Thoughts on Objectivity and Logic - (Posts separated from the schism thread)

I have found a way out of this faith vs logic dilemma. And this is purely an opinion (and has absolutely nothing to do with tattva-vaada :-). Human consciousness is gifted with the faculty of recognising a superior intelligence at work. And this does not require somebody to study extensively to acknowledege the fact, where common sense does the work. In my view, all this propaganda of "disproving God" is quite contrived and the effort has resulted in presentation of hypotheses which are no less "amazing". There are also those who remain cautious and do not take any sides. Thus I start with the axiom that there is a superior intelligence at work. Now, going by the nature of the amazing capacity of this superior intelligence, he would surely have made some form of communication which is 100% reliable, one to one. Now that I think about it, I can say that it is sincere prayer. The important part is -- sincerity. Well, sincerity needs to be learned also, but I think we would be helped by the superior intelligence in this matter also. (If scripture is to be believed, then there is not much physical distance between us and this "superior intelligence")

I, therefore, think that we should rely more on this form of communication, and ask God (the superior intelligence) to help us out. So if we get mislead and get entangled in wrong paths, inspite of trying all that we could otherwise, we should consider it to be our due -- but never leave "sincere prayer" which, in my humble opinion, is infallible. Taking the view that God is essentially good, our prayers will be heard and our particular path shown.

Thus, I think that these arguments about what is "correct" and what is not -- is not a prerequisite for advancing. What may be correct for me may not be correct for you. Because according to what path needs to be followed by us, we may be shown that kind of logic and that kind of taste may sprout. By more "sincere prayer" if that tendency increases, we start to have firm faith on our path.

If some "commonly acceptable" scripture is to be quoted (taken from Vedaanta Deshika's comments -- Sri Vaishnava list):

Bhagavad Geeta:

yE yathA maam prapadhyanthE "tAn aham" (tAms) tathA yEva bhajAmi (aham)

In which ever way , anyone , who desires Me and reach towards Me , I reach them in the way they wished. I make them enjoy Me in the same way they visualized Me and worshipped Me.



Sathapatha BrAhmaNam:

tham yathA yathOpaasathE tadhEva Bhavathi

BhagavAn takes the form desired by the human beings worshipping Him in whatever way they wish to see Him



To end, I want to say that (again IMHO), when one sincerely wants to worship God in a form, the corresponding rules and regulations descend.

With warm regards,
Kishalaya

[quote]
Really dear Kishalayaji, I have to pull rank, in this case age seniority, and state that you are a very confused young man, obviously a young inexperienced man who has tried too hard to understand too much...
[/quote]

I have no problem with that tag. Does anybody else have...?

[quote]
Right here you admit that some of us may be 'converts from GM'. Does not that qualify us as 'Bhaktisiddhanta followers'?
[/quote]

NO. You don't claim to be so, and neither is the attitude favourable.

[quote]
Then your observation makes no sense. We know the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta, and I am confident, having read you, that between us we know them far better than you. Why would we not be 'fixated' upon someone some of us have spent half our lives and more, many decades, trying to fathom? Sri Bhaktisiddhanta is a fascinating mystery, worthy of Sherlock Holmes and beyond.
[/quote]

All this sounds nice. However let us also hear some who are following him.

[quote]
Again you wish us to confront the Tattvavadis.
[/quote]

What made you think so. Just because I said I had confronted them. Come on.......

[quote]
What purpose would it serve? They had no initial wish to confront us, did they?
[/quote]

Yes, the tattva-vaadis are not "defending", they are out to obliterate. Challenge and defeat (something like Shankara and Mandana Misra). Anyway that seems to be a bit difficult in modern times. If you have a chance to peek into alt.religion.vaishnav or soc.religion.vaishnava during 1995-1996, you would know who was confronting who.

[quote]
  Why were they not left alone? You want us to know that they disapprove of their depiction in CC? Excuse me, but you are stating the bleeding obvious! It would be tactful to in fact not draw their attention to it and I personally wish such a course had never been taken, or that it had been done by proper scholars.
[/quote]

Which I can say with confidence there is NO scholar within Caitanya Vaishnavism who can sit five minutes before them. Don't believe me. Try it. Just to tell you, Satyanaaraayana Daasa confirmed to me (if you want to believe me, that is), we are "bacchaa" before their power to debate refined over centuries. (And please don't show me the SCS math page. Show it to them!)

