Becoming indifferent to the vedas

[chandu_69 0]

 

TRANSLATION BG 4.25

Some yogīs perfectly worship the demigods by offering different sacrifices to them, and some of them offer sacrffices in the fire of the Supreme Brahman.

 

That is Fanatic obsession with the word demigod.As pointed out by Jnd earlier those who comment on serious matters in this forum haven't even read the gita in full.

Continuing with the various scarifices(including 4:25) krishna says

4:30 All these performers who know the meaning of sacrifice become cleansed of sinful reactions, and, having tasted the nectar of the results of sacrifices, they advance toward the supreme eternal atmosphere.

31:O best of the Kuru dynasty, without sacrifice one can never live happily on this planet or in this life: what then of the next?

32:All these different types of sacrifice are approved by the Vedas, and all of them are born of different types of work. Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.

Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.....

 

and not by condemning them like the theists of the world.

 

For the theists of the world chanting is the only way to reach Lord and everything else is mundane and irrelevant contrary to what Krishna says in Gita.

 

[Dasosmi 0]

Hare Krishna.

This is indeed very fascinating. It's almost addicting. I feel like I HAVE to write back. Perhaps it's my false ego or maybe I enjoy a friendly conversation.

 

Namaskar. Again your response is somewhat verbose and full of digressions. I will respond to just those parts that are relevant here..

 

If you truly believe, as most Hare Krishnas do, that the Lord is non-different from His glories, then you must accept the conclusion that the above statement by you is incorrect and unpalatable..

 

I believe what Krishna says:

 

yam imam puspitam vacam

pravadanty avipascitah

veda-vada-ratah partha

nanyad astiti vadinah

kamatmanah svarga-para

janma-karma-phala-pradam

kriya-visesa-bahulam

bhogaisvarya-gatim prati

 

TRANSLATION

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

 

 

 

If Vedas glorify the Lord, then there is no question of distinguishing the Vedas from the Lord. If you claim that Vedas glorify goals other than Vishnu, then you are falling into the trap of the veda-vAda-rataH.

 

And similarly, actually conclusion of Vedas and misunderstood conclusion of Vedas are two different things.

 

Right View: The goal of Vedas is knowing Sri Vishnu

 

Wrong View: Vedas are mainly concerned with the three modes of material nature/fruitive activity.

 

It seems like we hit a dead end on this point. I believe:

trai-gunya-visaya veda

nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna

nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho

niryoga-ksema atmavan

Translation

The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

 

 

Then perhaps you did not read the first postingof this thread. It is entitled, "Becoming indifferent to the vedas."

 

This is again based on our different perspectives. I would quote you the same verses I already quated to defend the same points I have already tried to defend for the same point you have already made.

 

 

This is classic, mayavadi, utilitarian logic. Just as the mayavadis argue that bhakti is merely a means to an end (liberation) and can be dispensed with once the goal of liberation is attained, so too you argue that one can become "indifferent" to the Vedas once one has attained Sri Krishna. If you disagree with the former, then you cannot possibly disagree with the latter. That would be a double standard.

Goal of Bhakti is to serve the Supreme Lord. How can that be compared to mayavad philosophy? If you look at actions of those who attain the goal of Bhakti and the actions of Mayavadis who attain their goal, you will notice a vast difference. Thus this example is not applicable.

 

 

This is self-contradictory.

India "mainly" contains Indians. That means there are also others that are there. What's the difficulty in understanding that?

 

 

And this is like saying that the glorification of the Lord and the Lord Himself are not the same.

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that the Bhagavata Purana is the Lord Himself. That this is so is written in Jiva Gosvami's Tattva-Sandarbha. Do you accept it? Because by your logic, I can also say that there is material in the Bhagavata that does not directly concern the Lord, such as descriptions of varnashrama dharma, dynasties of great kings, etc and thus (based on your logic) conclude that the essence of the Bhagavatam is different from the contents of the Bhagavatam. Do you accept it? Why or why not?

 

Since we have a disagreement on the following verse, your statement above can not be applicable in this situation. It is like saying exactly what Krishna says:

trai-gunya-visaya veda

nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna

nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho

niryoga-ksema atmavan

 

Translation

The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

 

 

And therefore, the subject matter of the Vedas is *not* the three modes of material nature or fruitive activity. Rather it is Vishnu only which is the subject, and people only misunderstand the Vedas to be concerned with something else.

