krishna_s

I don't see how we can say anything definitive about the original Christianity and Islam, since we have no evidence regarding the nature of these religions during their early periods. As far as how they are practiced now, I find repugnant and hypocritical the idea that these religions are bona fide paths of surrender to the Lord. Does one get advancement in spiritual life by eating cow meat? Because the vast majority of Christians and Muslims happily eat beef and do not find any scriptural directive against it. Even orthodox Advaitins won't stoop to eating cow meat. If Christianity and Islam were started by devotees of Lord Krishna, then one would logically expect certain common themes in all three religious traditions, such as for example, cow-protection. Instead, there appears to be little evidence today that such sacred Vedic principles were ever present in these other religions. Unfortunately, many Christian converts to Krishna-consciousness aren't likely to be bothered by such details, since their sympathies to their parent religions seem to override any consideration of evidence or scholarship. regards, - K

I don't see how we can say anything definitive about the original Christianity and Islam, since we have no evidence regarding the nature of these religions during their early periods. As far as how they are practiced now, I find repugnant and hypocritical the idea that these religions are bona fide paths of surrender to the Lord. Does one get advancement in spiritual life by eating cow meat? Because the vast majority of Christians and Muslims happily eat beef and do not find any scriptural directive against it. Even orthodox Advaitins won't stoop to eating cow meat. If Christianity and Islam were started by devotees of Lord Krishna, then one would logically expect certain common themes in all three religious traditions, such as for example, cow-protection. Instead, there appears to be little evidence today that such sacred Vedic principles were ever present in these other religions. Unfortunately, many Christian converts to Krishna-consciousness aren't likely to be bothered by such details, since their sympathies to their parent religions seem to override any consideration of evidence or scholarship. regards, - K

