement in fact was anything that could be used to support that conclusion, as in all of its vagueness it could have meant anything, and short of knowing the exact symbolism involved, it would be next to impossible to say anything one way or another regarding the issue.

If you want to be fancy academic, then please do your homework on methods of ascertaining the validity of evidence and information. A lot of people read things all over the place and get their heads screwed on upside down. If you want to amass and process information, ensure that you have the necessary tools for the project.

( This too I liked) :

*******
Theorizing is the functional right of academia. The problem seems to be when such right transgresses others, such as the right to verification; the question then becomes one of imploding ethics. Personally I don’t believe verification is an absolutely fool proof process, as there is no such thing as isolated infinite systems of proof. However, some universal system of verification must be there if the good of everyone is to be achieved. This is where compromising might just be magically touched to become commitment. As practitioners we know that commitment is the only testing zone for any inquire to be verified into fact. Something academia is probably not aware of.

I don't really see such magic in "the process of verification". People who make claims should present the sources for their claims. Anyone can then see whether they add up, and how big the unproven gaps in the said theories are, if any.

However, there are a good number of methods for avoiding the same. From the side of the religionists, sweeping off the statements of the academics as "speculation", "mundane", "ever-changing" and "demonic", even. From the side of the academics and their cheerleaders, "fanaticism", "fundamentalism", "narrow-mindedness" and so forth. All of this attributed to the challenger to avoid having to address the issue, a classical ad hominem if you will.

Granted, this is certainly there - in most fields, as you put it. The broadish statement I made was meant in a very particular field, namely in the study of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. For example, one has to wonder how much peer review people such as Kennedy and De have underwent at their times. And indeed, I am wondering how extensive the peer review is the current environment, even. If someone cares to fill us in, please be our guest.



The thing in our particular field is that not all that much has been published. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain Chakravarti's work on my last visit to India, but I am under the impression that he swims upstream on a good many ideas some of the older scholars have put forward.

Indeed anyone can make a claim, but a subjective claim can only be verified when there is compromising through commitment. Magic is perhaps too tantric a word, how about grace, or prasadam, then, as per Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya 6. 89:






This brings to mind as an example the other thread where Garuda’s words are being tossed around. Garuda, presenting himself among academia as a practitioner, states, "As one who is Western-born and trained in the academic study of religion, having had the privilege of living in India among saintly practitioners and participating with them in devotional practices, however, I am perhaps in a position to present this work to those both outside and within these traditions." Well, he is speaking (boldly, some think) on the subject of rasa-lila. But how is he going to present any thing of significance within the tradition if here his practice is disputed. Actually, lila-smaranam is not factually practiced in Iskcon, only held as an ideal, so the ‘practices among saintly’ he claims, do indeed seem to require objective questioning from the position of other academic practitioners. But academia without the experience won’t have the position of verifying this kind of claim, a matter of hierarchy.

It seems Ananta dasji has given you full go ahead on the forum lifestyle

QUOTE

As practitioners we know that commitment is the only testing zone for any inquire to be verified into fact. Something academia is probably not aware of.

I am speechless over this remark

Well that is certainly true as far as the described results of sAdhana are concerned. However, there may be problems in applying the experiential approach to historical issues.

"Oh... humm..." * deeply contemplates and praises * "... I can feel it ... yeah indeed! Prabodhananda and Prakashananda are different, I can see it now!"

Of course, visionary claims for resolving historical issues are not unknown. Their accuracy is, however, another matter.

Yet Bengali culture as a whole is profoundly opaque to the outsider, and compared to even other Indian religious traditions not well understood by scholars or anyone (even 30-40 year Iskcon practitioners who seem to make a point of avoiding it, despite claiming to represent it ). This despite Bengal being the first part of India to experience modernity, nearly 3 centuries ago.

Western scholars have managed to seriously misunderstand even Sri Ramakrishna who they have been studying for a century. Their efforts to reveal Gaudiyaism are only a few decades old. There simply are few academic peers in the field (Jagat and Nitai would surely be currently the foremost westerners), which is why one must be very careful. The academic study of Bengali culture (including religion) may be like the wild west, where snake-oil salesman abound!

I was thinking of making notes on S.K. De's work next time I go over it. Would that be of interest to anyone?

* * *

As a general question, is it expected from a scholarly publication that sources are documented and all that jazz? I'm not that tuned in with the academic world, but from what I hear I'd expect that.

Yet I keep coming across outlandish and largely unexplained (and in proportion to their being unexplained, unfounded) theories and claims in works that go under the label of being scholarly. Or is there just something I'm missing here?

I mean, I don't have a university education to boast with myself, and yet I wouldn't dream of writing on historical topics without documenting my sources and the rationale applied in reaching conclusions. It therefore honestly shocks the hell out of me to see that some scholars seem to be doing just that whenever it fits their fancy.

A well-referenced work will command greater respect, Madhava.

The 'outlandish claims' fits in with the 'wild west' analogy I make above. It is especially true in Bengali studies I think, where some try to score with some sweeping new theory, sell lots of books etc.

A bit like tabloid journalism?

I know you're joking, but I should say the problem with the scant scholarship on Gaudiyaism, or with Bengali cultural studies in general, is not mere tabloidism. Rather:

1/ previous good works like SK De, while major in their time, are simply out of date.

2/ some recent brilliant writers seem to have deep insight but in fact bring preconceptions and assumptions which need to be revealed and challenged.

3/ others write fine books but are simply outside the tradition, so miss important issues.

etc etc.

Some of the things said here do not reflect the way things work in academia.

I think that in this thread you got a lot of different streams of ideas mixed up, due to differing language games involved with different words which are used to designate concepts such as "theory", "to prove", "scholar". There is the idea that academia should be "scientific" in a sense that you assume to be scientific. There are lots of assumptions implied as to what the actual work of the scholars should be like, what a scholar is, what a true scholar is and all that. I think what needs to be lauded here is Madhavaji's attempt to be as accurate as possible. I think it could be argued that you, Madhavaji tend to be a positivist, but that in a field that is thoroughly steeped with metaphysical connotations and biases of all kinds.