 

As far as my little brain allows me to understand, I have read the verse quoted above and accepted its translation as it is.

 

 

This also happens to be the view of Sri Madhvacharya who writes this in his Gita commentary. Sri Madhva does not accept the idea of "karma-kanda" or "fruitive activity" as the main gist of the Vedas. And why should he? Since that position is not supported by the Bhagavad-gita at all.

Kindly quote refrences from Sri Madvacharyas point of view since you have understood his point of view.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam Chandu

 

 

 

 

4:30 All these performers who know the meaning of sacrifice become cleansed of sinful reactions, and, having tasted the nectar of the results of sacrifices, they advance toward the supreme eternal atmosphere.

31:O best of the Kuru dynasty, without sacrifice one can never live happily on this planet or in this life: what then of the next?

 

32:All these different types of sacrifice are approved by the Vedas, and all of them are born of different types of work. Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.

 

 

Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.....

 

 

Thanks for the quotes very nice.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

 

 

 

Parts of the vedas are mundane. Mundane referring to 'worldly'. They regulate worldly life in a way that is spiritually progressive so in that way the purpose of the vedas is essentially spiritual.

 

 

 

I am glad we can agree on the purpose of Vedas. Fact that it deals with both worldly and spiritual, is not surprising after all we are bound in this world of tri guna. Final goal of Vedas are to lift us out of this material world.

 

 

But understand this point, IT IS KRISHNA WHO TELLS ARJUNA TO BECOME INDIFFERENT AND NOT ME. Krishna is the goal of vedanta. .

 

I am afraid Krishna does not say that, raising above tri guna does not translate to being indifferent to Vedas.

 

Philosophical discussions of Upanisad is all about enquiry in to supreme brahman,

 

Chandu has quoted verses in Bg4.30-32 does make it clear what Vedas purpose is and result of its application, Krishna does not contradict , it is our own interpretations that gives rise to erroneous statement like becoming indifferent to Vedas.

　

　

　

 

I highly doubt that a PHd professor spends much time sentimentaly pinning of his days in kindergarten. Of course he does not bemoan those days but they now have no more relevance for him personally.

 

What’s learned such as 2+2=4 always follows as truth in his final equation.

　

　

　

　

　

　

 

　

Quote:

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

 

Ah but which scripture. Should we all try to become scholars in Vedanta Sutra or should we accept Srimad Bhagavatam as the proper commentary on the vedanta sutra. I think the latter.

 

Who am I to argue of your choice, but all school of thought in Hindu dharma accepts the authority of Vedas.

 

Bhagvat also teaches various material subject and as already been pointed out by someone, would you then become indifferent to Bhagvat puran?

　

　

　

　

 

Perhaps the problem is you don't understand the word indifference. That would explain a lot.

 

Yes the words are often misunderstood, not surprising therefore Vedas become the subject of being indifference.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[theist 1]

Ganeshprasad,

 

You continue to ignore the post I kept quoting from Dasomi. This is my third and last request to you to respond in detail to that post. It is obvious why you want to ignore but until that is done there really is nothing more to add to our conversation.

 

Hare Krishna

[chandu_69 0]

2:42-43: Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

2:44 In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.

2:53 When your mind is no longer disturbed by the flowery language of the Vedas, and when it remains fixed in the trance of self-realization, then you will have attained the divine consciousness.

The problem is with the person who is bewildered By the flowery language of Vedas.Not the Vedas itself.

 

 

 

Bhagvat also teaches various material subject and as already been pointed out by someone, would you then become indifferent to Bhagvat puran?

 

 

The same analogy should apply here.

 

[theist 1]

 

Bhagvat also teaches various material subject and as already been pointed out by someone, would you then become indifferent to Bhagvat puran?

 

I will answer this one. Yes one should also become indifferent to all material subject matter by becoming Krishna conscious, even in the Bhagavat Purana.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

I will answer this one. Yes one should also become indifferent to all material subject matter by becoming Krishna conscious, even in the Bhagavat Purana.

 

are we not playing with words here?