[quote]
But I realise this problem was caused by someone else, not you. I advise you to stop trying to mediate this issue - it is simply beyond your current abilities.
[/quote]

I know I know, but the rest of the Caitanya community (orthodox or otherwise) should also acknowledge that -- it is simply beyond our current abilities, instead of doing a cover up job (I mean the "proper scholar" part)

[quote]
And as for 'recent converts'. Goodness me, how on earth would you know? How impetuous to make such a grand and wrong assumption - a typically youthful folly. All of your flaws can be ascribed to youth.
[/quote]

Yes, I acknowledge, I made a mistake saying "recent converts". It is perhaps mostly (self branded) "orthodox" Gaudiya Vaishnavas within last three decades or so, converts or direct.

[quote]
Over the decades I have seen other young men who talk like you, Indians and westerners. I sympathise with what I can surmise of your plight
[/quote]

Far from it. I am quite comfortable at present, though sometimes I cannot control my temper on seeing absolute crap being wrapped in sophisticated language; that -- I hope will get cured in good time. However, I must thank your forum to have given me what I was looking for, though not to your taste.

[quote]
you seem to have been coerced by Gaudiya preachers who made you accept their scriptures in a fundamentalist way. Yes this was wrong. We do not endorse this.
[/quote]

No I was not coerced. There was ample self interest also. Though I may not agree with them totally now, I have no ill feelings towards them since they laid my foundation and thus a greater part of my heart is indeed grateful to them. Yes they may view me in bad light, corrupt etc. but I can understand, which is how I was once.

[quote]
But it does not then follow that you have to be a kind of religous anarchist, which is how you sound here. Every religion, every group has boundaries. Every sport, every game has rules. To make a cake you must follow the recipe, you can improvise a little when you know the basic outline.
[/quote]

The point is, here, everybody has seen his cake for himself only and is not at all interested in the others' recipes. Therefore the disagreement (to the point that one does not accept the other's delicacy to be a cake -- a conclusion inferred by examining the recipe). Thus, your analogy is faulty. (Here Cake ~ Caitanya Vaishnavism)

[quote]
You need to slow down, take one issue at a time, never mind where you start but focus just on that, and relax, consider, cogitate. Take your time...
[/quote]

Yeah... same to you all

My dandavat pranams to you Braj Mohan Das


[quote]
Now, I must apologize, but seriously can't follow the logic in your presentation here.
[/quote]

Ah... never mind

[quote]
You may wish to present some examples of alternate biographies. I take it that you have studied some, reasoning by the confidence you display in presenting your claims.
[/quote]

Why are you insisting on trying to bring out particulars from my mouth. I won't. (And I know you will insist)Aren't there any alternate biographies than CC. An able Gaudiya librarian like your good self would, no doubt, know. I just forgot, there are biographies of His associates also (no I am not talking of the "Orissa" case highlighted in your post -- but then I would have to take that account with a pinch of salt, after all the authors were those who do not approve of their beliefs and practices -- if the "beliefs and practices" described are indeed the full story).

[quote]
Now you are asking us, "What evidence has been presented from the other side?" I'd expect that you'd have researched this before making strong objections.
[/quote]

Since you made your intentions quite clear:
[quote]
Why do you think we should word our posts in a more secular tone
[/quote]
I bail out. I apologize. I had just assumed some mode of discussion (obvious otherwise elsewhere [not everywhere!]).

[quote]
If you are proposing that the sanga here is best avoided, then probably this is true -- for you.
[/quote]

I made that statement in a hurry. However, thinking in retrospect, I have concluded it was afterall correct. I got what I wanted from your forum (and thanks for that) and I don't think I have anything else to look for here.

[quote]
It was good to have you here as long as it lasted. I wish you all success in your quest for whatever it is that you seek.
[/quote]

Thanks, same to you and my dandavat pranaams to you Madhava ji. (Sorry I did not order the books, now its too late!...but I have ordered others :-)

See yaa all dandavat pranaamas,
Kishalaya

Well, I insist since you sound like you know it all, judging by the tone of your voice. I'll not insist, then, since you don't know. There is nothing wrong if one has a challenging attitude, but a blindly challenging attitude and challenges preceding investigation are not a very mature way to go about.


The mode of discussion you assumed is otherwise obvious elsewhere but not here?


Now that you mentioned it, what is it that you wanted and got from this forum?


I once thought that the world would crawl at the feet of my intellect, as I challenged it with my mighty sword of logic, slaying whatever I beheld in any direction I faced. How wrong I was.

The analogy is wrong again. The wife thinks she is the only wife. The other wife is all willing to say that the first one is chaste, loyal etc, but the first one simply does not accept that the second one has anything to do with hwr husband.