On the meta-level of writing about supposed facts you repeatedly try to enforce your desired kind of wording of things, proposing that style then to be a correct representation of things. It seems to me that in this attempt you postulate a kind of discourse whose criteria you can only apply to your own input, while you cannot really claim it from others, because you have your assumptions as to how things are and should be, while everyone else has theirs as well. I think in that you are an idealist who is pursuing an unrealistic goal on a forum that has many different types of contributors with all kinds of view-points and experiential biases.

I think what is felt here often is your intervention both as a moderator and a participant in discussion. I think that you mix the two, and that tends to be seen as a bias in you. And you cannot avoid bias, as much as you may try to be a positivist, fact- and quote-oriented, logical and all.

I think what jijaji saw happening was a reaction of yours that seemed to have an undertone representing your bias to his mentioning those three words "old tantric symbols". Another bias involves your assumptions as to how a scholar should approach a new field, like Gaudiya Vaishnavism in this case. I think this your criticism is coming from the fact that you are mixing the two fields, being a devotee and trying to be scholar at the same time. It is laudable, nothing against that. But someone else, like Dimmock comes with his bias and does his job as best as he can. Later someone will come with a critique, and so the library fills up, and everyone gets a salary to take home.

******

Angrezi mentioned peer review; it is prevalent in positivistic science (Naturwissenschaften) specially in medical research, physics, astronomy, biology etc. where experiments can be repeated. In the field of the arts and philosophy (Geisteswissenschaften), I think the only real pressure existing is the one to publish something every now and then, once one is established as a scholar and is lined up within an universitarian hierarchy. I do not think you could have claimed a Mircea Eliade to receive "peer review", as there weren't many peers around to do the reviewing , before Eliade's work was acclaimed in the way it was. Nor was there any peer review pressure for a Kennedy, as there was also nothing for a Carl Jung or any other venture into a new field. There were critics, perhaps, forces against which a theory had to be established.

Adiyenji is of course correct with his mentioning the lack of scholarship which opens up avenues for newcomers to come in and "prey" on the finds to establish whatever claim or view they like.




I think here you apply the positivist model taken from natural science (Naturwissenschaft) on the field of "arts" (Geisteswisssenschaft) where you cannot really prove a theory. Besides, you cannot really prove a theory anyway, also not in science, because a theory is an amalgam of various statements. Here in arts the theory is rather the outcome from some findings. If Kennedy indeed saw old tantric symbols at the Kardaha temple he could conclude what he liked to conclude, and it is upto others to accept or reject that.

To advance the solution of the problem involved one step further it would be an option to ask our dasanudasji if he knows of any old tantric symbols attached to the Kardaha temple...

QUOTE

To advance the solution of the problem involved one step further it would be an option to ask our dasanudasji if he knows of any old tantric symbols attached to the Kardaha temple...

indeed, but even better have him go with a digi camera so we can see with our own eyes, we need an objective reporter..

Indeed, one must be very careful about such situation.

(Allow me to indulge moderators, please, how could I resist...? )

I see some sectarianism at play here on this forum plain and simple and positions substantiated from the internal evidence of a sects own scriptures, that granted individuals here know quite well, however, that can often strengthen dogmatic sectarian bias as we can see with other religions easily, but often have difficulty seeing it within our own tradition.
Sectarianism and dogma in pretty much all cases puts a type of sect imbued colored lenses or blinders on a follower that prevents certain objectivity, and often times puts them on automatic defense against anything that goes against that particular sects tenants. Thus you see 'knee-jerk' reactions taking place when someone is 'out of line' according to that sects siddhanta or viewpoint.
No matter how much you know a tradition and no matter how much your faith is authenticated by your knowledge of internal evidence, dogma and sectarianism effects people in ways that are very evident.

In this regard I am pleased to offer the following...

The Kalama Sutta
Anguttara Nikaya, Tika Nipata, Mahavagga, Sutta No. 65

"The Buddha once visited a small town called Kesaputta in the kingdom of Kosala. The inhabitants of this town were known by the common name Kalama. When they heard that the Buddha was in their town, the Kalamas paid him a visit, and told him:

'Sir, there are some recluses and brahmanas who visit Kesaputta. They explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others' doctrines. Then come other recluses and brahmanas, and they, too, in their turn, explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise and condemn and spurn others' doctrines. But, for us, Sir, we have always doubt and perplexity as to who among these venerable recluses and brahmanas spoke the truth and who spoke falsehood.'

Then the Budhha gave them this advice, unique in the history of religions:

'Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea; "this is our teacher'. But, O Kalamas, when you know for youselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up ... And when you know for youselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them and follow them.'

The Buddha went even further. He told the bhikkhus that a disciple should examine even the Tathagata (Buddha) himself, so that he (the disciple) might be fully convinced of the true value of the teacher whom he followed."

I believe this forum has been rather straight-forward about its affiliation with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, being primarily aimed for the tradition's adherents. Of course there is sectarian bias. Any follower of any given theory ("sect", if you will), religious or otherwise, is bound to be biased towards the theory he has embraced. That should not come as a surprise for anyone.



As said, that is certainly there. With regards to knee-jerk reactions taking place, for what I see there are two kinds of issues being raised from outside the tradition.

• Issues that have substantial evidence that can be reviewed, and that therefore deserve to be seriously considered and addressed.
• Half-witted scandal theories or novelties dealing with central themes in the tradition, yet presented with hardly any evidence at all.

I trust you see the difference between the two, along with the potential both have in inciting particular reactions. If you present ludicrous ideas on things some people hold sacred, what do you expect for a reaction?

Just to clarify:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

sectarian

SYLLABICATION: sec·tar·i·an

PRONUNCIATION: sk-târ-n

ADJECTIVE:
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.
2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
3. Narrow-minded; parochial.