 

Be honest is it the same as saying becoming indifferent to Bhagvat puran?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

Ganeshprasad,

 

You continue to ignore the post I kept quoting from Dasomi. This is my third and last request to you to respond in detail to that post. It is obvious why you want to ignore but until that is done there really is nothing more to add to our conversation.

 

Hare Krishna

 

There is no obvious reason as you suspect.

 

Fact of the matter is Raghu dealt with it at length, so I did not feel the need to add to it, and now Chandu has answered in short and sweet to the point and I quote again

 

 

The problem is with the person who is bewildered By the flowery language of Vedas.Not the Vedas itself.

 

 

We must learn the context of the verse , he has not said to be indifferent to Vedas but to rise above the tri guna, if you study Vedas that is what you will find in there. Lord Krishna would not say this later and I quote again, as quoted by Chandu

 

4:30 All these performers who know the meaning of sacrifice become cleansed of sinful reactions, and, having tasted the nectar of the results of sacrifices, they advance toward the supreme eternal atmosphere.

 

31:O best of the Kuru dynasty, without sacrifice one can never live happily on this planet or in this life: what then of the next?

 

32:All these different types of sacrifice are approved by the Vedas, and all of them are born of different types of work. Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.

 

 

Knowing them as such, you will become liberated.....

　

　

Jai Shree Krishna.

[theist 1]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

are we not playing with words here?

 

Be honest is it the same as saying becoming indifferent to Bhagvat puran?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

You may be hearing word games but I am not playing any. Prabhupada said not to be concerned with the differences between the allegorical stories in Bhagvatam vs. modern science. Instead he advised to "take the essence" of Srimad Bhagavatam and not be bothered by lesser subject matters. Yes I said lesser subject matters. Who the present manu is irrelevant when compared to krishna-lila. I am indifferent to the manu's and kings of old or the wars between the asuras and devas for planetary control.

 

But I give up on you. I am totally indifferent to what is your opinon on the matter.

 

Hare Krishna

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

You may be hearing word games but I am not playing any.

 

From where I am standing that is what I see.

 

 

Prabhupada said not to be concerned with the differences between the allegorical stories in Bhagvatam vs. modern science. Instead he advised to "take the essence" of Srimad Bhagavatam and not be bothered by lesser subject matters. Yes I said lesser subject matters. Who the present manu is irrelevant when compared to krishna-lila. I am indifferent to the manu's and kings of old or the wars between the asuras and devas for planetary control.

 

That is fine, each to their own, but then Vyasdeva must have his own reason and Sukdeva his.

 

But that is not what I am discussing or objecting to.

 

All I am asking in a simple yes or no, would this title of a thread acceptable to you BECOMING IN DIFFERENT TO BHAGVAT PURAN.

 

 

 

But I give up on you. I am totally indifferent to what is your opinon on the matter.

 

That is fine, because I have not expressed my opinion for you to comment on.

 

I have only made objection to your unsavoury opinion on Vedas which incidentally you have failed to defend.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[raghu 2]

 

I was attempting to summarize the story of Jada Bharata and how despite all the attempts of his family members to transform him into the perfect vedic expert and brahmana he artfully dodged them and was continuously executing devotional service by thinking of Krsna. I do not know if he was chanting Hare Krishna mantra or not so I apologize if you think I was advocating some sort of Hare Krishna sectarianism that offends you as that was not my intent.

 

AM, you specifically claimed that he was chanting Hare Krishna although the text does not say that. I am merely requesting that you be truthful in your representation of the scripture. I am sorry if advocating for true and accurate representation of scripture offends you in any way.

 

In response to my statement that the Gita verse says nothing about becoming "indifferent to the Vedas" you wrote:

 

 

I don't know, but the purport says there are good examples in the lives of the great devotees of the Lord who became indifferent to the rituals of the Vedas simply by devotional service to the Lord.

 

But the purport is not the Gita and my original objection stands.

[raghu 2]

 

 

 

I believe what Krishna says:

 

yam imam puspitam vacam

pravadanty avipascitah

veda-vada-ratah partha

nanyad astiti vadinah

kamatmanah svarga-para

janma-karma-phala-pradam

kriya-visesa-bahulam

bhogaisvarya-gatim prati

 

TRANSLATION

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

 

 

Men of small knowledge think that there is nothing more to attainment of material comforts via sacrifice because they do not understand the higher, esoteric sense of the Vedas, which is that Lord Vishnu is the actual master of all sacrifices. See also BG 3.15 in this regard.