This is a followup to a discussion thread we had a long time back regarding the scriptural validity of Advaita. I was actively and very enthusiastically participating, but I left my last reply in my Drafts box and sort of forgot all about it. More recently, I was tired of seeing it there, and so I decided to post it, incomplete though it is. Whether or not anyone cares to continue the thread, I don't know, but anyway here is what I had to say last about it... Shvu writes: Please note that I am not trying to interpret Advaita above. I am speaking for the meaning of Bhagavad-giitaa and whether or not it is consistent with Advaita. Several points here: 1) When you have a pramaana saying that the Lord manifests Himself in the world, it is not obvious that He who is doing the manifesting is originally unmanifest (meaning formless). A Deity can be described as being “unmanifest” because of not manifesting Himself before one’s senses. Hence, the conclusion of Advaita being that Brahman is ultimately formless does not obviously follow from such statements as these. 2) Even taking “prakR^iti.m svaam adhiShThaaya” to mean subordinating the material nature, there is still no reason to assume that Lord is adventing Himself by the material nature. The Gita Press translation takes it that way, and they still interpret the “aatma-maaya” as being a different, transcendental potency. Madhva takes it to be different from maayaa or avidyaa because it is mentioned as being the Lord’s own, and you can guess how he interprets the rest of the verse. Sriidhar Swaamii, Raamaanuja and Srila Prabhupada take it to mean being situated in His own nature, or using His own nature. There is no reason to interpret it as adventing Himself by the material nature. 3) The maayaa (aatma-maayaa) by which the Lord advents Himself in the world is not the same as the maayaa which creates the material world and deludes the jiivas. The Lord distinguishes the former by saying “aatma-maayayaa” or “sva-maayayaa” in numerous places in the Bhaagavatam. Even nonsectarian translations like the Gita Press have picked up on this difference. To the best of my knowledge, only the Advaitist school takes the “aatma-maayayaa” to be the same as the maayaa which deludes the jiivas; no one else does. Thus, even if Advaitins acknowledge that the Lord is unaffected by the material nature, and that the material nature is His, it is still incorrect to hold that the Lord’s form is a result of that material nature. 4) There is no reason to assume that the Lord advents Himself due to the material nature, when multiple pramaanas (quoted by me in previous posting) show that these are subordinate to Him. Yes, the Lord is not affected by the material nature, but then why assume that He nevertheless advents Himself with it? Especially when He describes “sva-maayayaa” or “aatma-maayayaa” as the means by which He does this (in contrast to that which deludes the jiivas, which I have never seen described like this), one must assume this is a different maayaa. 5) Following from #4, Lord will not advent Himself using the delusive maayaa potency because that maayaa is described as being ashamed to come before the Lord’s presence: vilajjamaanayaa yasya sthaatumiikShaapathe.muyaa | vimohitaa vikatthante mamaahamiti durdhiyaH || bhaa 2.5.14 || vilajjamaanayaa - by one who is ashamed; yasya - whose; sthaatum - to stay; iikShaa-pathe - in front; amuyaa - by the bewildering energy; vimohitaaH - those who are bewildered; vikatthante - talk nonsense; mama- it is mine; aham - I am everything; iti - thus vituperating; durdhiyaH - thus ill conceived. The illusory energy of the Lord cannot take precedence, being ashamed of her position, but those who are bewildered by her always talk nonsense, being absorbed in thoughts of "It is I" and "It is mine" (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.14). I believe the full context of this verse was quoted by me in an earlier posting. What happened to “divya.m apraakR^ita.m” in Gambhiraananda’s translation/commentary? It does not seem to have gotten much emphasis, nor does this translation sufficiently explain the distinction when the original also describes the Lord’s alleged “maayaaruupam.” Lord has a form made of maayaa, and yet His birth is divine and not of the material nature. This is contradictory. It has not been established conclusively that there is no distinction between jiiva and paramaatmaa on the stage of mukti, the Bhaagavatam verses I quoted clearly implying the contrary. That is another issue. For now, it is unacceptable to argue that Lord’s form is due to maayaa, as that does not reconcile pramaanas saying that the Lord has form, attributes, etc. If the Lord’s form, attributes, etc are due to maayaa, then they do not exist in reality; hence He does not have them. This is therefore not a satisfactory interpretation of pramaanas giving description of the form, attributes of Brahman. Either Brahman really has forms and attributes or He does not. Invoking maayaa to say that the forms, attributes, etc exist due to illusion does not explain how Brahman can have form and attributes; it only explains how He can *appear* to have them. The point is that by virtue of being divine, they are not within the scope of the delusive maayaa. This seems to be a very obvious purport of the word “divya” based on the construction of the verse. The Advaitist take on this is a very forced meaning, like much of its interpretation of the Giitaa. The paths of karma and jnaana lead to liberation *through* bhakti-yoga. That is why it is stated time and again that by bhakti one gets liberation, and why Krishna repeatedly advises Arjuna to take to bhakti-yoga. If karma and jnaana yoga were independently sufficient to attain liberation, Krishna could have stopped His instructions with chapter 2. Even in chapters where other yoga systems are described, nevertheless in the end it keeps coming back to bhakti-yoga, as in chapter 6, wherein the Lord concludes (after describing the ashtaanga yoga process) that of all yogis, the one who knows Him is the best. As previously mentioned, most chapters end with some sort of instruction to take to bhakti, thus indicating the preeminent position of bhakti-yoga among the yoga systems. Your position that jnaana, not jnaana-yoga, is responsible for liberation, is valid only in as much as you have understood what jnaana refers to here. As indicated previously, devotional service continues even on the liberated platform. The jnaana that one attains is not contrary to this; it is the realization of one’s eternal relationship with Krishna, not some artifical oneness with Him. In that sense, I agree that jnaana liberates. I do not see any evidence that the Advaitin concept of jnaana liberates. This translation of 7.19 (yours or Gambhiraananda’s?) casually dismisses “prapadyate” – surrender, no doubt in an attempt to minimize the devotional purport of this verse. As far as “vaasudevaH sarvam iti” and “tvaatmaiva me matam,” these are not Advaita by any stretch of the imagination. Even in English romantic literature we may see statements like “He is everything to me,” “he is my life and soul,” etc etc. Should we interpret these statements as contemporary Advaita? This verse merely states that the jnaani surrenders after many births to Krishna, realizing that He is everything, that He is the only goal of all the Vedas, that everything is meant to satisfy Him, etc. That is the meaning of “vaasudevaH saravamiti.” Hence we also have in the Bhaagavatam: naaraayaNaparaa vedaa devaa naaraayaNaa.ngajaaH | naaraayaNaparaa lokaa naaraayaNaparaa makhaaH || bhaa 2.5.15 || naaraayaNaparo yogo naaraayaNapara.m tapaH | naaraayaNapara.m j~naana.m naaraayaNaparaagatiH || bhaa 2.5.16 || And Krishna considers that jnaani similarly dear to Him, hence “I regard the Jnaani as my own self.” There is no question of the jnaani being Krishna, because the jnaani comes under the spell of maayaa, which Krishna (Brahman) cannot. Besides which, if Advaita must be true, then why only the jnaani who surrenders does Krishna regard as His own self? Are not the other jiivas also Brahman? This is inconsistent. Even if we take it to mean that everything is Vaasudeva, still there is no contradiction with Gaudiiya (or other beda-abeda) schools. Everything is certainly Krishna Himself or His manifested energies; nothing being ultimately independent of Him. This again brings up the question as to how Advaita can be derived from Vedic texts, when Brahman alone exists in Advaita and yet there is an entity known as maayaa which is invoked to explain the manifest world for form, perception, attributes, etc. If Brahman alone exists, then where is the question of maayaa existing? If maayaa exists within Brahman, then this contradicts the thinking that Brahman has no attributes. Also, the “jnaani” referred to in 7.18 is not the same as the Advaitist jnaani. Again, verses need to be seen in context. This section of the Giitaa begins when Krishna says: chatur-vidhaa bhajante maa.m janaaH sukR^itino 'rjuna | aarto jij~nasur arthaarthii j~naanii cha bharatarShabha || giitaa 7.16 || catuh-vidhah--four kinds of; bhajante--render services; mam--unto Me; janah--persons; su-krtinah--those who are pious; arjuna--O Arjuna; artah--the distressed; jijnasuh--the inquisitive; artha-arthi--one who desires material gain; jnani--one who knows things as they are; ca--also; bharata-rsabha--O great one amongst the descendants of Bharata. O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me--the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.16) He is describing the four types of people who begin to *worship* Him (i.e. different classes of bhaktas), of which the jnaani is one class. Then He says: teShaa.m j~naanii nityayukta ekabhaktir vishiShyate | priyo hi j~naanino 'tyartham aha.m sa cha mama priyaH || giitaa 7.17 || tesam--out of them; jnani--one in full knowledge; nitya-yuktah--always engaged; eka--only; bhaktih--in devotional service; visisyate--is special; priyah--very dear; hi--certainly; jnaninah--to the person in knowledge; atyartham--highly; aham--I am; sah--he; ca--also; mama--to Me; priyah--dear. Of these, the one who is in full knowledge and who is always engaged in pure devotional service is the best. For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to Me. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.17) The jnaani referred to is one who is “always engaged” in bhakti. To say that the jnaani ceases bhakti at some point is a direct contradiction of the words “nitya-yuktaH bhaktiH” indicating that he is *always* engaged in devotion. If the jnaani was worshipping Krishna to merge into Him and lose his individual existence, then He would have said that. But such a statement is not there. It is then that Krishna speaks 7.18, indicating that this class of devotee is dearest to Him. Why is he dear to Him? The other devotees worship Krishna due to material distress, desiring material gain, or simply because they are inquisitive (BG 7.16). But the jnaani is the one who is “nitya-yuktaH bhaktiH” – always engaged in devotional service. I realize you might quibble about “service” in the translation, but bhakti implies service, as the devotional literature makes quite clear. We can discuss that in a separate thread, perhaps. The point here is that the jnaani is regarded by Krishna as His own self because the jnaani is always engaged in bhakti-yoga (hence He is dear to Krishna), as opposed to the other three classes who worship to get something out of it. We have already discussed the possible other meanings of “manifest” and “unmanifest.” There is no reason to think that a formless God is doing the manifesting here. Again, Bhaagavata pramaanas already quoted by me do not support this concept. Not so fast. The Lord is vishuddham, so He cannot be covered by the material potency. This contradicts your whole position, which is that the Lord does in fact have a body and activities that are of the material nature, although somehow divine despite this. If the Lord is vishuddham, there is no question at all of Him having a form that is of the material nature. If a formless Godhead were being described as vishuddham within a material body, the Bhaagavatam could have said that. Anyway, describing the formless, attributeless Brahman by even this designation would still not be consistent with the concept of Brahman has having no attributes. Either way, not very consistent with Advaita. The path of bhakti leads to the knowledge by which one gets liberation, as confirmed by Krishna Himself: teShaa.m satatayuktaanaa.m bhajataa.m priitipuurvakam | dadaami buddhiyoga.m ta.m yena maamupayaanti te || giitaa 10.10 || To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me. (bhagavad-giitaa 10.10) Other paths may lead to the knowledge that gives liberation, but only *through* bhakti, as it is bhakti only by which one gets liberation (BG 11.53-54 already quoted elsewhere). There are two kinds of bhakti-yoga. Specifically, that which is performed on the conditioned platform (“saadhana-bhakti” in Gaudiiya Vaishnava parlance) and the unalloyed devotional service which is performed on the liberated platform (known as “prema-bhakti” in the Gaudiiya literature). Hence, statements like this which state that one gets some understanding through bhakti, really mean that by performing saadhana-bhakti one gets the knowledge by which he comes to the perfected state, which is rendering pure devotional service to the Lord. There is no reason to interpret the “understanding” received as something impersonal or monistic, because it is already stated in the previous verse that when one attains/becomes one with Brahman, he gets devotional service to Krishna. This verse merely reiterates that one gets to this liberated platform by bhakti. It doesn’t contradict anything said by me so far. Maybe you can explain why you think it does? “vishate tat-anantaram” – the jiiva “enters thereafter,” in otherwords, he enters into Vaikuntha. What is the difficulty here? Where is it stated that there is no more duality after mukti? That would contradict the statement of BG 18.54 in which one attains supreme devotion to Krishna after attaining Brahman. It contradicts BG 2.12 which speaks of eternal, individual living entities. It contradicts “nityo nityaanaam….” Etc of the Upanishads. It contradicts Shriimad Bhaagavatam 3.15.*** which explicitly describes the liberated platform and the distinctly individual living entities and Lord Vishnu. Arbitrarily denouncing any of this evidence as “interpolation” will not help you. Any explanation of Vyaasa’s position must take all of these sources into account, not just those which seem to lend themselves to your interpretation. My arguments still stand. You misunderstand the sense of “knowledge” in this case, and you further read too much into “vishate tat-anantaram” as indicating some kind of monism or merging. You also arbitrarily ignore pramaanas (like Shriimad Bhaagavatam) which lend additional context which elucidate these points, which is why you come to an Advaitist understanding. Even if “vishate tat-anantaram” meant what you say it does, which is not obvious, how is it consistent with Advaita, in which there is only one real entitity Brahman? You are saying that Brahman enters into itself? Krishna should have said that Arjuna would realize that they are both the same. Saying that the liberated entity enters into/merges with Krishna indicates that there was duality at some point, which is not consistent with a doctrine that holds that duality is due to illusion and Brahman alone exists. If anything, this might support the beda-abeda school of Bhaaskara, but it certainly does not support Advaita. You mean, “what should one do when Smriti *apparently* contradicts itself?” The answer is, one should shed one’s myopic vision of the Vedaanta and find an explanation that reconciles the seemingly contradictory viewpoints. There are many *apparent* contradictions throughout the Vedic literature, but when it comes to shruti, Advaitins have no problem trying to explain away the statements that contradict their point of view. Their pleas for sympathy in the case of the Bhaagavatam are therefore not excusable. Standards of interpretation should be uniform, rather than looking for an excuse to reject something as “interpolated,” “contradictory,” etc. As far as the specific pramaanas you mentioned, there is nothing here that contradicts the Gaudiiya view, though I suppose it might present a problem for the Maadhvas and their strict dualistic position. Then again, using your logic, Madhva wrote a tika on the Bhaagavatam, and you can guess how he interpreted this. Certainly the material world is illusory since it is temporary, and because it seems to offer limitless opportunities for happiness when in fact there is nothing but the dualities of happiness and distress, etc. Anyway, the real reason Advaitists reject the Bhaagavatam is because the Bhaagavatam contradicts their interpretation of Vedaanta. That’s all. Surely Vyaasa knows what He is talking about, and He has given these conclusion in the Bhaagvatam. Vedaanta-suutra is also smriti, but Advaitists don’t reject that. The bottom line is that SB 3.15.14 cannot be written off by anyone whose authority derives from Shrii Vyaasadeva. It clearly describes individuality and devotional service on the liberated platform, rather than the formless, undifferentiated liberation of the impersonalists. This statement is also quoted by Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana in his Govinda Bhaashya. But it cannot be used to reject the authority of the Bhaagavatam. Reasons: 1) We have it on the authority of the shruti that the Puraanas have the same origin as the Vedas, are actually the fifth Veda, etc. For example: rigveda.m bhagavo'dhyemi yajurveda.m saamavedamaatharvaNa.m chaturthamitihaasapuraaNa.m pa~nchama.m vedaanaa.m veda pitR^iya.m raashi.m daiva nidhi.m va kovaakyamekaaayana.m devavidhyaa.m brahmavidhyaa.m bhuutavidhyaa.m kShatravidyaa.m nakShatravidyaa.m sarpadevajanavidhyaametadbhagavo'dhyemi || CU 7.1.2 || Revered master, I know the Rig Veda, the Yajurveda, the Saaamaveda, and the Atharvan as the fourth, the Itihaasa, Puraanas as the fifth, graammer, the rules for the worship of the manes, mathematics, the science of portents, the chronology, logic, the science of ethics, etymology, the ancillary knowledge of the Vedas, the physical science, the science of war, the astronomy, the science of snake-charming and the fine arts. This, venerable master, I know (chaandogya upaniShad 7.1.2). The context, as you know, is Naarada submitting his doubt before his guru, who asks him first what he knows, and then Naarada speaks the above. Surely, we can agree that Naarada knows what he is talking about. We also know that the Puraanas have the same divine origins as the other Vedas: R^ichaH saamaani chandaa.msi puraaNa.m yajuShaa saha | uchchhiShTaaj jaj~nire sarve divi devaa divishritaaH || AV 11.7.24 || The R^ig, Saama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme Lord along with the PuraaNas and all the demigods residing in the heavenly planets (atharva veda 11.7.24). So unless the Bhaagavatam is not a Puraana, we cannot dismiss it arbitrarily as “smriti” and hence fit to be ignored whenever convenient. 