NOUN:
1. A member of a sect.
2. One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.

And which of the definitions above you feel apply here?

QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 23 2005, 10:59 PM)

And which of the definitions above you feel apply here?

As I said;

QUOTE

Just to clarify:

I wanted to show the common meaning of the word sectarian.

Jijaji,

I know you are joking, but since some things we hold more sacred than others (and since your post has not been removed), I like this to go into record: I have never received any personal instruction from Ananta Das Baba regarding any matter, and positively not in regard to how I will conduct my personal lifestyle. Personally I rather chose to believe that ADB, if he will endorse or condemn the forum lifestyle, either way his position will be one of default. Because he has no experience, no full perception of the matter, I reason, he may give me, or anyone, a ‘full go ahead’ or ‘full don’t go ahead’ as a grant to a request in the matter, but not as a wholly educated decision. But as I said, you are joking and that may be fine in a way. However, why don’t we cease resorting to fantasizing about ADB’s actions as a means to entertain ourselves and possibly even the forum, eh? Thanks.

QUOTE

But as I said, you are joking and that may be fine in a way. However, why don’t we cease resorting to fantasizing about ADB’s actions as a means to entertain ourselves and possibly even the forum, eh? Thanks.

I am not fantasizing about Ananta dasji's actions at all... and yes it was a joke. Too bad you could not find a small laugh inside you..

QUOTE(Jagat @ Aug 18 2004, 06:50 PM)

This is what Stewart did in his doctoral dissertation. I have an interesting article he wrote about Mahaprabhu's disappearance, which I may try to scan in when I get a chance (not for a couple of weeks, I don't think.)

I thought that his book had been published. I could not find it on the internet, so maybe it hasn't. Stewart took Majumdar's 1935 thesis comparing the various biographies and assessed their historical value. Majumdar's opinions were generally accepted as authoritative for a long time, but they were in need of reassessment.

Jagatji,

You had posted this some time ago and I was wondering if you still have that article by Stewart that you mention here.

Also I understand that some of these older works from S.K. De or Majumdar's could under go some reassessment, however, a lot of their research must still be worthwhile as they do reference the standard Gaudiya scriptures extensively? Not that their conclusions need be accepted wholeheartedly, but like some of the standard biographies of Sri Chaitanya contain much valuable information and at other times contain some obvious blunders.

I note for instance that so many(who are accepted) reference the works of S.K. De and Majumdar as standard source material in their writings..case in point being Jagat himself who is acknowledged as one of the foremost modern scholars of the Gaudiya faith. You can find Jagat referring to S.K De and Majumdar all over the place in his writings.

I am not saying these scholars need to be accepted as a Sad-Guru

I would be curious to read your assessment on why their works are often cited. I would also be curious to know what you feel is implied by the fact that their work is cited, and moreover I would be curious to hear your assessment on what the authors themselves would say if you asked them to explain why the said works are cited.

All I am saying is that the wheat needs to be separated from the chaff...

QUOTE

    *  Issues that have substantial evidence that can be reviewed, and that therefore deserve to be seriously considered and addressed.
    * Half-witted scandal theories or novelties dealing with central themes in the tradition, yet presented with hardly any evidence at all.

I have thought about this since it was posted, and want to say that is this criteria not to be applied to the traditional Gaudiya school itself? I mean certainly some of the claims made by IGM have been subjected to this scrutiny by the traditionals and on the other hand the Gaudiya biographies and scriptures have very often seemed to be 'Half-witted scandal theories ' to other schools of Vedanta not having any basis in the traditional scriptures of Vedanta, such as Sri Chaitanya being yuga avatar, or the inference of the Gaudiya scriptures being on par with Sruti.?

Are you saying that the first hand account of Kennedy seeing with his own eyes 'Old Tantric Symbols' on the temple at Kardaha is a 'Half-witted scandal theory'..? If so I hardly think his motive was to create some scandal, but was just noting what he had observed objectively.

As I suggested long back to you jijaji if you read Chatanya Charitamrita by Dr. radha Govinda Nath , you will see in the Introduction section ( which is a big book by itself) how RadhaGovindanath has pointed out some of the major blunder commited by Dr. S. K De, Prof Dinesh Sen et el. Then you will come to know how much of their works had gone through a proper peer review.

QUOTE

As I suggested long back to you jijaji if you read Chatanya Charitamrita by Dr. radha Govinda Nath , you will see in the Introduction section ( which is a big book by itself) how RadhaGovindanath has pointed out some of the major blunder commited by Dr. S. K De, Prof Dinesh Sen et el. Then you will come to know how much of their works had gone through a proper peer review.

I think you miss my point altogether here, however, I may ask you as well (as I have long back) to post that reference from Dr. Radha Govinda Nath, that you have repeatedly said to read, why have you not ever in all this time materialized it?

To say read this and you will get your answer doesn't seem to be a good way to get your point across frankly...especially on this forum where reference is demanded when putting forth points of view.

I could say ..go read the Vedas

You'll have to remember that we are studying issues from the point of view of the Gaudiya tradition with its basic epistemic premises, the theory of knowledge featuring zabda, anumAna and pratyakSa I am certain you are familiar with. With that, an element of ipse dixit is certainly there in the aspect of zabda that is held as the final pramANa on matters of theology.

As for the two issues you mentioned, feel free to discuss them as long as it is done with a sense of respect towards the Gaudiya view and interpretation, as encouraged in the board rules and guidelines.



I believe I was quite clear in specifying what I meant with that, you'll notice if you read the example given in brackets after the statement.

With "half-witted scandal theories" I refer exactly to cases the words literally describe, namely proposals that go against the common beliefs of the tradition, that are likely to be objectionable by most adherents (hence "scandal"), and that are poorly founded (hence "half-witted").

He says: "you will see in the Introduction section (which is a big book by itself)". Now, I don't have the book myself, so I cannot estimate how extensive the introduction is. However, you do realize that it isn't available in English, and that you are asking Dasanudas to translate into English and post what he describes as a "big book by itself"?