 

Also, the phrase "which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth" which is central to your "Vedas are materialistic" thesis is not actually found in those verses as quoted above.

 

 

It seems like we hit a dead end on this point. I believe:

trai-gunya-visaya veda

nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna

nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho

niryoga-ksema atmavan

Translation

The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

 

 

 

This is again based on our different perspectives. I would quote you the same verses I already quated to defend the same points I have already tried to defend for the same point you have already made.

 

 

And your interpretation would remain inconsistent with the verses quoted earlier from chapters 15, 17, etc which describe the Vishnu-centric viewpoint of the Vedas.

 

 

Goal of Bhakti is to serve the Supreme Lord. How can that be compared to mayavad philosophy?

 

 

Those who treat bhakti as a ladder that can be kicked away once one has achieved liberation are basically mayavadis. Do you agree or disagree?

 

If you agree, then you can surely see how the same logic applies to the Vedas and attainment of Sri Krishna. You cannot, on one hand, argue that bhakti continues after liberation, and then on the other hand treat the Vedas as merely a disposable means to an end. This is shastra-ninda.

 

The Vedas are the basis of bhakti to Lord Vishnu. That is the sense of numerous Gita verses and it also happens to be the view of Sri Madhva. The idea that Vedas are actually promoting acquisition of various opulences is a misunderstanding according to Sri Krishna as well as Sri Madhva.

 

 

India "mainly" contains Indians. That means there are also others that are there. What's the difficulty in understanding that?

 

 

Your analogy is flawed on the count of its irrelevance and dissimilarity to the subject matter. A better analogy would be a doctoral thesis that attempts to prove a point. Whatever is said in the thesis leads to the main idea which the doctoral candidate is trying to prove. Taking something out of context and arguing that it is not relevant to the thesis is both unwarranted and disingenuous. Similarly, extracting specific mantras or information about specific sacrifices out of the global context of the Vedas, and then arguing that they really promote acquisition of material goods, is despicable.

 

 

Since we have a disagreement on the following verse, your statement above can not be applicable in this situation. It is like saying exactly what Krishna says:

trai-gunya-visaya veda

nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna

nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho

niryoga-ksema atmavan

 

 

The above is what Sri Krishna says.

 

The following...

 

 

Translation

The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

 

 

... is not what Sri Krishna says.

 

 

As far as my little brain allows me to understand, I have read the verse quoted above and accepted its translation as it is.

 

What difference does it make whether you "accept" the translation or not, given that you do not have sufficient understanding of the language to make an objective decision about the translation's fidelity?

 

 

Kindly quote refrences from Sri Madvacharyas point of view since you have understood his point of view.

 

You can look up Sri Madhva's view in his Bhagavad-Gita commentary on chapters 2 verses 45-53. An English translation by BNK Sharma is widely available which also has the original Sanskrit of his commentary wherein he explicit disagrees with the idea that the Vedas promote fruitive activity.

[Amlesh 1]

While the Vedic Thought considered religious activity as an end in itself, the Upanishads emphasized Jnana and renunciation of activity.

 

Since both path of activities were one sided, I believe the Lord had to descend personally to correct their limited outlook of activity which was explained in His Gita.

 

He has drawn the idea of activity from the Vedas and desirelessness from the Upanishads and Synthesised the two - activity and desirelessness - into desireless activity, which leads to the maintenance of the World.. Bhakti.

 

There is no doubt about the importance of the Vedas, since from there on, the Lord teaches the rest.

 

Love you Krishna

Edited July 22, 2009 by Amlesh

[bhaktajan 0]

 

Raghu:

You can look up Sri Madhva's view . . . An English translation by BNK Sharma . . . wherein he explicit disagrees with the idea that the Vedas promote fruitive activity.

 

 

Why haven't you Cut and Pasted here?

If not "fruitive activity" then what do the Vedas "promote"?

 

Your elementary illogic is laughable!

 

Activities are the basis of existance.

 

Let me bestow some mercy on you --To see that your arguement is irrefutably way off the mark, Understand the description of the Banyan Tree --AS KRISHNA DESCRIBES IT & and then respond.