2) The Bhaagavatam itself substantiates itself as being on par with shruti – katha.m vaa paaNDaveyasya raajarShermuninaa saha | sa.mvaadaH samabhuuttaata yatraiShaa saatvatii shrutiH || bhaa P 1.4.7 || How did it so happen that King Pariikshit met this great sage, making it possible for this great transcendental essence of the Vedas [bhaagavatam] to be sung to him? (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.4.7) The words “saatvatii shrutiH” indicate that the Bhaagavatam is the essence of the shrutis. This was spoken by the sages of Naimisharanya (who I think we can agree, also know what they are talking about) and recorded by Vyaasa here. If only shruti is acceptable as pramaana, then why not also the very essence of that shruti? Vyaasa also indicates that the Bhaagavatam will enlighten the population of Kali Yuga: kR^iShNe svadhaamopagate dharmaj~naanaadibhiH saha | kalau naShTadR^ishaameSha puraaNaarko'dhunoditaH || bhaa P 1.3.43 || This Bhaagavata PuraaNa is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krishna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this PuraaNa (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.43). Again, we presume that Vyaasa, the very incarnation of Naaraayana who knows past, present, and future, also knows what He is talking about. Would He indicate that the Bhaagavatam would enlighten the population of Kali Yuga when it is going to be riddled with interpolation and made contradictory with itself and with shruti? I don’t buy it. Now you may argue that the Bhaagavatam cannot be used to substantiate its own authority, since it is smriti and its authority is under question in the first place. To this, I would respond that (1) Any scripture possessing all worthwhile knowledge is obviously going to refer itself and its authoritativeness, (2) other Puraanas also glorify the greatness of the Bhaagavatam, and I doubt that all of those statements are interpolation (though I’m sure Advaitins would offer such arguments out of desperation), and (3) even Bhagavad-giitaa and Vedaanta-suutra are also smriti, yet Advaitins don’t reject these sources. Furthermore, you have not given any reason to reject the Bhaagavatam in the first place. Merely saying it is “interpolated” merely because you disagree with it does not count. We must see evidence. Puraanas are not “full of contradiction” as they are the fifth Veda and have the same origin as the Vedas (see evidence quoted above). Also, we have from the Upanishads: sa yathaardraidhaagnerabhyaahitaatpR^ithagdhuumaa vinishcharanti eva.m vaaare'syamahato bhuutasya niHshvasitametadyadR^igvedo yajurvedaH saamavedao'tharvaaN^girasa itihaasaH puraaNa.m vidyaa upaniShadaH shlokaaH suutraaNyanuvyaakhyaanaani vyaakhyaanaani asyaivaitaani niHshvasitaani || BU2.4.10 || As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth, so, my dear, verily, from this Glorious Great God has been breathed forth the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharvaangirasa, Itihaasa, Puraanas, Science of knowledge, Mystic Doctrines of Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries. From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth (bR^ihadaaranyakopaniShad 2.4.10). Would an omnipotent, omniscient God breathe out scriptures which are riddled with contradiction and serve only to mislead people? Perhaps, but that is a stretch, to say the least. Puraanas are created to establish the meaning of the Vedas for those not qualified to study the shrutis. They themselves say this: vedavannishchala.m manye puraaNaartha.m dvijottamaaH | vedaaH pratiShThitaaH sarve puraaNe naatra sa.mshayaH || bibhetyalpashrutaadvedo maamaya.m chaalayiShyati | itihaasapuraaNaistu nishchalo’ya.m kR^itaH puraa || yanna dR^iShTa.m hi vedeShu taddR^iShTa.m smR^itiShu dvijaaH | ubhayoryanna dR^iShTa.m hi tat puraaNaiH pragiiyate || yo veda chaturo vedaan saa.ngopaniShadi dvijaaH | puraaNa.m naiva jaanaati na cha sa syaadvichakShaNaH || skaanda prabhaasakhande 5.3.121-124 || O best of the twice-born, I consider the meaning of the Puraanas to be as well established as that of the Vedas. Without doubt, the Puraanas give a firm foundation to the Vedas. Long ago, Mother Veda once became afraid of those who insufficiently hear from her, and she thought, ‘This sort of person will distort my meaning.’ But then the Itihaasas and Puraanas helped Mother Veda by firmly establishing her meaning. What cannot be found in the Vedas is found in the smriti, and what cannot be found in either is clearly explained in the Puraanas. O learned braahmanas, even if a person has studied the four Vedas along with the Vedaangas and Upanishads, he is not considered learned unless he knows the Puraanas. (skaanda puraaNa, prabhaasa-khaNDa 5.3.121-124) Note the very clear statement that one must know the Puraanas in order to know the Vedas. The conclusion is that one who only studies the Vedas will likely come to a misunderstanding, and can certainly be assumed to have done so if he has contradicted the Puraanas. What kind of God would fail to see the lack of qualification of people in Kali Yuga, and not make available scriptures to appropriately enlighten them? Anyway, we know that Shrii Shankaraachaarya also quotes from the Puraanas, Vishnu in particular. Why quote from them at all if they are subject to scrutiny because they are smriti? Either it is pramaana or it is not. All Vedic literatures including the Puraanas very consistently describe the greatness and supremacy of Vishnu as they themselves state: vede raamaayaNe chaiva puraaNe bhaarate tathaa | aadaav ante cha madhye cha hariH sarvatra giiyate || SkP 4.95.12 || In the Vedas, Raamaayana, Puraanas, and Mahaabhaarata Lord Hari is glorified everywhere - in the beginning, middle, and end (skandha puraaNa 4.95.12). That there are many sections of the Puraanas which glorify other deities is simply because the Puraanas are meant for different audiences, who may need to be gradually introduced to Vishnu-bhakti by an indirect process on the count of their raajaasic or taamaasic tendencies. This threefold classification of the Puraanas is found in the Puraanas themselves: saatvikeShu puraaNeShu maahaatmyamadhika.m hareH | raajaseShucha maahaatmyamadhika.m brahmaNoviduH || tadvadagneshcha maahaatmya.m taamaseShu shivasya cha | sa.nkiirNeShu sarasvatyaaH pitR^INaamcha nigadyate || matsya p 53.67-68 || In the Saatvika Puraanas, there is largely a mention of Hari’s glory. In the Raajas Puraaanas there is the greater mention of Brahmaa’s glory. In the Taamasika Puraanas, there is a mention of Shiva and Agni’s glory. In all kinds of Puraanas, of all the three attributes, the glory of Sarasvatii and the pitris have been described. (matysa puraaNa 53.68-69) The classification of the Puraanas into the three modes is also found in the Puraanas: matsya.mkaurma.mtathaalai.nga.mshaiva.mskaanda.mtathaivacha | aagneya.mchaShaDetaanitaamasaaninibodhame || vaiShNava.mnaaradiiya.mchatathaabhaagavata.mshubham | gaaruDa.mchatathaapaadma.mvaaraaha.msubhadarshane || saattvikaanipuraaNaanivij~neyaanishubhaani vai | brahmaaNDa.mbrahmavaivarta.mmaarkaNDeya.mtathaivacha || bhaviShya.mvaamana.mbraahma.mraajasaaninibodhame | saatvikaamokShadaaH proktaaraajasaaH sarvadaashubhaaH || tathaivataamasaadevinirayapraaptihetavaH || padma, uttara, 236.18-22 || Know from me that Maatsya, Kaurma, Lainga, Shaiva, so also Skaanda, and Aagneya are taamasa. O you of an auspicious appearance, the Puraanas, viz. Vaishnava, Naaradiiya, so also the auspicious Bhaagavata, similarly Gaaruda, Paadma, Vaaraahaa, should be known to be saatvika. Know from me that Brahmaanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Maarkandeya, Bhavishya, Vaamana and Braahma are raajasa. The saatvika ones are said to give salvation and are always auspicious. Similarly, O goddess, the taamasa are said to be the case of (i.e. lead one to) hell. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 236.18-21) Now one may argue, “how can Puraanas be Vedic when they contain material that is of the nature of goodness, passion, ignorance, etc, and some of them are said to lead to hell?” The answer is that even Vedas also contain material that is of the nature of the three gunas (modes of material nature), but this is only for specific audiences and is meant for their gradual upliftment: traiguNyaviShayaa vedaa nistraiguNyo bhavaarjuna | nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogakShema aatmavaan || giitaa 2.45 || The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, becomes transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain an safety, and be established in the self. (bhagavad-giitaa 2.45) Both Puraanas and Vedas contain material that relates to the three modes of material nature. But that is not the limit of their scope – those who think there is nothing more will certain be stuck in the material world and even fall down into hell. So it is clear that one must put greater emphasis upon the saattvik puraanas for developing transcendental knowledge. And among saattvik puraanas, the Bhaagavatam is the topmost puraana, as also substantiated by shaastra: puraaNeShu tu sarveShu shriimadbhaagavata.m param | yatra pratipada.m kR^iShNo giiyate bahudharShibhiH || Pa P, U Kh 193.3 || Among all the Puraanas, Shriimad-Bhaagavatam is the best. In every line great sages glorify Lord Krishna in various ways (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 193.3). shriimadbhaagavataakhyo 'yam pratyakShaH kR^iShNa eva hi || Pa P, U Kh 198.30 || Without a doubt Shriimad-Bhaagavatam is directly Lord Krishna (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 198.30). So you see, Shvu, you cannot simply ignore Puraanic evidence if you wish to represent the Vedaanta. The shrutis consider them Veda. The Puraanas account for their apparent inconsistencies. Shankaraachaarya and other Advaitins quote from Puraanas when it suits them. Puraanas are meant to elucidate the meaning of the Vedas, and one who studies the Vedas without the Puraanas comes to a wrong understanding. It is not unfair to say that any school which admits to ignoring Puraanic evidence (especially from the Bhaagavatam, the best among the Puraanas) is simply destroying its own scholarly credibility. This is not true. Jiiva Gosvaamii quotes extensively from Vishnu Puraana in his Bhagavata-sandarbha. The reason Gaudiiya prefer the Bhaagavatam is for reasons already mentioned above – it is the one scripture that gives the essence of shruti, dispenses with goals external to prema-bhakti (see SB 1.1.2), and is best among Puraanas (numerous quotes which I am happy to provide). Shriidhar Swaami was not an Advaitin, as he came in the Kumaara sampradaaya (a well known Vaishnava sampradaaya in Vrindaavan). He is wrongly assumed to be an Advaitin because he wrote his Bhaagavatam commentary in such a way as to make it appealing to Advaitists. This is well known among Gaudiiya Vaishnava scholars, who do often refer to Bhaavaartha-diipika very favorably. Even if he did have an “Advaitist” slant on SB 3.5.****, it would be moot. Those verses clearly speak for themselves, and they are not speaking of Advaita. No help there. No, it means exactly what it says. When one has attained/become one with Brahman “brahma-bhuta prasanaatmaa” he gets the supreme devotion to Krishna “mad-bhakti labhate paraam.” Are you telling me that “brahma-bhuuta” is not mukti? Again, you have offered nothing convincing here. When Brahman is described as having attributes elsewhere, there is no reason to assume that a formless Brahman is being referred to here. There is nothing in the above verse from the Katha which says what you claim, unless you can prove from the outset that a formless Brahman is being referred to. When Brahman is described as having form and attributes elsewhere, there is no reason to assume that a different concept of Brahman is being referred to here. Thus, the verse above is saying that there is no internal differences in this Brahman which has form, attributes, etc. Surely you agree that verses should be interpreted within the global context. And yet, in the same text, we have verses like: eSha sarveShu bhuuteShu guudo ‘tmaa naprakaashate | darshyate tvagryayaabuddhyaa suukShmayaa suukShmadarshibhiH || Hidden in all the beings, this Self is not visibly displayed. Yet, people of keen vision see Him, with eminent and sharp minds. (kaThopaniShad 1.3.12) How, Shvu, does one *see* a Brahman that has no form or attributes? The idea that they only see an illusory form of Brahman is not a valid explanation. Brahman either has form in reality or He does not. If they see Brahman, then they see Him, not an illusion. And anyway, if we are all Brahman, then where does the question of “seeing Brahman” arise? This implies duality. Katha 2.3.12 does not mean that Brahman has no attributes. It merely means that Brahman cannot be completely understood by the mind, speech, sight, etc. But one can begin to understand Him as He is revealed in shaastra with senses purified by bhakti-yoga. First of all, I would appreciate a straight answer to the above questions, rather than an evasive approach using inappropriate counter arguments. Let us look at your counter arguments, which you use to suggest that Krishna would not be straightforward in His teachings to Arjuna: This is obviously a very poor example, as Krishna’s lack of mention of Raadhaa has no bearing on whether or not He is speaking candidly here. Where in Bhagavad-giitaa does the subject of Raadhaa arise? Never did Arjuna ask the Lord about Raadhaa. In fact, it is considered a very confidential subject matter, as are all of the Lord’s dealings with the gopikas. Hence in the Bhaagavatam 10th Skandha Shukadeva warns Mahaaraaja Pariikshi about misunderstanding these confidential activities of the Lord. In other words, the fact that Krishna did not choose to mention Raadhaa does not excuse Him from speaking very plainly about the Advaita siddhaanta. Hence, the fact that He did not do so is sufficient evidence to indicate that He did not intend to teach it. On the contrary, Krishna answered every one of Arjuna’s questions in a very simple and straightforward manner - and Advaita does not figure into His simple and straightforward explanations. Why does Arjuna fall into ignorance in the first place, when he is actually Brahman? This not an answer, and it most certainly is not a problem for bhakti traditions. Living entities who do not wish to serve Krishna must go somewhere. They aren't going to be in Vaikuntha if they have not yet developed the need to serve Him. Now about an answer to my question, which is this: if Advaita is the conclusion, why teach a saadhana that makes one believe the opposite? This is an evasive answer. Either maayaa exists, or it does not. One of the main faults in Advaita - it requires maayaa to exist in order to explain the perception of duality, yet it cannot explain how maayaa exists if a formless Brahman is all that exists. Absolutely untrue. “Advaita” is only “popular” because it appeals to the subtly atheistic slant of people raised in today’s secular environment. Saying that Advaita has “stayed on top” because of its mass appeal is like saying that Buddhism is also great because so many people in America’s urban marijuana-smoking subculture claim to follow it. In both cases, the “followers” simply claim to follow, but in reality they redefine the religions to their own whimsical tastes, picking and choosing what they want and assuming that everything else is optional or not applicable. Obvious examples of this include “Advaitists” who are convinced that there is no need to go to temples, “Advaitists” who eat meat, “Advaitists” who smoke, “Advaitists” who drink liquor, etc etc – not merely because they have character flaws which they are trying to change due to the influence of Advaita, but rather because they believe that such sinful activites are compatible with Advaita. Note that I am not even speaking of American converts, but of conservative Indians, even those of the brahmin caste, who ought to know better. Most people who claim to follow Advaita don’t know a fig about the true scholarship of Shankara, preferring instead to follow the watered-down, feel-good, new-age versions of Advaita promoted by Chinmayananda, Vivekananda, etc etc. Those few people who actually dabble in Shankaraachaarya’s writings (like Ram) obviously have a problem with Shankara’s actual conclusions, since they redefine Advaita to make it more compatible with Vaishnava thought (such as introducing the idea that bhakti is eternal, as opposed to a means to an end, and that there is eternal distinction between God and the jiivas, etc). While it is probably true that there are very few orthodox followers of any religion, I have frankly met no real practitioners of Advaita – most who admire it seem to implicitly acknowledge that the austerity it requires is impractical for them to follow when they are too busy coming to America and finding jobs in the IT industry. In any case, the correctness of a religion is not determined by popular vote, but by basis in shaastra, which is what I have always held. And that is where Advaita cannot survive. Without knowing anything else, the fact that most Vedaantic traditions are not Advaitic and even opposed to Advaita on many fundamental grounds, is obvious evidence of the precarious grounds upon which it is based, shaastrically speaking. Like the theory of the Big Bang, most people who follow Advaita do so because they want to believe it, and not because an objective survey of the scriptural evidence actually leads to such a conclusion. H. Krishna Susarla www.achintya.org