If there were something specific from S.K. De posted and Dasanudas argued how Radha Govindanath had rebutted it, then certainly he would be obliged to post the relevant reference. However, I wouldn't think it is reasonable that you ask him to translate and post possibly over a hundred pages of text on account of his urging you to study the same.

Jijaji, I am a bit overstretched right now. Doing that Stewart article would be too time consuming. If I were to send you a photocopy, would you like to scan it and post it. I think it is quite worthwhile and an issue of great interest to many.

As to your point about RGNath, I agree fully. There is not much point in arguing like this without making concrete points. If Nath shows that De etc. are wrong in any way, then we would like to see the details.

And again, I agree that De, Kennedy and other early scholars of Vaishnavism made valuable contributions. They are still quoted because much of what they said still has resilience. De made many individual errors and was guilty of certain biases, yet his work in general was impressive, especially in its pioneering context. The same can be said of Sukumar Sen, Haridas Das, Sundarananda Vidyavinoda, indeed, of any scholar.

We are all working with certain assumptions. On the whole, there are conservative believers who accept a mythologized view of history. The scholars in principle batter these structures down. However, faith is, in my view, not dependent on this kind of historical mythology. It can even resist literary criticism. Ultimately, we should be able to accept that religion is a human phenomenon. This is, in my opinion, one path to mature spirituality.

But it is not the only one. We must not lose sight of the character building aspects of religious life, nor of the sense of meaning that comes from mystical practice. Certain kinds of wisdom are eternal.

QUOTE

If there were something specific from S.K. De posted and Dasanudas argued how Radha Govindanath had rebutted it, then certainly he would be obliged to post the relevant reference. However, I wouldn't think it is reasonable that you ask him to translate and post possibly over a hundred pages of text on account of his urging you to study the same.

I was certainly not suggesting he post over a hundred pages What I said was:

QUOTE

I may ask you as well (as I have long back) to post that reference from Dr. Radha Govinda Nath

I thought it not out of the realm of possibly to post that reference in the 'Intro' that he repeatedly says we should read.

peace now

QUOTE(Jagat @ Jun 24 2005, 07:09 PM)

Jijaji, I am a bit overstretched right now. Doing that Stewart article would be too time consuming. If I were to send you a photocopy, would you like to scan it and post it. I think it is quite worthwhile and an issue of great interest to many.

As to your point about RGNath, I agree fully. There is not much point in arguing like this without making concrete points. If Nath shows that De etc. are wrong in any way, then we would like to see the details.

And again, I agree that De, Kennedy and other early scholars of Vaishnavism made valuable contributions. They are still quoted because much of what they said still has resilience. De made many individual errors and was guilty of certain biases, yet his work in general was impressive, especially in its pioneering context. The same can be said of Sukumar Sen, Haridas Das, Sundarananda Vidyavinoda, indeed, of any scholar.

We are all working with certain assumptions. On the whole, there are conservative believers who accept a mythologized view of history. The scholars in principle batter these structures down. However, faith is, in my view, not dependent on this kind of historical mythology. It can even resist literary criticism. Ultimately, we should be able to accept that religion is a human phenomenon. This is, in my opinion, one path to mature spirituality.

But it is not the only one. We must not lose sight of the character building aspects of religious life, nor of the sense of meaning that comes from mystical practice. Certain kinds of wisdom are eternal.

Very nicely put Jagat, my pranams..

QUOTE

De made many individual errors and was guilty of certain biases

I will be the first to agree with this, I often times have laughed out loud reading some of his stretches..

namaskar

(Sorry Madhava, see your post where this quote originates.)



These works are cited because they make arguments which must be responded to. Why does anyone cite anyone? It's either as support for an argument or as a purva-paksha (an argument that one intends to disagree with).

They are quoted because they have studied the material and assessed it, drawing conclusions that are coherent and persuasive. It is often difficult to overcome prejudices that become accepted knowledge when influential scholars establish them. I think that Dimock's seeing Sahajiyas everywhere, and De's disdain for the Goswamis' poetic talents are some of the issues that have successfully been laid to rest.

Of course, the hue and cry of the opposition to these views may be indicative that nerves have been touched. In the modern context, the Goswamis' writing might fall short of a reader's expectations. But that simply means it is time for new interpretations and new literature that better answers these expectations.

The question of Tantric influence is one that needs to be assessed in greater depth: Tantric influence was all pervasive in Indian culture. What exactly do we mean when we say that there was a Tantric influence? It may be comparable to finding Biblical references in Star Wars--such references are so pervasive in our culture that they can be found in almost any work of literature, often placed there quite unconsciously.

I think the real issue here is one of values: What are the values that are in question when we get all worked up about Tantra? Is it still part of the ongoing debate or developing theology of Gaudiya Vaishnavism? I think most people are not very clear on this at all. I can barely draw the line myself--it's like the "Pancharatra-Bhagavata" debate. Where is the line between the two?

Yes indeed, I certainly agree on this.

From where I look at things, people who are on record for making spurious claims or "stretches that make you laugh out loud" deserve to have the premises of their conclusions carefully screened before they are taken as authoritative.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Jun 24 2005, 07:24 PM)

QUOTE(jijaji @ Jun 24 2005, 03:54 PM)

All I am saying is that the wheat needs to be separated from the chaff...

Yes indeed, I certainly agree on this.

From where I look at things, people who are on record for making spurious claims or "stretches that make you laugh out loud" deserve to have the premises of their conclusions carefully screened before they are taken as authoritative.

I concur completely..

Your reference to homo religiosus has not gone unnoticed, Jagat.