The tattva-vaadis do not start with Veda based reasoning. First we have to know on what ground do we make the Veda a basis. To give you a contrast, the Sri Vaishnavas have no clue.... and are at a complete loss of wits when confontronted by rationalists, which they themselves reluctantly acknowledge. The tattva-vaadis claim to deal with these "rationalists" quite effortlessly. And by what I have till now understood of their logic, they seem to be quite true to their assertion.

Do you now see where they are........

See adiyen ji, I am not a sucker of multi week debate without food and water and some grammatical contortions. However I cannot find myself not giving compliment where it is due.

There is a saying here in India. In its own terrirory, even a dog is a tiger. (I apologize for bringing in the animals. They do not in any way reflect on anybody. That was just a literal translation.) I still maintain there are biographies which are not necessarily how a Ruupaanugaa would view Mahaaprabhu. If I take the names, useless discussions about authenticity, dating etc. etc. will be entered into and I would rather not get into that -- much like if Kaviraaja said there are Sruti statements declaring Caitanya to be Krishna, then where are they or why are they not clear or why can they be not found in the texts etc. When Gaauraanga was in bhaava, he ordered the Gosvaamis but he also led a life in which he was not in bhaava, much like a school teacher, a logician. Just because he empowered the Gosvaamis does not mean that he did not share a meaningful relashionship with the people of Nadia prior to bhaava and that there was no internal desire in Him then. Please do not bring in Murari Gupta in it. You may find that he is not necessarily stamping approval on every word of yours.

As I write this, I am being asked by people, who have spent more years contemplating Gauraanga than perhaps your time on earth, to discuss everything in open. However I know that discussion (non-critical, streamlined towards ones goal only) can flourish in a favourable environment only.

There is another thing I want to make clear. I am not here to canvass for anybody. Wherever Hari wants, the jeeva will land up there. So arguments towards a more all-encompassing view and those of others who take a more restricted view of Gauraanga, is just time-pass. As you know -- maare hari raakhe ke? raakhe hari maare ke?.............



May be you will know sometime.

Yours humbly,
Kishalaya

Dear Kishalaya,
You are indeed very humble devotee,that is obvious out of your postings.In Iskcon (and Gaudiya Math) everybody writes at the end of their letters or correspondence:your servant,yours humbly,please accept my dandavats,obeisances in the dust of your lotus feet,pranams,....do you do that automatically,or you have to do it?

Also,my question is for you....do you think that your view on this topic is the only one?Seems like you like to appear very enigmatic(May-be you will know sometime....wow,what is that,maybe he will have divine revelation like you?),but still you are on the surface.How is that?

Yours maha mega humbly,
Tamal

You maintain so, but you have no basis for the claim. This renders your claim useless. Yes, I am again pointing out that you need to harmonize your rhetoric and the degree of factual basis you have for it.

Discussions on authenticity, dating and so forth are not useless, unless of course one desires to avoid the issue altogether. After all, if one has not examined the authenticity and dating of a book, what is the value of referring to such a work?


Where did Krishnadas Kaviraja say that there are sruti-statements declaring Caitanya to be Krishna? I cannot recall any such statements. Is this yet another case of rhetoric without foundation?

I find it ludicrous that you keep going on about critical examination and so forth, yet you so recklessly neglect to examine even the basic facts on the basis of your idea before you start making claims.



Did you slip in an extra Y in that "your" by chance?



Really?

Madhava, I think Kishalji may be referring to, and have been defending all along, the different views of the Khandavasis, if that is the correct term for those who my Gurubhais respectfully call 'Bishnupriya Sampradaya'.

If so, I already indicated on page 3 for those who did not already know this, that all Rupaanugas must chant before generally every Gaudiya Vaishnava gathering, as a part of a statement of our respect and vandan for all followers of Sri Chaitanya, the following:

JAY JAY KHANDA-VAASI NARAHARI MURAARI MUKUNDA

Then what is the need for debate?

I am neither humble and far from a devotee, however I think that even a pretence should be good enough for a start.



means what..... telling me to shut up...........My question for you then....can't I have a view.......?



Enigmatic.........man you have a way with words. Even a toddler just has to push one search button on this forum to know about my bias. And since Madhavaji is not so ignorant about this little technicality, I preferred to answer him in his dialect.



seems to resemble the avatar, good going.......

Yours humbly again,
Kishalaya

Why are you getting agitated. Those who really want to, can find what I was hinting at.



It is the content that matters. God knows how many of the extant texts have interpolations and wrong authors ascribed to them, however their value is not minimized, in my (humble) opinion. Just take for example bhaagavatam. It does not matter (to me) whether it was written by vyaasa or 5000 years ago. If a saadhu accepts it, it must have substance.