No, interpolation is traditionally attributed to smritis, not shrutis, and has historically been used to divert attention away from smritis (whether good or bad). If I could figure out what it is you are saying here, I'm sure I would have something to say in response. It is indeed dangerous to think that one is prepared to "surpass" the scriptures when he doesn't even have the strength of devotion to follow the scriptural injunctions. In any case, here we are discussing what is or is not valid evidence in intersampradaaya debate. Bhagavad-giitaa's authority isn't seriously questioned by anyone as far as I know. But on a more relevant note, the fact that you accept something does not make it acceptable, any more than having faith in something makes it correct. Vedas do not depend on anything for their authority. regards, - K ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org

Quite right, thanks for the correction. - K

Actually, this custom (of washing one's feet before entering) was also the norm before entering a Hindu household. It makes perfect sense, which is unfortunate given that few people seem to do it anymore. ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org

From an academic standpoint, study of interpolated texts can reveal something about the historical development of Indian society and philosophical schools. However, from the standpoint of discussion, the use of Vedic pramaanas depends on their being apaurusheya. If a particular text has suffered from interpolations, then those interpolations are not apaurusheya by definition. This is not to say that the whole text need be rejected, but at least those statements which are known to be interpolated cannot be given equal weight as the rest of the text, or even as shruti. Traditionally, Vedaantists have held the authority of the shruti as the basis by which to determine if something is genuine or interpolated. This seems a reasonable approach, but it is not without its problems. For example: 1) These days what we call shruti is not received by us in the oral tradition, so it also becomes smriti for us, technically speaking. 2) Puraanas and Itihaasas were compiled to help one understand the shrutis, so if there seems to be a conflict, how does one know that his understanding of the shruti isn't in error? 3) Some "shrutis" have also suffered from interpolation. The Mundaka Upanishad, if memory serves, has a verse which some believe to actually belong to the commentary of Gaudapada, although Madhva takes it as being part of the original. 4) Depending on which estimates you believe, there is less than 3-5% of the Vedas currently extant, and of that, most scholars of the shruti know only a fraction. If one is therefore going to use an understanding based on such a small cross-section of shruti to reject something that is smriti, it brings up the question of whether or not his understanding is complete. One cannot say for example, "there is no shruti which supports this smriti." One has to specifically show a conflict between smriti and a known shruti. regards, - K

The above is definitely very different from Advaita as I have understood it. I for one would be interested in seeing Ram and Shvu discuss this elsewhere, before I respond to Ram's points on 14.27. Having said that, I would also ask Ram to please answer *all* of the objections I brought up about Shankara's interpretation of 14.27 and supportive evidence I brought up for Gaudiiya interpretation before I respond, not just a select few points. thanks, - K