I am always amused by these discussions wherein most of the participants are outsiders to the field of History of Religion, and are not acquainted with either the methodologies or the body of work. Yes, the field is part of the entire realm of academia, however it has its own set of jargon and unique dialog that sets it apart in many respects from the rest of the academic community. I suppose that holds true for any other speciality as well, such as anthropology or linguistics. My advice to those here that wish to follow the academic discourse is that they take the trouble to get through that learning curve first by reading the standard texts by Eliade, Wach and others and especially Kitagawa's writings on methodology. It takes a certain level of expertise to tackle the abstractions based on the various theologies, myths and rituals involved. I don't think it is necessary for one to complete a PhD in the field to at least become conversant in the subject, but it does require some minimum background study. Simply reading a bunch of translations of texts and commentaries without consulting the plethora of secondary works is not going to get you there.

Why I am not posting those text of RG Nath also explained long back. Anyway again I am narating those down.

1) The text is not with me currently, it is in my home in Calcutta.
2) It is so huge and full of explanation of various historic Sanskrit and other Gaudiya text as evidence and its explanation and then from those points arguments was being drawn about possible flaws of other scholars and that is so extensive , it is really hard to get anything from there by bits and pieces posting in this forum. You have to understand it reasoning , his translation and context. Without going through the text ityself you will not achieve anything. Only it will create confusion.
3) Dr. Radha Goivinda Nath has discussed these possible flaws in other books also. Such as in his Chaitanya Bhagavat, Gaudiya Vaishnava Darshan and Mahaprabhu Gauranga. And these are huge by volumn. FYI Radha Govinda Nath also awarded Ravindra Puraskar by Govt of West Bengal for his outstanding contribution "Gaudiya Vaishnava Darshan" which is one of the highest arward given to the field of literature by Govt. And by the achievement and authority all other scolar like S. K de et el can not match at all with Radha Govindha Nath (After his death govt Of West Bengal named one Road in calcutta after Dr. Radhagovinda nath's name , it is Dr. Radha Goivinda nath Sarani ). So indeed credibility does matter and that you can understand by reading his writings and by comparing with others.

I undertand the frustration of you jijaji ,being not able to get the access of what I am saying, but believe me it will take real sincere effort and good amount of time to properly translate and represent Dr. Radha Govinda Nath on this regard.


Then why I am saying these ? Because these issues are almost dead in bengali Gaudiya Vaishnava circle ,who has the proper access of all the appropriate texts,which we are discussing about.

You said the reference was in the 'intro' of the book by Dr Radha Govindha Nath, how many pages does he discuss S.K. De in that into? It certainly cannot be the entire intro...

If you are so confident that his words can dispell any doubts in this regard why can you not at least 'paraphrase them' if you are so familiar with the text.

And frankly 'paraphrasing' is really not good enough, Like Jagat said:

QUOTE

As to your point about RGNath, I agree fully. There is not much point in arguing like this without making concrete points. If Nath shows that De etc. are wrong in any way, then we would like to see the details

Interesting, dasanudasji: Are the issues “almost dead” in a natural way or by attempt murder ? Ok, how important is it for Gaudiya vaisnavism to still attempt reviving these issues if indeed there is an organic collapse in the debate?

Given Tantra's inherently predatory nature, it seems the obvious question of morality it raises has already decided its life as simply optional. It has its place in debate as any disruptive element will, but because of its incompatibility with progression in the Gaudiya ideal, this appears to be developing well out of it, no?

QUOTE

FYI Radha Govinda Nath also awarded Ravindra Puraskar by Govt of West Bengal for his outstanding contribution "Gaudiya Vaishnava Darshan" which is one of the highest arward given to the field of literature by Govt. And by the achievement and authority all other scolar like S. K de et el can not match at all with Radha Govindha Nath (After his death govt Of West Bengal named one Road in calcutta after Dr. Radhagovinda nath's name , it is Dr. Radha Goivinda nath Sarani ). So indeed credibility does matter and that you can understand by reading his writings and by comparing with others.

You are here attempting to establish his opinion and viewpoint as foremost in this regard by showing his noteworthy credentials rather that presenting his point of view. That is not going to convince anyone of his arguments.

I can post credentials of scholars and their acknowledgements by their peers or university degrees, Ph.D., D.Litt., good works and various awards etc...but that in no way establishes their point of view as conclusive or right in any way.

What is needed are his actual statements here, not "He is that or he has been awarded this". As I said, I am not asking for the 'entire' book and as you have said the 'reference' is found in the intro and certainly the entire intro cannot be about S.K. De

I asked you a long time ago for that reference and you were unable to produce it and now you say that the book is at your home in Calcutta, don't you ever go home..? And if you are so acquainted with his credentials and awards for this and that, why can you not give us at least the gist of that reference in the intro ? Why can you not even paraphrase and back up later with actual quotes, once you go home and get the book?

QUOTE

Without going through the text itself you will not achieve anything. Only it will create confusion.

I don't accept this, I am pretty sure that there must be certain statements that we can understand here, there is a very good cast of scholars here that can reasonably construe what is being said and help us out if it is so way above everyones head..

I think your playing a bit of dodgeball...

QUOTE

It is so huge and full of explanation of various  historic Sanskrit and other Gaudiya text as evidence and its explanation and then from those points  arguments was being drawn about possible flaws of other scholars and that is so extensive , it is really hard to get anything from there by bits and pieces  posting in this forum. You have to understand it reasoning , his translation and context. Without going through the text ityself you will not achieve anything. Only it will create confusion.

I undertand the frustration of you jijaji ,being not able to get the access of what I am saying, but believe me properly translate and represent Dr. Radha Govinda Nath on this regard.

Then why I am saying these ? Because these issues are almost dead in bengali Gaudiya Vaishnava  circle ,who has the proper access of all the appropriate texts,which we are discussing about.

I'm a bit confused here, you say;

QUOTE

it will take real sincere effort and good amount of time to good amount of time to properly translate and represent Dr. Radha Govinda Nath on this regard.

and even Madhava says;

QUOTE

However, you do realize that it isn't available in English, and that you are asking Dasanudas to translate into English and post what he describes as a "big book by itself"?

