shvu

Archana, etc are mostly derived from Aagamaas and here is where the Pancharaatras come in (for Vaishnavas). According to <a href = "http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#2">Maadhva</a> and also Raamaanuja, Pancharaatras are valid scripture. Cheers

Karthik, Both interpretations cannot be true. For instance, Advaita says there is no duality after Mukti while Dvaita says duality is eternal. Advaita accepts Jiivan-mukti as possible while according to Dvaita, there is no such thing as Jiivan-mukti. Clearly both cannot be true. Either one of them is true or both are false. Maadhva and Raamaanuja establish their respective positions by proving Advaita wrong. They never state Shruti is amenable to multiple interpretations and more than one interpretation can be true. Advaita will accept Dvaitic interpretations only on the Vyavahaarika level, or in other words, Advaita rejects the concept of eternal duality. According to some Gaudiya Vaishnavas, there are four authorized sampradaayaas, which seems to imply that all the four may be correct. But such an idea is not entertained by the sampradaayaas themselves.Here is the <a href = "http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#3.5">Dvaita position</a> on this. Cheers

Karthik, Both interpretations cannot be true. For instance, Advaita says there is no duality after Mukti while Dvaita says duality is eternal. Advaita accepts Jiivan-mukti as possible while according to Dvaita, there is no such thing as Jiivan-mukti. Clearly both cannot be true. Either one of them is true or both are false. Maadhva and Raamaanuja establish their respective positions by proving Advaita wrong. They never state Shruti is amenable to multiple interpretations and more than one interpretation can be true. Advaita will accept Dvaitic interpretations only on the Vyavahaarika level, or in other words, Advaita rejects the concept of eternal duality. According to some Gaudiya Vaishnavas, there are four authorized sampradaayaas, which seems to imply that all the four may be correct. But such an idea is not entertained by the sampradaayaas themselves.Here is the <a href = "http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#3.5">Dvaita position</a> on this. Cheers

Firstly, no one is required to study the Vedaas in full. According to *all* the traditional schools of Vedaanta, only the Suutras and the main Upanishads are sufficient for all the Suutras can be traced back to existant Shruti. None of the traditional Achaaryas ever had a problem with *missing* Shruti while interpreting the Suutras. About the great commentators, interpreting Shruti in contradicting ways, they have done the same with the Gita which is also part of Itihaasa. Going by Jiva's logic, people should not study the BG either. When interpreted in the light of Shruti, yes. Not otherwise. I wonder how one arrives at this conclusion. The entire purport of the Vedaas has been summarized by Vyaasa in the Suutras. And since there is no Suutra that remains unexplained, one can safely conclude that there is no unkown material to be known in any *missing* Vedaas. Thus if there is any material in a Smriti text which cannot be traced back to Shruti, it is Pramaana only if it does not contradict any of the existant Shruti and not otherwise. Given the above, it is incorrect to say only the Itihaasa and Puraanas are sufficent by themselves to understand the Vedaas. At least, none of the traditional Vedaanta Gurus took such an approach. Hence, concepts like "Bhakti is greater than Mukti" , "Will not accept Mukti even if it is *offered* to us", etc are not Vedic. I am not saying they are false, for no one really knows what is true or false. I am just saying they do not have support from the Vedaas. Cheers

Firstly, no one is required to study the Vedaas in full. According to *all* the traditional schools of Vedaanta, only the Suutras and the main Upanishads are sufficient for all the Suutras can be traced back to existant Shruti. None of the traditional Achaaryas ever had a problem with *missing* Shruti while interpreting the Suutras. About the great commentators, interpreting Shruti in contradicting ways, they have done the same with the Gita which is also part of Itihaasa. Going by Jiva's logic, people should not study the BG either. When interpreted in the light of Shruti, yes. Not otherwise. I wonder how one arrives at this conclusion. The entire purport of the Vedaas has been summarized by Vyaasa in the Suutras. And since there is no Suutra that remains unexplained, one can safely conclude that there is no unkown material to be known in any *missing* Vedaas. Thus if there is any material in a Smriti text which cannot be traced back to Shruti, it is Pramaana only if it does not contradict any of the existant Shruti and not otherwise. Given the above, it is incorrect to say only the Itihaasa and Puraanas are sufficent by themselves to understand the Vedaas. At least, none of the traditional Vedaanta Gurus took such an approach. Hence, concepts like "Bhakti is greater than Mukti" , "Will not accept Mukti even if it is *offered* to us", etc are not Vedic. I am not saying they are false, for no one really knows what is true or false. I am just saying they do not have support from the Vedaas. Cheers