Shvu writes: That’s fine. For the sake of brevity, I may quote partial shlokas to make the point, only when I think the rest of the shloka does not add to or change the point. But if you feel I am leaving something important out, you can bring up the rest. Then again, maybe I’ll just quote them in full from now on so you don’t think I’m deliberately overlooking something. And my point is, why stop there? It’s one thing to offer an interpretation. It’s quite another to show that this interpretation follows from the text itself. Believability is a function of how well the interpretation fits the text. The relative weaknesses and strengths of each school can be judged on the basis of how much additional (not explicit) material must be invoked in order to explain the verse. This of course puts Shankara at a distinct disadvantage (what with His interpreting direct references to Krishna as formless Brahman), but I suppose all schools are guilty of it at one point or another. I am agreeable to the principle of translations being literal, with commentary provided to further elucidate the actual meaning of the verse. Perhaps if there wasn’t a tendency among many Hindus to pull translations out of context and claim, “See, see, this Swamiji also believes in Advaita,” then this might also be a more realistic expectation. In any case, none of the sampradaaya translations that I have seen are strictly literal, and I’ve seen several. The only one I have which appears to be literal (at first glance) is the one by Gita Press, but I find that it loses clarity and seems self-contradictory at times owing to too much literalism. It means that He advents Himself (not unmanifest Brahman adventing Himself as that is not stated) according to His own maayaa (“aatma-maayayaa”), not the maayaa that deludes the jiivas and is the stuff of which the material universe is created. The latter is described in Shriimad Bhaagavatam 2.5.12-23: tasmai namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya dhiimahi | yanmaayayaa durjayayaa maa.m vadanti jagadgurum || bhaa 2.5.12 || vilajjamaanayaa yasya sthaatumiikShaapathe’muyaa | vimohitaa vikatthante mamaahamiti durdhiyaH || bhaa 2.5.13 || (Lord Brahmaa is speaking the verses) I offer my obeisances and meditate upon Lord Krishna [Vaasudeva], the Personality of Godhead, whose invincible potency influences them [the less intelligent class of men] to call me the supreme controller. (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.12) The illusory energy of the Lord cannot take precedence, being ashamed of her position, but those who are bewildered by her always talk nonsense, being absorbed in thoughts of “It is I” and “It is mine.” (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.13) Madhva and Raamaanuja interpret “aatma-maayayaa” in Giitaa 4.6 similarly. Neither of them take it to mean the delusive potency which ensnares the jiivas. Even the nonsectarian Gita Press translation takes the “aatma-maayayaa” as being different from the delusive maayaa. There is no question of Lord Krishna coming under the same illusion which deludes the jiivas, as we have multiple pramaanas to the effect that Lord is transcendental to the material nature: anaadiraatmaa puruSho nirguNaH prakR^iteH paraH | pratyagdhaamaa svaya.mjyotirvishva.m yena samanvitam || bhaa 3.26.3 || The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Supreme Soul, and He has no beginning. He is transcendental to the material modes of nature and beyond the existence of this material world. He is perceivable everywhere because He is self-effulgent, and by His self-effulgent luster the entire creation is maintained. (bhaagavata puraaNa 3.26.3) ekaH sR^ijati bhuutaani bhagavaanaatmamaayayaa | eShaa.m bandha.m cha mokSha.m cha sukha.m duHkha.m cha niShkalaH || bhaa 6.17.21 || The Supreme Personality of Godhead is one. Unaffected by the conditions of the material world, He creates all the conditioned souls by His own personal potency. Because of being containated by the material energy, the living entity is put into ignorance and thus into different conditions of bondage. Sometimes, by knowledge, the living entity is given liberation. In sattva-guna and raajo-guna, he is subjected to happiness and distress. (bhaagavata puraaNa 6.17.21) Note that these pramaanas describe the Supreme Person (purusha) as being nirguna, devoid of the gunas (i.e. the material qualities sattvo guna, raajo guna, tamo guna). The point here is that one cannot argue that a formless Brahman only is being described as such; the personal Godhead (puruSha, bhagavaan) is being described as devoid of material qualities (nirguNa) and unaffected by them (niShkalaH). The context of SB 6.17.21 leaves no doubt that the material world and the three modes of material nature is the subject of discussion. Aside from the above, we also have the statements of Bhagavad-giitaa. For example: bhuumiraapo’nalo vaayuH kha.m mano buddhireva cha | aha.nkaara itiiya.m me bhinnaa prakR^itiraShTadhaa || giitaa 7.4 || Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego – all together these constitute My separated material energies. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.4) I suppose you might quibble with the translation of “prakR^iti” as “energy,” among other things. But the point here is that these things, which are of the material nature, are being described as the Lord’s (me bhinnaa prakR^itir aShTadhaa), while in the next verse we have a description of the paraam prakR^iti which comprises the living entities trying to exploit this inferior nature. Then Krishna says in the very next verse that He is the source of everything. The point here is that the inferior nature, the maayaa which creates the world and deludes the jiivas, is subordinate to Krishna. He does not come under it. Hence it is not acceptable to postulate that the existence of Krishna’s form and activities are a play of the material potency, the same one which misleads the jiivas. First of all, I’m not even clear on whether or not this is Shankara’s position, who also seems to agree that Krishna’s activities and appearance are not material: janma iti || tat janma maayaaruupa.m, karma cha saadhuunaa.m paritraaNaadi me mama divya.m apraakR^ita.m iishvara.m – My birth, having the nature of an appearance, and My work, viz., the protection of the virtuous, etc., both of which are divine and lordly, and not material, - (Warrier’s translation) A clarification would be appreciated. Secondly, I disagree with this (your) interpretation of 4.9, which needlessly redefines “divya” rather than giving it its proper place in context. Krishna is saying that His janmas and karmas are divine. Why? Because janmas and karmas of the jiivas are affected by the material nature – maayaa. Krishna’s janmas and karmas are not of the material nature – hence they are divine or in other words transcendental to it. Based on context, that is the most obvious meaning of “divya,” since the tendency is to think that anyone who has janmas and karmas is under the spell of maayaa. There is nothing in the Sanskrit to indicate that the Lord’s activities and appearances are described as such only because He is redeeming the fallen souls, unless you want invoke 4.7-8 as context to help elucidate the meaning of “divya.” However, we already have BG 4.6 in which He states He is adventing Himself by His own maayaa, so no help there either. On this point, I am still not aware of any school of philosophy which encourages us to meditate on the material nature or things created by it for the purpose of getting mukti. That may be Shankara’s view, but Bhagavad-giitaa says differently: bhaktyaatvananyayaa shakya ahameva.mvidho’rjuna | j~naatu.m draShTu.m cha tattvena praveShTu.m cha parantapa || giitaa 11.54 || My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. (bhagavad-giitaa 11.54) Now to be fair, “only” is inferred and not found in the Sanskrit. But this verse occurs after denying the possibility that one can see Krishna by study of the Vedas, penancy, charity, or worship. So far, we have only seen it claimed that by bhakti one can see Krishna. Similarly, we also have: teShaam satatayuktaanaa.m bhajataa.m priitipuurvakam | dadaami buddhiyoga.m ta.m yena maamupayaanti te || giitaa 10.10 || To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me. (bhagavad-giitaa 10.10) Again, the Advaitin may quibble that buddhi yoga is given leading to liberation. But one gets this by “bhajataam priitipuurvakam,” so the conclusion that bhakti cannot liberate is wrong. By devotion one does get the understanding by which one comes to Krishna. I am not aware of any claims in the Giitaa that by jnaana-yoga, independent of bhakti, one can gain liberation. There are many statements by Krishna to Arjuna that he should engage himself in devotional service, that He should know the supreme person, etc, and they often come at the end or near the end of each chapter for emphasis. These include 5.29, 6.47, 7.29-30, 9.34, 11.55, 12.20, 14.26, 15.19, among others. Although several different yoga systems and subjects of inquiry are discussed, each time in the end it keeps coming back to bhakti. It makes little sense for Krishna to constantly stress bhakti when bhakti does not lead to liberation. We will discuss your interpretation of BG 18.55 below. I’m still not clear on whether or not your are finding fault with Srila Prabhupada’s translation. You may do that, of course, if you wish. But entire verse as follows: janma karma cha me divyam eva.m yo vetti tattvataH | tyaktvaa eha.m punar janma naiti maameti so’rjuna || giitaa 4.9 || He who thus truly knows my divine birth and work, is no more born after death; he attains me, O Arjuna. (your translation) There is nothing obviously Advaitic about this, and your interpretation: “This means, he who truly knows the effect of Maayaa and the nature of the Sadguna Brahman attains Mukti, for he has attained Jnana [true knowledge]. Perfectly in line with Advaita” does not clearly follow from the literal translation you have offered. On the other hand, the “divine birth and work” part still pretty much refutes the idea that the Lord is born in a form made of the material nature. It is still not clear from your discussion of BG 4.6 what you think of Krishna’s form and activities, but it seems like you are trying to insist that they are in fact material, albeit divine because of His mission. As far as the Bhaagavatam pramaana, I have already given it. Here it is again: vishuddha.m kevala.m j~naana.m pratyak samyagavasthitam | satya.m puurNamanaadyanta.m nirguNa.m nityamadvayam || bhaa 2.6.40 || R^iShe vidanti munayaH prashaantaatmendriyaashayaaH | yadaa tadevaasattarkaistirodhiiyeta viplutam || bhaa 2.6.41 || The Personality of Godhead is pure, being free from all contaminations of material tinges. He is the Absolute Truth and the embodiment of full and perfect knowledge. He is all-pervading, without beginning or end, and without rival. O Naarada, O great sage, the great thinkers can know Him when completely freed from all material hankerings and when sheltered under undisturbed conditions of the senses. Otherwise, by untenable arguments, all is disorted, and the Lord disappears from our sight (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.6.40-41). But for the purport to be believable, it must follow from a literal understanding of the verse. The more it has to assume, the more it sacrifices in believability. Shankara’s commentary, of course, suffers considerably if we accept this principle, for reasons already mentioned. If Krishna never identified Himself as Brahman, as the giver of liberation, as the supreme goal of the Vedas, etc etc, then you would have a case. But since He does in many places, the third-person references can only be interpreted (literally) as Krishna speaking of Himself in the third person (for whatever reason). The idea that He is not Brahman because He speaks of Himself in the 3rd person is an inference, and in this case, a wrong one, based on the rest of context. I thought you were arguing on the basis of “vishate tat-anantaram,” but now it seems you are arguing on the basis of “tattvataH j~naatvaa.” Very well, we can look at it from that angle. Several points: 1) Again devotion is mentioned here – bhaktyaa maam abhijaanaati…. (the part which you left out). This verse obviously does not do away with bhakti. 2) Translations of bhakti as “devotion” or “devotional service.” Either is fine by me, one implies the other. But whatever makes you happy I guess. The meaning isn’t changed either way. 3) Still nothing in 18.55 that refutes the idea of devotion on the transcendental platform or liberated state. All that is said is that by devotion one understands the Lord in truth. If by devotional service, one understands the Lord as He is, then what do you think that understanding is? Obviously that He is the master, and you are the servant, an understanding that implies that one will continue to engage in devotional service to Him. Hence: bahuunaa.m janmanaamante j~naanavaanmaa.m prapadyate | vaasudevaH sarvamiti sa mahaatmaa sudurlabhaH || BG 7.19 || After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare (bhagavad-giitaa 7.19). To surrender unto Krishna means to subordinate oneself to Him, etc. which can only mean/lead to bhakti. If it meant surrendering one’s individuality and merging into the supreme oneness, then the Lord would have said that. So far, Krishna has already defined what becoming one with Brahman means (18.54), and that “oneness” is clearly not absolute if supreme devotion is therein attained. 4) 18.54 still states that supreme devotion is attained by becoming Brahman. Devotion, again, implies two entities, since one does not speak of devotion between a thing and itself. It makes no sense to think that 18.55 would contradict this point, since it begs the question as to why Krishna would say in 18.54 “mad bhaktim labhate paraam” in the first place. BG 18.54 and 18.55 must be interpreted *together.* The meaning of one should not abandoned in favor of the other. Supreme devotion does occur after liberation, since Krishna is clearly speaking of the liberated state, or becoming one with Brahman in 18.54. BG 18.55 adds to this; it does not contradict it. 5) This point, that devotional service continues in the liberated state, is also supported by other pramaanas, for example Shriimad Bhaagavatam 3.15.14: vasanti yatra puruShaaH sarve vaikuNThamuurtayaH | ye’nimittanimittena dharmeNaaraadhayan harim || bhaa 3.15.14 || In the Vaikuntha planets all the residents are similar in form to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They all engage in devotional service to the Lord without desires for sense gratification. (bhaagavata puraaNa 3.15.14) The context is that Lord Brahmaa is describing how his sons the Kumaaras went to Vaikuntha, and then he goes on to describe Vaikuntha, of which the shloka above is one of the verses he spoke. 6) Again, “vishate tat-anantaram” does not obviously refer to merging of jiiva into Bhagavaan. Aside from not explicitly describing a merging and loss of individuality of the jiiva, this should not be interpreted to contradict 18.54. 7) The verse phrase “enters into Me” by its very nature suggests two entities and contradicts Advaita, which holds that the jiiva and Brahman are the same. No doubt that Shankara comments on this in a way to get around this objection, but the issue of believability again arises. Get your own smart-alec rejoinders, shvu. Mine are patented. :-) I read the Sanskrit. Devotion is mentioned explicitly in both verses. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that devotion is only a means to an end, unless you are going to minimize the significance of the last half of 18.54 and read too much into “vishate tat-anantaram” and “tattvataH j~naatvaa” in 18.55. And I hope you are clear on the point that I am not stopping with translations, but with the actual meaning of what is quoted, which necessarily brings into question commentary and its fidelity to the original. We can’t stop with a literal translation without elucidating the meaning. First of all, the translation was not mine, but rather that of the Govinda bhaashya translator who translated it in Baladeva’s commentary. Secondly, the translation *was* literal. See the posting again. The part about attributes was enclosed in parenthesis. In most Sanskrit translations, brackets or parenthesis ( ) are used to denote words not found in the original Sanskrit, but inferred from context. Diversity of what? Now that is the question. As I mentioned before, using this verse to state that there are no attributes in Brahman contradicts other pramaanas stating that He does in fact have them. Two points: 1) When Brahman is described as having a face, eyes, arms, form, activities, etc, there is no reason to assume that these exist only due to illusory perception, or only on the conditioned stage of existence. The onus is on the Advaitins to prove this. It cannot be assumed from the verses so far quoted. 2) The idea that the forms exist only on the conditioned stage and disappear after liberation is contradicted by Bhaagavatam statements (some already quoted) in which Vaikuntha and its residents are described very explicitly. This whole discussion brings me to something that has been bothering me for a long time. Bhagavad-giitaa and other smritis are meant to elucidate the meaning of the shrutis. Giitaa itself was spoken on a battlefield, not before learned sages, so one would expect the language to be straightforward. That being the case, if Giitaa is obviously an Advaitist text, then why can’t Krishna just get on with it? Why doesn’t Krishna explicitly state that Arjuna will lose his separate existence and merge into Him? Why doesn’t Arjuna ever realize, “My ignorance has been dispelled, and now I realize that I am You.” Why does Arjuna fall into ignorance in the first place, when he is actually Brahman? Why even mention bhakti at all (which encourages one to think of himself as subservient to Brahman) if oneness with Brahman is the ultimate conclusion? How can maayaa even exist, if Brahman alone exists and everything else is false? Is maayaa an intrinsic property of Brahman or a thing having separate existence? Regards, H. Krishna Susarla www.achintya.org