So in all fairness it would be assumed this is NOT in english and you are saying that is blocking you from bringing forth this information (*which I don't accept) many works not in English have been presented here on this forum. Also, back in Jan 31 2005 on the Caitanya, Sridhar Svami and Sankara thread you said;

QUOTE

Please read Dr. Radha Govinda Nath's Chaitanya Chraritamrita and Gauranga Mahaprabhu .... and post those also in this forum to show other memeber here how Dr. Radha Govinda Nath has refuted these type of theory scientifically and logically

as well as;

QUOTE

I can see you are free/mukta to write here also without much research on the matter. It is very easy to get English publication from India and just do a copy and paste here , rather than learning language and trying to go in depth to know the truth.

and;

QUOTE

I just wanted to make my point clear here that if you could read Dr. Radha Govanda Nath's wrtings you could understand how clearly he has refuted Dr. S K De s points line by line. And along with your valuable comments you could present those here in this forum to make this discussion even more comprehensive.

With all due respect you seem to contradict yourself a bit here, on one hand you tell me back in Jan to go get an english copy and copy and paste the points you want to make, as it is easy to get in India, and now on the other hand you say it is not in English and Madhava even confirms that and as a result you cannot bring the reference forward as the book is in Calcutta and would only confuse us anyway

Ahimsa still, Jijaji, will you accept his evidence if he produces one? Remember the "pooh poohing" incident now.

And then there are statements such as "...faith is, in my view, not dependent on this kind of historical mythology. It can even resist literary criticism". What seems to be in debate here is status of people, not of the issue itself. (Going 'round in circles we are; a deadlock of sorts).

I agree that if it is not possible to even summarize the line of argument of Dr. Govindanath versa S.K. De, or present even a single example, there is little use in repeatedly refering to the work as a place in which all is resolved.

Perhaps someone else has read Radha Govindanath's edition of Chaitanya Caritamrita and would like to say a word or two?

QUOTE

Ahimsa still, Jijaji, will you accept his evidence if he produces one? Remember the "pooh poohing" incident now.

This is not about ahimsa, Anand, nor am I poo poohing ( as there has been nothing yet presented to poo pooh)

Frankly it is only fair that when someone wants you to accept a point of view when referring to a statement made in a certain book that they show the evidence...

Also just because a person 'produces some evidence' one is not obliged to accept it to begin with..

No, not attack, shanti now. I too would like to see some quotes from the good Dr.

QUOTE(Anand @ Jun 26 2005, 11:09 PM)

No, not attack, shanti now. I too would like to see some quotes from the good Dr.

Ok

I have a copy of RGN's CC. I'll take a look and get back to you later on this.

Well, it turns out that I don't have a copy - just his CB. What I do have, though, is an English translation by Nagendra Kumar Ray from 1959. Must be the one relied upon by BBT for theirs.

Some say even Vivekananda misunderstood (or didn't accurately represent) Ramakrishna...who is to say? Only our personal bhajan will tell, no matter who is considered 'foremost'...

Jijaji in the discussion with your previous incarnation ( bangli Ji) I have clearly pointed out that book is not with me now. So your comment "and now you say that the book is at your home in Calcutta" is not correct. Would you mind to follow up with your previous incarnation a bit closely?

I do not see a good taste or mature behavior in the remark like this ", don't you ever go home..? " I will leave this upto moderator to look into this matter ( Hope this will not prompt you to take your next incarnation).



You may take it as you like.



Here in the discussion with your previous incarnation I did not mean that Dr. R G Nath's writings is available in English. By " It is very easy to get English publication from India and just do a copy and paste here , rather than learning language and trying to go in depth to know the truth........" I tried to point out the attitude of taking the easy path to become self-proclaimed scholar, and I staed further that it is very easy to do without taking the pain of learning the language , investigate the reference text but by searching in google or taking any available english translation and post it to GD like website. Hope you now understand my sarcastically placed comments.

You have raised questions, I have shown you the place where you can find the answer and also further advised you if you want to go deeper on this scholastic approach you have to learn bengali and sanksrit and find the solution, rather than paraprashing from one writer's english translation. Otherwise it will be a Street smart approach.
So there is no contradiction in my thought process as you sited here "you seem to contradict yourself ". And also I have not ask you to accept arguments on the basis of dr. RadhaGoivinda Nath's credentials , what I meant to read and judge by yourself.

And to All including moderators I do not come here to employ my time to engage in irrevalent debate which I am not interested at all. And I already mentioned my own inability to take the pain of translating text to site evidence over continuous debate going on this GD. I have shown reference texts with specific chapter information and I know only keen people will try to venture into it. If moderators and others find my approach is not acceptable I would love to request moderator to delete my account from this Discussion forum for my inability.

Pranam
Dasanudas

Here is the example of the how big the book is. These are from the book named "Mahaprabhu Gauranga" of Dr. Radha Govinda Nath which is now with me, but the CC by Dr . Radha Govinda Nath is even much bigger than this. Here the sited pictures deals about Dr. Radha Govondanath's discussion for the Disappearance of Mahaprabhu and he sited how Biman Bihary Majumdar wrongly concluded some erronous conclusion. He discssued with 5 - 7 pages in great detail. This is in very nutsell discussed here in this book which is present in CC introduction Khanda in greater details with discussion with all other Author like Dr. S K De et el on various subject of Mahaprabhu's biography.

And Mr. bangli ji wants me to forget all about my work and translate for him. So that he can use that translation to make another attempt to open new debate on Gaudiya Discussions 3 in future.

Very strange indeed.

Pranam

Dasanudas

Here is the example of the how big the book is. These are from the book named "Mahaprabhu Gauranga" of Dr. Radha Govinda Nath which is now with me, but the CC by Dr . Radha Govinda Nath is even much bigger than this. Here the sited pictures deals about Dr. Radha Govondanath's discussion for the Disappearance of Mahaprabhu and he sited how Biman Bihary Majumdar wrongly concluded some erronous conclusion. He discssued with 5 - 7 pages in great detail. This is in very nutsell discussed here in this book which is present in CC introduction Khanda in greater details with discussion with all other Author like Dr. S K De et el on various subject of Mahaprabhu's biography.