Talageri wrote a book. Witzel critcized the book. Talagarei has criticized the crticism, in the link you have posted. The reply by Witzel that I posted earlier covers this refutal of Talageri's. I coudn't find a reply from Talageri to this one. btw, can you post that verse which says the Vedas can be interpreted in multiple ways? I remember you posted it before, but I am unable to find it now using the search option. Thanks

I believe he says so in his Mahabhaarata Taatparya NirNaya. Although I am not sure, I think www.dvaita.org has a sanskrit text of the MBTN on their website. Dayaananda Saraswati's Guru told him the Puraanas are junk. I don't recall the details though. Cheers

The 2 chapters of Section II of his book "The Rigveda - A historical Analysis". That is what I am saying too. I said "other than that". All of whom differ from one another based on their backgrounds, which is my point. Saayana coming from an Advaitic viewpoint, Gopalacharya from a Maadhva viewpoint and so on. The very fact that they belong to different traditions shows scripture can be interpreted in various different ways so as to alter the entire purport. When Indians themselves vary in their interpretations so widely, what is the point in accusing Westerners of being biased? For instance, tattavamsi of the Chaandogya upanishad is read as is, by Shankara to mean "You are that", leading to an advaitic interpretation. However Maadhva reads it as atattvamasi, with the first letter 'a' meaning Vishnu and so on, leading to an entirely different meaning. aham brahmaasmi to Shankara is aheyam brahmaasmi to Maadhva and so on. Even the Gita which is supposed to be simple and straightforward is interpreted so differently. For example, Maadhva's interpretation of brahmaNohi pratishhThaaham is totally different from Shankara's. I can safely bet, the Ramanuja tradition has such differences too. This is what I am talking about. Unless/Until Witzel comes back with another reply criticizing Talageri. Unfortunately, since I am not acquainted with the contents of the Rig-veda, I am not in a position to accept or reject either of these two guys. My next task is to read Talageri more closely to see where he is coming from, which will take a while. Cheers

Here is Witzel's criticizm of Talageri's criticizm of Witzel's criticizm of Talageri. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Talageri-answer.htm Cheers

Thanks for the links. I had read this a while back and had forgotten the names. In my opinion, all translators/interpreters (Indian, Western, Indians influenced by Western thought, Westerners influenced by Indian thought) tend to view things based on their background. There are no exceptions. Given this, I would take any translation with a grain of salt and not only those by westerners. For instance, Talageri complains about the westerners sticking to the Aryan Invasion theory calling it political motivation, etc. So what does he do? He comes out with a book which states all Aryan-European languages have their basis in India, but (somehow) his theory is not politically motivated. Now I am not saying he is incorrect, but the point is we can interpret things which ever way we want to and we usually do it based on our background. Other than the portions which point to Aryan Invasion, most other interpretations by the western scholars are quite reliable. Since many Indians translate scriptures incorrectly to reflect their own views, everyone is in the same boat which is why it is not reasonable to differentiate between western and Indian scholars. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-31-2002).]

Is this available online? btw, the Anu-Giita translation above is by one Kashinath Trimbak Telang. Thanks [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-30-2002).]

The same source of the above translation says Shankara has quoted from the Anu-Giita in his commentary on the Sanatsugaatiiya (which is part of the Mahabhaarata). However there are some issues with this, which I will post later when I find time. Cheers

Sorry Ram, the website I mentioned carries only English translations. I do not have access to the original text. Cheers

A while back there was some discussion about what reason Krishna gave for not being able to repeat the BG and gave the Anu-Giita instead. I found sacred-texts.com has the translation of the Anu-Giita with an introduction. Here is the answer given by Krishna. =============================== Arjuna asks -- 'O you of mighty arms! O you whose mother is Devaki, when the battle was about to commence, I became aware of your greatness, and that divine form of yours. But that, O Kesava! which through affection (for me) you explained before, has all disappeared, O tiger-like man! from my degenerate mind. Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics... Krishna replies -- From me, O son of Prithaa! you heard a mystery, and learnt about the eternal (principle), about piety in (its true) form, and about all the everlasting worlds. It is excessively disagreeable to me, that you should not have grasped it through want of intelligence. And the recollection (of it) now again is not possible (to me). Really, O son of Paandu! you are devoid of faith and of a bad intellect. And, O Dhananjaya! it is not possible for me to repeat in full (what I said before). For that doctrine was perfectly adequate for understanding the seat, of the Brahman. It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman. But I shall relate an ancient story upon that subject, so that adhering to this knowledge, you may attain the highest goal... Cheers

What Shiiksha did Maadhva get from Vyaasa? Where does he acknowledge Vyaasa as his Guru? FYI, Maadhva knew everything, for he calls himself as an avatar of Vaayu and he acknowledges no one as his Guru (Neither Achyutaprakaashaacharya nor Vyaasa) in his works. Hence, their Sampradaya starts from Maadhva himself. Cheers