If one wants to go about deciding the authenticity, one has to do a lot more work than read up all the indologists -- particularly verify the shaakaa or the lineage taking care of such a work -- such lineages which can be verified by independent historical accounts (favourable or otherwise).



Ok that was a faux pas on my part. I was refering to this statement:

bhaagavata, bhaarata-shaastra, aagama, puraana
caitanya-krishna-avataare prakata pramaana

Even if you exclude Sruti, objections still remain like statements in these variety of scriptures which can be "dated" before the advent of Caitanya, the clarity of these statements and scriptures not discovered by Caitanya or his followers etc...

I don't have time for all this. I would rather take the word of persons, who in my judgement, are quite dependable. This is somewhat risky. But isn't every endeavour covered with some form of risk -- you try to minimize it in your way, I in mine.



If you were in any mood to discuss, you would have taken the cue, however.......



Not at all. I was given an indication of your present age in this mortal world.



Presenting a viewpoint does not necessarily entail canvassing, not at least in my dictionary........may be it is here......as you so bluntly like to point out.......

I had already said I am backing off. But I think I was appealing to a gentleman's sense of propriety when I was saying that there are descriptions of Mahaaprabhu which is not what exactly what a Ruupaanugaa would like to view in Him. The fact is that they exist (according to your objective standards, and according to you in other forums, however that was not what I was aiming at), whether I take their name or not, whether you cry hoarse or not. As I told you I have reason not to be explicit, one of which you mentioned yourself -- this forum will not take a secular viewpoint, and which is OK since it is "your" forum (and secondly seeing your response, I think I was quite right in holding off).

I just found something which may be a more acceptable source to you:

"I call on all Vaishnavas to be hearty in their approbation at the achievements of those they have become in the habit of criticizing. There is no one representative of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, but many representatives, each of whom is developing his or her vision of Mahaprabhu according to the time and circumstances. Let us not blind ourselves to history, or pervert history in order to achieve our own ideological goals, but look at the history of our tradition objectively and work to perfect ourselves and our movement on that basis. "

http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/artic...ticle.php?id=90



As I said, everybody uses his common sense to minimize his risks. The case of Caitanya Upanishad is a classical one. One can say about the possibility of its being forged -- however if it, I don't feel any more uncomfortable at it. Every tradition has some of its "exclusive" scripture which others don't have access to and which others downright reject -- including the tattva-vaadis. (As for the birthplace controversy, I don't care if its was a mile this way or that -- that is not essential for me). What is essential, is that a great many persons who would generally qualify as saadhus, accept something, and thus that has value -- (which Caitanya Upanishad does not seem to have in my opinion)

Otherwise if one wants to do it the proper way, there is a protocol that is usually followed.

Other than that, the tattva-vaadis are not my friends -- they would rather view me with great suspicion for what I have said and done with them. And if you care to know, they (and others) have opinion on Gopaala Tapani Upanishad also for its oral tradition is obscure........



That is nice, unfortunately serves very little purpose for my urgent need except for some intellectual gymnastics in probability theory, (and I hope Vyaasa also does not mind), however what I was referring to was oral traditions (in case of Shruti) and at least live lineages (in other cases) keeping a tab on each other that no hanky-panky job has been passed off as scripture.



I never said I was being objective. I was perhaps saying the reverse. However I was also saying that there is subjectivity in much of what we hold dear. What about Caitanya being Krishna?. Then there has to be some subjectivity like adherence to one's own interpretation etc. Nobody is asking to forsake common sense and maturity as one grows old, however subjectivity is essential in the path we follow. One does not fanatically discuss the stability of the 13th floor without paying attention to the foundation.

Yes I don't have time. Much of that objectivity will take me god knows how many lifetimes. But I have persons with whom I can take an educated guess of being a saadhu and thus take a calculated chance. May be one finds one was wrong (as can be vouched by nearly all here), then take on that experience and use it as a yardstick for future judgement. On the way, if one finds time, one can play the "objective" gymnastics, which may come in handy...... (And there is Krishna in one's heart also... don't forget)



I don't think my last statement (to which you have answered above) was that ambiguous to give an impression that I could have been canvassing, yet you prefer to harp on it..... Perhaps it was an anticipation of these kinds of replies that held me back.

And as for the mention of the age, I too think it was inappropriate, however I find it amusing that when the (assumed) difference between my age and that of another (quite reasonable otherwise) person in the forum was brought forward, there was not the least bit of commotion...... perhaps it has to do with "how things operate here"