And Mr. bangli ji wants me to forget all about my work and translate for him. So that he can use that translation to make another attempt to open new debate on Gaudiya Discussions 3 in future.

Very strange indeed.

Pranam

Dasanudas

Here is the example of the how big the book is. These are from the book named "Mahaprabhu Gauranga" of Dr. Radha Govinda Nath which is now with me, but the CC by Dr . Radha Govinda Nath is even much bigger than this. Here the sited pictures deals about Dr. Radha Govondanath's discussion for the Disappearance of Mahaprabhu and he sited how Biman Bihary Majumdar wrongly concluded some erronous conclusion. He discssued with 5 - 7 pages in great detail. This is in very nutsell discussed here in this book which is present in CC introduction Khanda in greater details with discussion with all other Author like Dr. S K De et el on various subject of Mahaprabhu's biography.

And Mr. bangli ji wants me to forget all about my work and translate for him. So that he can use that translation to make another attempt to open new debate on Gaudiya Discussions 3 in future.

Very strange indeed.

Pranam

Dasanudas

Here is the example of the how big the book is. These are from the book named "Mahaprabhu Gauranga" of Dr. Radha Govinda Nath which is now with me, but the CC by Dr . Radha Govinda Nath is even much bigger than this. Here the sited pictures deals about Dr. Radha Govondanath's discussion for the Disappearance of Mahaprabhu and he sited how Biman Bihary Majumdar wrongly concluded some erronous conclusion. He discssued with 5 - 7 pages in great detail. This is in very nutsell discussed here in this book which is present in CC introduction Khanda in greater details with discussion with all other Author like Dr. S K De et el on various subject of Mahaprabhu's biography.

And Mr. bangli ji wants me to forget all about my work and translate for him. So that he can use that translation to make another attempt to open new debate on Gaudiya Discussions 3 in future.

Very strange indeed.

Pranam

Dasanudas

Here is the example of the how big the book is. These are from the book named "Mahaprabhu Gauranga" of Dr. Radha Govinda Nath which is now with me, but the CC by Dr . Radha Govinda Nath is even much bigger than this. Here the sited pictures deals about Dr. Radha Govondanath's discussion for the Disappearance of Mahaprabhu and he sited how Biman Bihary Majumdar wrongly concluded some erronous conclusion. He discssued with 5 - 7 pages in great detail. This is in very nutsell discussed here in this book which is present in CC introduction Khanda in greater details with discussion with all other Author like Dr. S K De et el on various subject of Mahaprabhu's biography.

And Mr. bangli ji wants me to forget all about my work and translate for him. So that he can use that translation to make another attempt to open new debate on Gaudiya Discussions 3 in future.

Very strange indeed.

Pranam

Dasanudas

Here is the example of the how big the book is. These are from the book named "Mahaprabhu Gauranga" of Dr. Radha Govinda Nath which is now with me, but the CC by Dr . Radha Govinda Nath is even much bigger than this. Here the sited pictures deals about Dr. Radha Govondanath's discussion for the Disappearance of Mahaprabhu and he sited how Biman Bihary Majumdar wrongly concluded some erronous conclusion. He discssued with 5 - 7 pages in great detail. This is in very nutsell discussed here in this book which is present in CC introduction Khanda in greater details with discussion with all other Author like Dr. S K De et el on various subject of Mahaprabhu's biography.

And Mr. bangli ji wants me to forget all about my work and translate for him. So that he can use that translation to make another attempt to open new debate on Gaudiya Discussions 3 in future.

Very strange indeed.

Pranam

Dasanudas

Please don't be upset, Dasanudasji. We were just curious about which issues R.G. Nath disagreed with De and others. You don't need to translate, just say what the subject matter is.

I have the books, so if could just know where to look. I leafed through the introduction, but found nothing about Mahaprabhu's disappearance. Lots of interesting stuff though. Gotta read these books sometime.

QUOTE

And Mr. bangli ji wants me to forget all about my work and translate for him. So that he can use that translation to make another attempt to open new debate on Gaudiya Discussions 3 in future.

Gee whiz dasji, lighten up man..... like Jagat says we were just curious about which issues R.G. Nath disagreed with De and others on, I even suggested you paraphrase it.

Dasji you been telling about this reference for 6 mths now. I never asked you to translate books here, all that has been asked was to reproduce the reference you have repeatedly told us is the foremost conclusive evidence.

I think your getting a bit hot under the collar here..


Mr. Bangli ji

As I have stated earlier Dr. Nath discussed about Mahaprabhu's Disappearance in the book "Mahaprabhu Gauranga" (MG) not in CC introduction. But in CC discussion he generally analysed various others subject matter with the view of different scholars. I can not remember the titles or sections in CC as I read that when I was in India. I do not have scanner otherwise I would have scanned and uploaded some pages from MG as Madhava asked me long back in other matter.

Probably if somebody from western world can just simply translate the whole text RadhaGovinda Nath then probably one can find most about GV from one single place in Western World.

Today I was discussing with one of the GD member from Ramananda Samvad from this book over telephone and he was just wondering about the depth of explanation and writings and I am sure no other book has been produce ever in such depth with ample of references. Which is very obvious to people who read Dr. Nath once.

After catching up on this thread after a few days, I realize more of what bothers me about the topic, which I tried, apperantly unsuccessfully, to relate in a earlier post.

To patently doubt all acedemic research (or consider it a sinister plot by athiests-ala ACBS ) just seems to be so...