To clarify something, Shriimad Bhaagavatam does not speak of either "Dvaita" or "Advaita," as these terms refer to specific schools of philosophy with all of their particular views. Shriimad Bhaagavatam does speak of beda (between the Lord and the subordinate entities) and elsewhere of abeda (between the same). Thus, neither Advaita nor Dvaita will adequately explain the Bhaagavatam. yours, - K ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org

Also remember to bathe before going to the temple. It is important to do this always after evacuating. The toilet room and the acts associated with it are considered unclean, and one must bathe after using it. yours K

[...] "Nonsense,idiots," etc. I'm no saint, but this langage is definitely out of line. These kinds of unsophisticated replies do not do justice to Srila Prabahupada's teachings or our Gaudiiya tradition. It is too easy to get frustrated and angry; I think it would be a good idea to take a few minutes and collect yourself before responding to something. regards, - K ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org

Vyaasa is Madhva's guru, no doubt about it. But be aware that the Madhvacharya film you mentioned is full of many historical flaws; some of these were mentioned by the intemperate members of the Dvaita list. I don't care too much for their brazenly condescending criticism of the people who made it, but I saw the film and the concerns are genuine. It's too bad though, because otherwise it is a nice production. yours, - K ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org

Dear Ram, I have already given a very elaborate, point-for-point series of objections to the Shankara interpretation and supporting evidence of Gaudiiya interpretation. I have reviewed all of your messages after that, and so far I didn't see much of a response. The only thing you have done is reiterate that the Shankara interpretation is correct, and you explained it again several more times. You have also repeatedly misunderstood the Gaudiiya interpretation on a number of points, even though I have tried to correct you. The bottom line: you have not given a point-for-point rebuttal to what I wrote. If you want to debate, then please reply to *each* of the points I brought up. The relevant postings are dated 7/14/02 5:53pm (response to Shvu) and 7/5/02 1:05am (response to you). Since I took the trouble of giving a very thorough response, quoting from primary sources and giving logical arguments, my expectation is that you will respond to *all* of the points I brought up in both postings, at least in regards to the Advaita interpretation. (*) If you don't want to do this, and instead want to knock down strawmen, accuse everyone else of intolerance and sectarianism, and then claim victory prematurely, then what can I do? I can't and won't add anything new if you don't respond to the specific points which I brought up; I have spent plenty of time on this already. regards, - K * Please note that I do not blindly follow anything that is stated even by ISKCON devotees or ISKCON leaders. You must respond to the evidence which *I* brought up. I don't claim responsibility for anything brought up by ISKCON followers. ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org

It is relevant specifically to your objection about Vyaasa being Madhva's guru. However, I think you have retracted that so we can move on. I say again, no one gave diiksha to Madhva other than Achyutaprakaasha. You misunderstand me. The reason I bring this up is to counter the possible objection that if we define sampradaaya along diiksha lines, we must object to the Gaudiiya paramparaa listing from Madhva. My point is simply that we should object to Madhva's as well, since Vyaasa did not give him diiksha. But of course, Maadhvas don't claim paramparaa from Achyutaprakaasha. They claim it from Vyaasa, and so we move on to this point... Yes you can. You just can't claim to follow the philosophy taught by the "Iskcon Maharaj" (sic). Gaudiiyas don't claim to follow Dvaita, and Srisha Rao deliberately reads too much into Srila Prabhupada's statement that "Bhagavad-gita As It Is was received in this disciplic succession..." just for the sake of promoting argument. Also in your hypothetical example, shvu, you and you alone would be responsible for producing the evidence necessary to substantiate your new philosophy. While you can claim to have received the grace of a guru in the Gaudiiya paramparaa, you cannot rely on your connection to them as evidence that your philosophy is bona fide. Gaudiiya aachaaryas (like Jiiva Gosvaamii) produce their own arguments and scriptural evidence, using only the arguments/evidence of Maadhva aachaaryas only when they happen to be in regards to identical points. They do not write "we are in paramparaa from Madhva, therefore everything we say is true and correct and we are not responsible for substantiating it..." Of course, there are neophytes in ISKCON who *do* argue like that, but they are wrong for doing so. The relevance is that there are historical precedents in which exceptional aachaaryas inaugurate a new school of Vedaanta in spite of claiming a paramparaa where a different philosophy was taught. Vallabha did it. Madhva also did it (regardless of who you consider to be Madhva's guru). I thought my point was obvious. The point I made is that your statement that "One *cannot* differ from the teachings of the founder and yet claim to be in his paramparaa. " ...is totally arbitrary and offered without evidence or even attention to historical precedent. If you think it is correct merely because you say it, then what basis do you have for rejecting Baladeva's implicit admission of the contrary? If Baladeva thinks it is ok to list a paramparaa like this, and you do not, then both of you are giving very arbitrary statements on the subject. Except of course, that Baladeva actually *lived* in the Vedic culture and was likely more familiar than you with such traditions as paramparaa, sampradaaya, etc. To a third party, who knew nothing else, more weight would have to be given to Baladeva's opinion on the matter. First of all, this has nothing to do with the issue of paramparaa. It is supposedly in regards to the statements in Navadviipa-mahaatmya about Madhva taking instruction from Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu. Secondly, this isn't even a direct response to that text, but rather a response to a letter written by Srisha Rao et. al. to Sri Visvesha Tiirtha regarding that pastime. We don't know what exactly Srisha wrote, but given his previous history, it insn't likely that he represented the Navadviipa-mahaatmya truthfully. It is more likely that he gave it a sectarian slant just to arouse the astha-matha sannyaasis' ire. Third, the letter itself already shows the misconception - Sri Vishwesha (if in fact he wrote this) speaks of the followers of ISKCON as spreading the "imaginarily fabricated incident." What incident is he speaking of? The pastime of Madhva getting instruction from Lord Chaitanya is from Bhaktivinod Thaakura's Navadviipa-mahaatmya, which is not specific to ISKCON. Furthermore, there is nothing in that representation of the event that would be disgraceful to anybody. Just based on Vishvesha's letter, we can safely conclude that at least some misrepresentation of NM has been made to Vishvesha Tiirtha. Fourth, the issue of Madhva taking instruction from Chaitanya is hardly a very central point of Gaudiiya philosophy. Being unaware of this does not equal being unaware of the basic points of achintya beda abeda philosophy. Fifth, the letters by the astha-matha sannyaasis indicates that they ARE aware of the differences of philosophy! Read them again. Kaniyoor Swami admits of the relationship between the two paramparaas, yet he writes: "We humbly appeal to one and all to encourage the philosophic ideals of Sri Chaitanya Prabhupada and see this propaganda grows further without obstacles." If he was unaware of the differences, he would have said "philosophic ideals of Sri Madhva" or something similar. Other letters also mention the differences in the two philosophies. Sixth, regardless of the philosophic differences and whether or not the swamis are aware of them (it would be a real stretch to ask us to believe that the Maadhva sannyaasiis, whose business is Vaishnava philosophy, would be unaware of at least the basic differences), they nevertheless refer to the paramparaa link, and Shriroor Swami states that there are "historical proofs" of this fact. So we have good evidence that the Maadhvas accept the parampraaa link and are still aware of the differences. And I don't see the relevance here to the paramparaa issue. If memory serves, Sharma writes this in regards to the alleged misconception of Maadhva views on karma and varnaashrama found in Krishnadaasa's CC (in the encounter between Mahaaprabhu and the Udupi sannyaasiis). Sharma takes great pleasure in pointing out this supposed error. What's really funny about it, though, is that I saw Srisha Rao and others make the exact same error in understanding when he was debating varnaashrama with ISKCON devotees on the Dvaita list some years back. As I recall, once he could no longer counter the evidence which the ISKCON devotee was bringing up, Srisha kicked the ISKCON devotees off the list and then deleted the messages. Poor Srisha. If Srisha and other learned Dvaita netters could misunderstand some of Madhva's points on varnaashrama, it is not a stretch to believe that some of the Maadhva sannyaasiis could have as well. Actually, that is exactly how the Gaudiiyas take it -- as a misunderstanding by the Maadhva sannyaasiis rather than a strike on Madhva himself. Sharma conveniently neglects that point. Anyway, I wish I could show you those messages, but discussions like that have a tendency to get deleted on the Dvaita list, and the people participating in them, kicked off. One ISKCON devotee was kicked off because, according to Srisha, of the "quality of his evidence" (the ISKCON guy was quoting from Mahaabhaarata and Bhaagavatam). I guess it wasn't the quality of the evidence so much as the fact that it contradicted everything Srisha said. Actually, this quote from Sharma just proves my point. In spite of his hostility and condescending attitudes towards Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, he still accepts the paramparaa link, even though he would have every reason to reject it. On the contrary, the fidelity of Madhva's interpreation becomes very much a part of this discussion. Why can Madhva digress from Vyaasa, and yet Gaudiiyas cannot digress from Madhva? There is no reason to sweep this issue under the rug. I think we have already given some examples of this. That is not *my* assertion - it is the assertion of SriMadhva Vijaya. I also quoted BNK Sharma about the importance of getting the guru's mercy, which I think is the important point about Madhva's relationship with Vyaasa. Also, I don't like to say that Madhva is "wrong." Like Shankara, he deserves credit for trying to bring all of the shaastras under his own standard of interpretation. But I don't think his interpretation is entirely faithful to Vyaasa, whose Shriimad Bhaagavatam clearly speaks of both beda and abeda. I think I have sufficiently answered your points and clarified, again, that there is no real objection to the Gaudiiya paramparaa link to Madhva. regards, - K ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org