Out of curiosity, can anyone come up with the source from which Prabhupada obtained the above Info? Is this a common Gaudiya Vaishnava understanding? Thanks

Since the number of earthquakes increased from the 1950s as compared to the 40s, and also since there has always been war in some corner of the earth, the 50s was a reasonable time for jesus to reappear, which he did not. Based on the above figures, he again had a chance in the 80s and 90s, but he still didn't appear. Apparently Jesus is not ready yet (he may be waiting for a very high value on the Richter scale or he wants a real big war) or it is just another of the many vague prohecies like those of Nostradammus which can be interpreted any way we want and is mapped to an incident after it happens and then say "See...the Bible predicted this, 2000 years back". Cheers

Correct. In fact, this should be extended to all religions where the followers are usually conned with a lot of stories that do not stand up to verification. Surprisingly there exist a lot of people who are willing to accept statements given out by their religion prima facie, never for a moment doubting their authenticity. Cheers

Gaudapada salutes Narayana in Kaarikaa 4.1, according to Shankara's Bhaashya. According to tradition, Gaudapada prayed to Narayana in Badarikashrama and Narayana revealed Advaita Vedaanta to him. Nothing about Krishna or the BG. Starting from Sutras 2.2.18, 16 verses are about refuting Buddhism and Jainism according to Shankara. Maadhva does the same. So according to these commentators, the author of the Suutras was familiar with the Buddhist and Jaina doctrines. Cheers

Radhe, Advaita, Dvaita, etc are all based on the notion that they are the *only* true system. For instance, Advaita says no individuality exists after Liberation. Dvaita opposes this view and states duality is eternal. How can both be correct at the same time? It is easy to say all systems are right, but the fact is they are not. Either, only one of them is right or else all of them are wrong. Cheers

No, Gaudapada never mentions Krishna or the BG anywhere in the Kaarikas. Perhaps Shankara refers to the BG in the Kaarika Bhaashya, which I can check. While the BG does not mention Buddhism and Jainism, it mentions the Brahma-suutras which refer to Buddhism and Jainism. Cheers

Karthik, No. The Radha part is not found *anywhere* in SB, insignificant or otherwise. In fact, this is used by Scholars to date the Bhagavatam to aorund the 7th century AD, as Radha worship is known to have started in North India by then. http://www.gitasupersite.org There is no reference to the BG before the time of Shankara [8th century]. Did the BG become important because he commented on it or did he comment on it because it was important? Chicken and egg. However most scholars are agreed that the style and metre of BG shows it is part of the early Mahabharata. The issue is, most of them believe the work was composed much after the war, during which the story (including the orginal Gita) evolved into a bigger form. Cheers

Karthik, A slight correction. Radha is not mentioned in SB anywhere. Besides SB is the *Supreme book* only to the Gaudiyas. While most others accept SB as scripture, they give Puranas second place, like I have explained before.Also note that people started commenting on SB after the time of Maadhva. In my opinion, it was his Taatparya that "authorized" SB as reliable scripture. About the different recensions of the BG, the Kashmiri recension has more verses than the standard one. And there are some editions where an additional verse (a question asked by Arjuna) is added at the start of Chapter XIII, thus making the total number of verses in these editions 701. Cheers

Let us see... If Shankara had not commented on the BG, then people would have said he did not do so because "advaitins cannot reconcile the personalistic teachings of the BG with their impersonal philosophy. It is an easy way to avoid dealing with conflict." Now is that correct? The same logic applies to the SB. I can show a number of verse in the SB which are clearly Advaitic and if Shankara had a need (he did not), he would have easily shown the purport of SB to be Advaitic and in my not_so_humble opinion, it would have been more rational and convincing than some other interpretations of the Bhagavatam where single verses are isolated and interpreted out of context. Advaitins have little or no interest in Puranas, for they derive *all* their tenets directly from Sruti, thus eliminating any need to rely on secondary sources like Puranas. Also, this reasoning does not explain why a Vaishnava like Ramanuja did not mention SB anywhere. Was it perhaps because "Vaishnavas cannot reconcile the advaitic teachings of SB with their philosophy. It is an easy way to avoid dealing with conflict."? Cheers

Even if Shankara not quoting SB can be discounted, one wonders why Ramanuja who was favorable to Bhagavata Dharma, never quoted from this work. Al-Beruni (10th century) mentions the Bhagavatam as a work extolling the greatness of Vaasudeva. I feel, the SB was around during the time of Shankara and Ramanuja, but was not treated as an authoritative scripture owing to it's digression from the Mahabharata. This reputation of SB may be why Maadhva took up the task of composing his Taatparya to reconcile the differences between the two. Cheers