When there is so much rivalry and disagreement (for thousands of years) between the various schools of thought themselves, can we realistically expect that every acedemic is going to somehow synthesize everything perfectly in a manner agreeable to everyone (I certainly never meant to imply that by my previous posts)? Besides, where exactly is this imaginary line drawn between those in the know and those who aren't? With diksha we suddenly understand everything? One can say of course the devotee is hooked to the channel of divine revelation, but why then all the disagreement within the traditions themselves about who is actually 'authorised' and who isn't, and who has the accurate understanding and who does not? So it seems the adversary isn't just acedemia, but whatever is contrary to popular belief of the respective faction.

Once someone asked the Dalai Lama "what if science someday begins to prove things contrary to the Buddhist teachings?", and the DL reportedly said, "then it is Buddhism that must change".

(Just a relevant side note: It seems that the Srivaisnava tradition has successfully integrated itself into the acedemic world in a manner pleasing to both practitioners and acedemics. See the work of AKK Venkatachari, Vasudha Narayanan, John Carman, and many others. Why don't you traditional Gaudiyas get out there and correct these various misunderstandings some seem to feel are present within the scholarly work on the tradition by performing the research and doing the neccessary writing on the acedemic level?)

The burden of proof falls both ways, and to uphold a currently (within the course of history) popular sectarian veiw doesn't automatically trumph all (at least in my opinion), and the same certainly holds true for acedemic opinion. The problem with the synthesis of science (or acedemia) and religion has always been that religion, or perhaps more accurately, spiritual life, is a subjective experience. When religious leaders throughout history have tried to make the subjective into some literal, fundamental code, somehow the essence of the process is lost. (think the Inquisition) Similarly, when the acedemic attempts to objectively analyze a spiritual tradition, the essence is sometimes understandably lost.


Without doubt some will read this and put me in the 'anti-party' frame of mind, but I'm really not. Some will disect the details and disregard the point of the post; it is meant to challenge not devotional life and bhajan, but rather the mentality of the practioner. Actually, I'm simply an advocate of inquisitiveness, personal reflection, and abandonment of stereotypes born by lack of the other two. Perhaps that is why I fit into neither the world of organized religion nor the acedemic world. But somehow intuitively, I feel that whom I desire deep in my soul is not bound to either realm .

With that I leave you fine people for my summer travels! Om Shanti ...

QUOTE

The problem with the synthesis of science (or acedemia) and religion has always been that religion, or perhaps more accurately, spiritual life, is a subjective experience. When religious leaders throughout history have tried to make the subjective into some literal, fundamental code, somehow the essence of the process is lost. (think Inquisition) Similarly, when the acedemic attempts to objectively analyze a spiritual tradition, the essence is sometimes understandably lost.

Thanks for saying this. Indeed Science is the search for truth in the objective world and Religion is the search for the truth in the subjective world.

QUOTE

Once someone asked the Dalai Lama "what if science someday begins to prove things contrary to the Buddhist teachings?", and the DL reportedly said, "then it is Buddhism that must change".

Just a sidenote here: I myself am not a big fan of the Dalai Lama although I respect his humanitarian efforts. The true teachings of the Buddha that were taught in India became mixed with the indigenous religion of Tibet (Bon Religion) when it entered there and thus you have a whole pantheon of various Gods, Goddesses and practices that were not originally to be found in the Buddha's teachings.

Buddha did not teach 'Belief' in a particular 'dogma or doctrine' he primarily taught 'search for the truth in the subjective world' through meditation, specifically vipassana...

He also allowed freedom of thought and doubt among his followers which differed very much from the standard religious systems of his time that advocated 'belief' as most important. Belief carries its own doubt and true belief means you have hidden that doubt so completely that nobody will be able to know, but you know it well. And that's why believers don't like to listen to things which go against their belief because it can spark that doubt and rock the boat so to speak.
Belief carries doubt as love carries hate and life carries death.

QUOTE

With that I leave you fine people for my summer travels! Om Shanti

bon voyage, have a great time...

Dasnudasji,

I was going to say this earlier but then I refrained because I thought my reading of the situation might have been from a wishful perspective. But now I see by your reaction that I might just have been correct (at least that is my reading now): I was going to point out to Jijaji that you came into the discussion offering an opinion, not a conclusive argument you expected him to ‘accept’. You did not feel what you presented needed be substantiated; you were offering it as a perspective, not as a conclusion of anything or, as Madhava put it, a “place in which all is resolved”. It seems to me you would be more experienced than attempting such thing, albeit for you, it seems, all in the matter is indeed resolved.

You referred to a source that, by your estimation and apparently that of a great number of people in India, including its Government, is a credible one. “Credibility does matter”, you said, after presenting a list of Dr. Nath’s credentials. Yes, credibility indisputably matters, and that therefore is a moot point. But the sources Dr. Nath on his turn dismantles are also credible and that is the apparent reason Dr. Nath is being required to show up here.

But I say ‘apparent’ because I think here is where the table shifts; this is not about credibility in the field really but credibility relatively to priority. You as an Indian speak from the perspective of your experience within the culture, your experience as an insider, whereas the disputing party speaks from the perspective of researchers. I think this element of belonging or not does count in the debate and in fact seems to become central at that point where two distinct experiences meet.

If it is indeed as you say that Bengal has ceased to see any need to put efforts in laying these things absolutely straight, the natural wisdom of this course must be taken into consideration, I would think. A great portion of the development of these issues sprouts out and winds around culture; if there is not enough interest in Bengal anymore in cultivation of the issues one way or another, hasn’t the matter been naturally settle then, a conclusion reached?

Historically it has been clear that the West has a way of patronizing the East in at least a couple of levels. Dictating the fashion India will research, handle and even direct its own systems of believes has been an imposition India has tolerated from the pompous West since a while, it seems. In adjusting to the challenge and dealing with the contradiction (science-belief), India seems to have compromised enough. The West falls behind in the reciprocation though, overlooking the natural course these communities will level at, which is where needs are met. If we are going to forever make a big deal of the East-West thing, then lets be honest and let the East be what it is, and not what we conveniently decide it was, is and should be. Accepting and taking will always be distinct things.

Ok, om shanty now, bon voyage to everyone…

Now that was thought out