It isn't really clear to me why you offered this translation, and what it supposedly offers in clarity that Srila Prabhupada's did not. It may surprise you to know, shvu, that I do cross-examine Srila Prabhupada's translations and commentaries against the ones given by Shankara, Raamaanuja, and Madhva. Why did you think that by just offering a different translation, it would somehow lead to some new revelation on my part? In any case, we can use your translations for now if you like. First of all, there is nothing in the verse which implies maayaa, sadguna Brahman, etc. These are your (Shankara's) interpolations to bring the verse more in line with his thinking. None of it follows from the verse above. Secondly, the point I was making is the use of the word divyam to describe the Lord's janmas and karmas. Bhagavad-giitaa 2.16 refers to two categories of things, those which are eternal and those which are not (the divine vs the material, for lack of better nomenclature). Maayaa does not belong in the divine category, since its manifestations are temporary. Furthermore, one does not gain mukti by knowing the things of perception created by maayaa, so the Shankara interpretation of 4.9 is also inconsistent in that regard. The use of the word "divyam" makes clear that the Lord's janmas and karmas are *beyond* maayaa, otherwise they would not be transcendental. No matter how you translate it, BG 4.9 just does not agree with the Shankara viewpoint. So no points for Advaita here. Then please clarify for us your understanding of Advaita. Is Brahman in the form of Krishna a perception due to maayaa, or is the form of Krishna eternal and transcendental? If you say that Brahman appearing as a personal Godhead is due to maayaa, then you contradict the Bhaagavatam pramaana about Him being vishuddham. Please note that many references to the Lord as He, Him, etc also must be taken to mean Krishna Himself (or the form of Krishna speaking), if we really want to be literal. It's one thing to criticize Srila Prabhupada's transltions on the basis of their being literal, or not literal. But a more consistent approach would be to apply that standard uniformly. The Shankarite tendency to explain statements like "attaining Me" or "attaining Krishna" as meaning the attainment of impersonal liberation are a perfect example in this regard. Ahem, shvu, where in the Sanskrit is "true Jnaana" even referred to? And where do you get the idea that "enters into Me immediately" somehow negates the prior statement about rendering devotional service? Sorry, but no points for Advaita here either. BG 18.54, even in your translation, states that one renders devotional service (mad-bhakti labhate paraam) after becoming Brahman. Well, devotion already implies duality, as one does not speak of devotion between a thing and itself. BG 18.55 says absolutely nothing to contradict this -- "entering into Me" actually contradicts Advaita, for in Advaita there is no difference between the jiiva and Brahman, who are only perceived as different due to maayaa. At best, you could try to argue that this shloka better supports Bhaaskara's bedha abedha philosophy. As per my understanding, Bhaaskara admits of beda on the conditioned stated but holds that liberation there is merging of jiiva and Brahman. But even then, it is not clear that "enter into Me" means merging with Brahman and becoming one. In such a situation, there would be no opportunity to render devotional service, so that interpretation contradicts 18.54. Let me first point out that no one seems to be free of the tendency to engage in "sectarian interpolation" (sic) for the sake of translating a verse according to their understanding. Even your defense of Advaita has already revealed several examples of this, such as the attempt to insert impersonal Brahman as the subject when Krishna is referring to Himself, the tendency to insert "true jnaana" or similar phrases when the goal of devotional service is indicated, and so on and so forth. Secondly, I would like to point out that both Madhva and Baladeva take the Katha Upanishad verses in the way described above. Thirdly, again, your translation (which I have also read) does not disagree with what is said. What is "diversity" in this context? Does diversity mean attributes, with No diversity meaning No attributes, or does diversity mean varying attributes, with No diversity meaning that the attributes are not different from each other? Context is important for understanding as well; we cannot take the verse in isolation and presume to understand it as I'm sure you would agree. I am referring not just to the local context, but the overall Vedic context. I think I have sufficiently quoted pramaanas which refer to Brahman having a face, walking, creating, etc - all things performed by a personal Godhead. yours, - K

I wasn't around the day they were compiled, so I'm sure any answer I give would be just an unsubstantiated opinion. I'm willing to entertain each suspected case of "interpolation" on a case-by-case basis. As I said before, calling it interpolation because it comes from smriti and happens to contradict one's own philosophy is not very convincing scholarship. I think there have to be some standards by which one can raise a reasonable suspicion that a passage is interpolated. For example: 1) If the smriti has a statement which is in conflict with other shaastras, and the conflict is irreconciable. 2) If the smriti has multiple recensions, and a given text is present in only one of them (and the other ones are not known to be adulterated) Note that these are just some proposed critieria to raise the suspicion that something could be interpolated. There could be other criteria as well, and also I am not suggesting that these are absolute, just guidelines. yours, - K ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org