[kaisersose 0]

 

If not "fruitive activity" then what do the Vedas "promote"?

 

In other words, you are clueless about the fundamental objective of the Vedas as seen by different schools. Not surprising at all, as Hare Krishnas receive absolutely no exposure to the Vedic corpus.

 

Mimamsa - Vedas prescribe frutiive actions only

Vedanta/Advaita - Vedas are a mix of frutive action injunctions and Jnana/Bhakti which leads to liberation. The Mumukshu ought to focus on the latter.

Vedanta/Tattvavada - The sole purpose of the Vedas is to promulgate Hari supremacy and Bhakti. Nothing else.

HKS - No clear position. Just a motley of varied and confused views, made up as they go along.

 

 

Your elementary illogic is laughable!

 

Hard to take your perspective on logic or anthing else seriously, as by your own admission, you do not know Vedas 101.

 

Cheers

[kaisersose 0]

duplicate

[sant 0]

kaiserose since you must be following charvaka philosophy which is clear by your views then vedas talk only about eating meat isnt it.The purpose of the sacrifices.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 1]

 

Wrong View: Vedas are mainly concerned with the three modes of material nature/fruitive activity.

Krishna says "trai-gunya-visaya veda". Whatever interpretation you want to give to it, the fact is the direct meaning is "The subject matter of the vedas is the three Gunas." This is not a concept made up by anyone in this thread, this is the direct statement of Krishna, which you say is the wrong view. Madhva may disagree with this, but that's his opinion and interpretation. If the topic is what did Krishna say (not what did He really mean to say), the answer is, "The subject matter of the vedas is the three Gunas."

 

You may debate what the correct understanding of that statement is, but you cannot claim that Krishna did not say this.

 

Madhva's view is that in the Vedas, in the beginning, middle and end, only Hari is glorified. That's his interpretation. To him, when the Vedas say Rudra, it means Vishnu. When the Vedas say Indra, it means Vishnu. When the Vedas say anything, it means Vishnu.

 

It may be true, but using such logic, of redefining every single word to mean Vishnu, then the point of "proving" who the Vedas glorify is meaningless, because every single word has been redefined to mean Vishnu.

 

But oddly, we don't see Vaishnavas worshipping Vishnu in temples by chanting Rudram or some other prayer apparently glorifying a devata. So it is more of an intellectual philosophical view, but not one actually applied in practice.

[raghu 2]

 

Krishna says "trai-gunya-visaya veda". Whatever interpretation you want to give to it, the fact is the direct meaning is "The subject matter of the vedas is the three Gunas." This is not a concept made up by anyone in this thread, this is the direct statement of Krishna, which you say is the wrong view. Madhva may disagree with this, but that's his opinion and interpretation. If the topic is what did Krishna say (not what did He really mean to say), the answer is, "The subject matter of the vedas is the three Gunas."

 

You may debate what the correct understanding of that statement is, but you cannot claim that Krishna did not say this.

 

Krishna says in BG 15.15 that He is the subject matter of the Vedas. Based on this, there is every reason to disagree with your reading of "trai-guNya-viShayA veda." Surely you agree that the Gita should be interpreted in a consistent fashion. Or maybe we should reinterpret Gita 15.15?

 

The position of the Hare Krishnas in this regard seems more consistent with that of secular academic indologists than with the position of the "Brahma-Madhva" sampradaya.

[raghu 2]

 

Why haven't you Cut and Pasted here?

If not "fruitive activity" then what do the Vedas "promote"?

 

Your elementary illogic is laughable!

 

Activities are the basis of existance.

 

Let me bestow some mercy on you --To see that your arguement is irrefutably way off the mark, Understand the description of the Banyan Tree --AS KRISHNA DESCRIBES IT & and then respond.

 

Several points:

 

1) I am not aware of an online version of a translation of Madhva's commentary. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence should have no problem finding the book in a decent library. Sadly, Tattvavadi siddhanta will not appeal to those whose only means of learning is to google, copy, cut, and paste.

 

2) Your have demonstrated very little grasp of logic, making any criticism made by you of someone else's straightforward logic rather humorous to read.