[A] Is Vyaasa not Vishnu? This is news to me. Again from the Dvaita Home Page (http://www.dvaita.org/madhva/AnandaT_1.html): "Visual evidence, if one may call it that, of Srimad Ananda Tîrtha being Madhva, the avatâra of Vâyu, was obtained by Trivikrama Pandita when the latter had the great fortune to observe the three forms of Vâyu worship simultaneously -- Hanumân worshipping Râma, Bhîmasena worshipping Krishna, and Ananda Tîrtha worshipping Vyâsa..." Every conversation I have ever had with the Dvaita list crowd on this subject indicated that Vyaasa was the guru of Madhva. I have already posted from Shriimadhva Vijaya indicating that Madhva did in fact take instruction from Vyaasa, making the latter his guru by any definition of the term. Here is that evidence again (Sanskrit available upon request). Quoting from shriimadhva-vijaya 8.1-5: (in the translation, this section is entitiled "Vedavyaasa teaches Madhva all the shaastras") ".2. PoornaPrajna had an excellent mind capable of knowing completely all aspects of the extremely secret tenets, which remain to be known (only by specially qualified persons like Brahma and Mukhya Prana). VEDAVYASA WAS AN APPROPRIATE GURU FOR HIM as only He could expound fully such tenets to such a disciple. Therefore, the gods honoured Madhva’s approaching VedaVyasa for knowledge in this manner. .3. God in the form of Vyasa filled up fully the mind of Madhva already having a large capacity for knowledge with knowledge in greater measure. This mind was God’s residence (he lived constantly in the mind of Madhva) and it was already full of auspicious knowledge. This was similar to God in the form of Krishna filling up His large city of Dwaraka which was already full of wealth and people with even greater wealth and numbers of people. .4. PoornaPrajna with infinite intelligence listened in a very short time from VedaVyasa, with the name Anantha (signifying infinite knowledge) the most appropriate meanings arising naturally (without any forced interpretation) of the infinite numbers of Vedas, Mahabharatha, Puranas, Brahma Suthras and Pancharathra Agama, which are very dear to the good people. .5. VedaVyasa, who rests on the bed of the serpent Shesha (in his form resident in Vaikunta) had given His great blessings (in the form of auspicious knowledge) to Mukhya Prana (Madhva), who is the greatest of the Rjus, in infinite lives in the past. Thus, though Madhva knows and understands all the Shastras by himself, Vyasa taught all the subjects to him again and thus further sharpened his wisdom by His great blessings." Shvu, are you saying that the author of Shriimadhva-vijaya, a standard biography on Madhva, was wrong? Or are you saying that Vyaasa having taught Madhva the shaastras and having "further sharpened his wisdom by His great blessings," and also being declared to be the Guru for Madhva, is still not evidence that He was Madhva's guru? Please clarify. I am not contesting the fact that Maadhvas believed that Madhva already knew all the shaastras, since that is also indicated by Shriimadhva Vijaya. But there is more to being a guru than simply imparting knowledge. BNK Sharma summarizes Madhva's views on the guru as follows (_Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya_, pg 378-380): [C] "In his commentary on BS 3.3.44-46 Madhva discusses the place and importance of the ideal guru and the importance of his grace in the final flowering of the spiritual personality of the aspirant. He emphasizes the point that instruction and guidance of a competent Guru and his grace (prasaada) are absolutely necessary for Shravana and Manana to bear fruit: aachaaryavaan puruSho veda (CU 6,14.2)....Madhva says tha the grace of the Guru is part of the modus operandi (itikartavyataa) of the means of jnaana viz., Shravana, Manana etc.... He further says that of the two viz., individual effort and the grace of the Guru, the latter is to be deemed the more powerful factor and therefore indispensable for one's spiritual realization. The importance of Guru-Bhakti has not been so well brought out as an integral part of the Theism of the Brahma Suutras by any other Bhaashyakaara than Madhva. ... There is, undoubtedly, an element of deep religious mysticism in the special significance which Madhva attaches to the role of Guru and his grace in regard to the subject of Saadhanas and their fulfillment." Now, does this sound like the teaching of someone who would never accept a guru, even if he already knew everything? Given the evidence from Madhva's biography, who is that person who gave Madhva guruprasaada? These points are well known to everyone. But it does not alter the fact that no one gave diiksha to Madhva other than Achyutaprakaasha. If one defines sampradaaya according to diiksha lines, it then becomes unreasonable to criticize Gaudiiyas for digressing from Madhva, unless one is going to criticize Madhva himself for doing the same. [D] So many times we have heard it said that one cannot come in a paramparaa and inaugurate a new philosophy. No doubt this is a general custom, but on what basis is this being touted as an absolute principle? [E] [F1] Madhva's views on the guru, as described by BNK Sharma, put premium emphasis on receiving the guru's grace (this is pretty surprising for a tradition that usually puts great emphasis on scholarship). It is therefore not hard to understand why Gaudiiyas give credit to the link to Madhva, since it was due their grace that Maadhavendra Purii was initiated into Vaishnavism. Not to list that paramparaa, and instead listing Maadhavendra as the sole founder, would be disrespectful to the extreme. [F2] Shrii Vallabhaachaarya, another exponent on Vedaanta, is well known to have come in the sampradaaya of Aadi Vishnuswaamii. Yet Shrii Vallabha wrote his own commentary on the Vedaanta. What of this? [G] Both Kavi Karnapura and Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana have claimed the paramparaa listing from Madhva (the former in GauranGanodesha Diipika and the latter in Govinda Bhaashya). Now, putting things in Perspective, it should be noted that Baladeva did actually live in the Vedic environment, wrote a Vedaanta-suutra commentary, and is more likely than you are to be familiar with the traditions and customs of sampradaaya, paramparaa, etc. Thus, unless you can bring up specific evidence which defines "paramparaa" as narrowly as you do, I think it is obvious that Baladeva is in a better position to say what is right and wrong regarding the concept of paramparaa. [H] If it is absolute necessity that two aachaaryas sharing the same paramparaa must also share the same philosophy, then why do even prominent Maadhva sannyaasiis accept the Gaudiiyas as being in their sampradaaya? (http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vaisnava_sampradayas_fs.html) Pejavara Swami's letter refers to the two sampradaayas, although that is most likely from the standpoint of philosophy. Shiroor Swami's letter states, "Sri Chaitanya Sampradaya is a branch of Madhwa philosophy. there are historic proofs to substantiate this fact." Sri Vidyavallabha Tiirtha's letter states, "While glancing through the aforesaid historic event, it is evident that there exists a deep relationship between "Chaitanya parampara" and "Madhwa parampara."" Shvu, are the Maadhva sannyaasiis above simply in error (they don't know as much as you), telling falsehoods for the sake of politics, or simply ignorant of the meaning of "paramparaa?" [i1] In BNK Sharma's book _History and Literature of the Dvaita School of Vedanta_, there is an entire appendix discussing the Madhva-Gaudiiya paramparaa. Sharma entertains several doubts about the paramparaa relationship, but nevertheless considers it reasonable, and does not seem bothered at all by the difference of philosophy. Sharma can't be accused of bias, either, as his criticisms of Govinda-bhaashya indicate in the very same book. If even a Maadhva skeptic in the academic world can accept the paramparaa listing through Madhva, then what objection can you give? [i2] Merely referring to the commentary does not make that commentary 100% true and faithful to that which it comments upon. Madhva was no doubt a great scholar for trying to interpret the entire Vedic cannon according to his Dvaita philosophy (which, I might point out, was created by him even before he met Vyaasa). But it is obvious that Madhva's interpretation of some Bhaagavatam shlokas will necessarily be roundabout in order to avoid any hint of abedha. Some examples: etatpada.m tajjagadaatmanaH para.m sakR^idvibhaata.m svaituryathaa prabhaa | yathaasavo jaagrati suptashaktayo dravyakriyaaj~naanabhidaabhramaatyayaH || bhaa 4.31.16 || Just as the sunshine is nondifferent from the sun, the cosmic manifestation is also nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality is therefore all-pervasive within this material creation. When the senses are active, they appear to be part and parcel of the body, but when the body is asleep, their activities are unmanifest. Similarly, the whole cosmic creation appears different and yet nondifferent from the Supreme Person. (bhaagavata puraaNa 4.31.16) tva.m vaa ida.m sadasadiisha bhavaa.mstato'nyo maayaa yadaatmaparabuddhiriya.m hyapaarthaa | yad yasya janma nidhana.m sthitiriikShaNa.m cha tad vaitadeva vasukaalavadaShTitarvoH || bhaa 7.9.31 || My dear Lord, O Supreme Personality of Godhead, the entire cosmic creation is caused by You, and the cosmic manifestation is an effect of Your energy. Although the entire cosmos is but You alone, You keep Yourself aloof from it. The conception of "mine and yours," is certainly a type of illusion [maayaa] because everything is an emanation from You and is therefore not different from You. Indeed, the cosmic manifestation is nondifferent from You, and the annihilation is also caused by You. This relationship between Your Lordship and the cosmos is illustrated by the example of the seed and the tree, or the subtle cause and the gross manifestation. (bhaagavata puraaNa 7.9.31) ekastvameva sadasad dvayamadvaya.m cha svarNa.m kR^itaakR^itamiveha na vastubhedaH | aj~naanatastvayi janairvihito vikalpo yasmaad guNavyatikaronirupaadhikasya || bhaa 8.12.8 || My dear Lord, Your Lordship alone is the cause and the effect. Therefore, although You appear to be two, You are the absolute one. As there is no difference between the gold of a golden ornament and the gold in a mine, there is no difference between cause and effect; both of them are the same. Only because of ignorance do people concoct differences and dualities. You are free from material contamination, and since the entire cosmos is caused by You and cannot exist without You, it is an effect of Your transcendental qualities. Thus the conception that Brahman is true and the world false cannot be maintained (bhaagavata puraaNa 8.12.8). Please note, shvu, that these are what you would call Srila Prabhupada's "sectarian translations," by which we mean that he translates in a way so as to bring out the actual meaning of the shlokas in the overall scriptural context. If you look at the literal translations divorced from the rest of the Bhaagavata, then it's hard to see them as anything other than abeda in nature. This being the case: [J] 1) Does Madhva try to get around these "abeda" shlokas by arguing that they are interpolated? Without proof, he cannot convince an objective audience. In that case, he would be digressing from Vyaasa's writings. 2) Does Madhva offer a "beda" interpretation to these "abeda" shlokas? You can't remain objective if you actually find such interpretations ("sectarian translations?") to be convincing. Again, we have evidence of digression from Vyaasa. 3) Does Madhva try to dismiss this evidence by arguing that it is smriti, not shruti? Even Vedaanta-suutra is smriti, yet that is acceptable. Even using this line of argument, he would be digressing from Vyaasa, because he cannot explain away all of Shrii Vyaasa's writings. Note that I am not trying to disrespect Madhva. But if you want to get down into the trenches and criticize Gaudiiyas, then we need to apply those standards uniformly. Sorry Shvu, but the available evidence indicates that Madhva is in Vyaasa's lineage, that the Gaudiiyas are in Madhva's lineage (substantiated even by present day Maadhvas), and furthermore that Vyaasa's Bhaagavatam is not a purely Dvaita text. For ease of reference, I have numbered my arguments above [A]...[J]. If you plan to respond, please address each of the above points. regards, - K ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org [This message has been edited by krishna_s (edited 07-19-2002).]

My point is that calling something "interpolation" merely because it does not suit him is hardly good scholarship.

A few quick points of clarification, AGAIN: I have already done so - please reread my previous postings. I said no such thing. Are you planning on reading what I wrote? What I specifically said is that Shankara interprets Brahman in that verse as Krishna, even though Krishna is speaking the verse and saying "aham" or "I." How can Krishna speak a verse like "I am the basis of the Brahman" and not be the "I"? In all of the Vaishnava commentaries, Krishna is rightfully concluded to be the "aham," and the "Brahman" is interpreted as something else. The Gaudiiya commentary takes the "Brahman" in that verse to be Brahman, albeit the impersonal aspect. This nicely gets around arguments to the effect that Brahman must be the supreme, which are problems for Raamaanuja and Madhva. But that's not what the Sanskrit says. "brahmaNo hi praThishthaaham...I am the basis of the Brahman" or "I am that upon which Brahman is situated," etc etc. No, I said that the verse itself implies a distinction of sorts, because Krishna is saying that this Brahman rests on Him. Please note that the same sort of translation is given even in Advaitist translations. Just reading the verse by itself, without considering any commentary, leads you to the conclusion that "Krishna" and "Brahman" are two distinct things, one of which rests on the other. It is not obvious that they are the same thing from a purely semantic/grammatical viewpoint. Hence the weakness in Shankara's interpretation. yours, - K

It's interesting how these quotes are provided without verse numbers, and without the original Sanskrit. One wonders why Karthik does not want us to cross-examine the verses in context. So far, we don't really know that they are accurate translations of anything from Shvetaasvatara Upanishad. And even if they were, that still does not explain away the personalist evidence from the same Upanishad that was already quoted. - K ------------------ Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List www.achintya.org

I am sorry that my use of the words offends you. Perhaps I could use "topsy-turvy," which are the exact words used by the translator of the Maadhva commentary I have, when used to describe Shankara's commentary to the same. In any case, I have given very explicit points as to why I used these words (which explains, again, why it is not a personal attack but a description as to what he has done with the verse), and rather than responding to those points (regarding the switching of "aham" and "Krishna" even though Krishna speaks the verse), all you are doing is getting upset over nothing. I said no such thing, and frankly speaking, I don't appreciate false accusations. I find that they are used exclusively by those who have no real argument to bring to bear. If you cannot cease and desist from this behavior, then I'm afraid you will just have to argue with someone else. I don't have a lot of time to waste with people who don't want to stick to scripturally-based discussion. And as far as my objections to Shankara's interpretation of 14.27, I have already given them in explicit detail. Merely brushing them aside and then saying that I haven't understood it doesn't bring any strength to your position. yours, - K

What I meant to say was, "because the Vedas are ALLEGEDLY an inherently inconsistent...." Its a feature of neo-Advaitist Hindu sects, the idea that Vedas are a confusing and inconsistent hodge podge, and that the only way to resolve it all is to accept Advaita.

Hare Krishna.