 

3) That activities are the basis of existence is not in question or even relevant. That you are bringing it up suggests that you do not understand what is being discussed. At this point, one might wonder if it wouldn't be smarter for you to try and understand the gist of the conversation before presuming to argue.

 

4) There is no need for unwarranted digressions, unless of course you are trying to throw us off from the fact that you do not know what you are talking about.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 1]

 

The position of the Hare Krishnas in this regard seems more consistent with that of secular academic indologists than with the position of the "Brahma-Madhva" sampradaya.

I referred about two dozen translations of this verse from virtually every school of Indian thought before commenting, and all seem to take trai gunya vishaya veda as meaning the exact same thing. It has nothing to do with a Hare Krishna interpretation or a western interpretation. In this case you are just wrong and refuse to admit that. That's fine with me. But its just a a word game taking place here.

 

To clarify, I was only speaking on the one line I mentioned, nothing about the topic of being indifferent or whatever else is being spoken.

 

You may choose to "reinterpret" this line to fit what you consider the meaning of some other verse, but that's on the level of interpretation. The meaning of the verse is direct and clear. Interpretation is another topic.

[sant 0]

2.52 Madhvacarya's Commentary

To answer the query regarding what is essential for one aspiring for liberation the answer is given in this verse by Lord Krishna. The word nirvedam means indifferent, renunciation is not indicated here. Rather it is to be understood that by spiritual intelligence in the process of acquiring wisdom one becomes indifferent to mundane pursuits. It is not that one with spiritual intelligence is indifferent regarding the sublime activities of the Supreme Lord. Liberated sages immersed in the delight of the soul through their highly developed mental state advance onwards by devotion without any desires. Lord Krishna is very attracted to those following devotion possessing these attributes. The austerities and penance performed by Sukadeva and others give them immeasurable satisfaction and great happiness.

Those who meditate on the lotus feet of Lord Krishna relishing His glories and phenomenal pastimes and that of His devotees, they derive a greater satisfaction that is not even available to one fully realised. So needless to speak about the satisfaction of those in the heavenly realms who are forced to descend down to earth again once they have exhausted their benefits. For only those situated with the wisdom of spiritual intelligence can understand Lord Krishna's paramount position and thus perform all actions accordingly.

Even in liberation there is taratamya gradation. If there were no gradation then men of wisdom could not realise the mercy of Lord Krishna's divine grace which is the sole cause of liberation. In this way no one will desire similarity with Him. Even if it is offered it will not be accepted. Thus even those not desiring liberation receive it anyway as the result of devotion and those so desiring it, liberation comes manifesting auspiciousness. This auspiciousness manifests even though undesired. Just as those exalted devotees with special devotion to Lord Krishna receive special mercy at the end of their lives that can be perceived. In the same way dispensation is received by those situated in wisdom at the termination of the physical body. Other dispensation is given for the ascetics at the severance of their mortal coil and still those who experience supreme bliss with distinctive character as experienced. In all these different levels gradation always exists.

Liberation by whatever means is deliverance and in this no one can surpass one for one will be fully situated in the ultimate wisdom of devotion to Lord Krishna by spiritual intelligence. So in the matter of equilibrium it must be regarded in abundance as well as in experiencing misery. Even though abundance and misery must be regarded equally for the supreme bliss it is the realisation in wisdom by spiritual intelligence that is the key ingredient for liberation from the material existence as given in the Narayana Ashtaksha Kalpa. Hence renunciation is not indicated as a means of liberation in Vedic scriptures. There also does not exist any direction to other methods regarding liberation. Thus the understanding for this verse is that by listening to the potent words of great self-realised beings the true purport of the Vedas will be learned.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 1]

 

Krishna says in BG 15.15 that He is the subject matter of the Vedas. Based on this, there is every reason to disagree with your reading of "trai-guNya-viShayA veda."

 

 

Gita 2.35:

 

trai-gunya-visaya veda

 

"The subject matter of the vedas is the three Gunas."

 

Gita 15.15

 

vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah

 

"By all the Vedas, I am to be known."

 

I don't see a contradiction. One is speaking of the subject ("content") and one is speaking of the purpose. The Vedanta is the essence of Vedic knowledge, and the ultimate purpose. That purpose is to know Krishna.

 

The content of the Vedas is the three modes. Of the three modes, one needs to cultivate Sattva, by which one will come closer to knowing Vishnu.

 

Ramanuja's commentary to 2.45 nicely explains this:

 

"The word Traigunya means the three Gunas - Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Here the term Traigunya denotes persons in whom Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are in abundance. The Vedas in prescribing desire-oriented rituals (Kamya-karmas) have such persons in view. Because of their great love, the Vedas teach what is good to those in whom Tamas, Rajas and Sattva preponderate. If the Vedas had not explained to these persons the means for the attainment of heaven etc., according to the Gunas, then those persons who are not interested in liberation owing to absence of Sattva and preponderance of Rajas and Tamas in them, would get completely lost amidst what should not be resorted to, without knowing the means for attaining the results they desire. Hence the Vedas are concerned with the Gunas. Be you free from the three Gunas. Try to acquire Sattva in abundance; increase that alone. The purport is: do not nurse the preponderance of the three Gunas in their state of inter-mixture; do not cultivate such preponderance. Be free from the pairs of opposites; be free from all the characteristics of worldly life. Abide in pure Sattva; be established in Sattva, in its state of purity without the admixture of the other two Gunas. If it is questioned how that is possible, the reply is as follows. Never care to acquire things nor protect what has been acquired. While abandoning the acquisition of what is not required for self-realisation, abandon also the conservation of such things already acquired. You can thus be established in self-control and thereby become an aspirant after the essentail nature of the self. 'Yoga' is acquisition of what has not been acquired; 'Ksema' is preservation of things already acquired. Abandoning these is a must for an aspirant after the essential nature of the self. If you conduct yourself in this way, the preponderance of Rajas and Tamas will be annihilated, and pure Sattva will develop. Besides, all that is taught in the Vedas is not fit to be utilised by all."

[raghu 2]

 

Madhva's view is that in the Vedas, in the beginning, middle and end only Hari is glorified. That's his interpretation.

 

It is also stated in in the Skanda Purana. It also follows from Gita 15.15 and numerous other statements which presumably you would accept.

 

 

To him, when the Vedas say Rudra, it means Vishnu. When the Vedas say Indra, it means Vishnu. When the Vedas say anything, it means Vishnu.

 

It may be true, but using such logic, of redefining every single word to mean Vishnu, then the point of "proving" who the Vedas glorify is meaningless, because every single word has been redefined to mean Vishnu.

 

You are obviously not familiar with the Vedanta-sutra, because this approach to interpretation is the very foundation of Vaishnava Vedanta and even your own Baladeva Vidyabhushana follows it.

 

The principle is very simple and logical - whenever a seemingly dependent entity is invoked and described by attributes that are solely those of Brahman alone, then that reference should be interpreted to be Brahman and not the dependent entity one might superficially consider it to mean. THis is the only logical approach to scripture, assuming you truly consider it to be "scripture," as opposed to an inconsistent hodgepodge of contradictory ideas authored by different sages over time. Thus, when "Indra" is invoked and his supremacy is discussed, then "Indra" in this context means Vishnu. Same with "Rudra,Shiva," etc.

 

Saying that other deities are glorified as supreme even when they are not is saying in effect that the Vedas teach falsehoods. This in turn undercuts your entire siddhanta, because even the texts that you do emphasize (Gita, Bhagavatam) base their authority on the Vedas. Not only this, but your own Jiva Gosvami accepts the authority of the Vedas and bases his discussion of pramanas on the unquestioned authority of the Vedas. So there is no way around it - you have to interpret the Vedas to draw out a consistent siddhanta.

 

 

But oddly, we don't see Vaishnavas worshipping Vishnu in temples by chanting Rudram or some other prayer apparently glorifying a devata. So it is more of an intellectual philosophical view, but not one actually applied in practice.

 

This is false. The Vishnu-sahasranama stotra is popularly chanted by Vaishnavas and it contains names that are normally attributed to other devatas.

 

It is probably true, however, that Vaishnavas do not customarily invoke anya-devata-namas when worshipping Vishnu. The reasons why should be obvious. If we lived in an ideal world then no one would have any misunderstanding when the Lord is referred to as "Indra,Rudra,Shiva," etc. But we don't live in that ideal world, and the reality is that other people will misunderstand such an approach as indicating that all these deities are the same.