[Jagannath] Why are you all sleeping?

March 20, 2000

Om namo Narasimhaya

Namaste Narasimha,

>I am offended by the following words in which you are obviously referring to me >(because you quoted a few words from me).

I am sorry that you feel offended because as an aspiring Vaishnava I shouldn’t have offended anyone, but I did so I apologize to you for offending you.

>(1) You are not at all in a position to judge whether I know "a bit of Sanskrit" or a lot of >Sanskrit. I am afraid it is presumptuous of you to jump to any conclusions on how much >Sanskrit I know and how much of "the basics of philosophy, Bhagavad Gita" etc I >know, based on our little interaction. You are crossing your limits. Why this sudden >bitterness anyway?

Let’s go in the chronological order:

1. I have sent to Varahamihira reference about prediction of Lord Caitanya in this Kali yuga and few things about his life ending with my comments

2. I think Vijay replied saying:

Ø Whether or not Chaithanya is an avatar, we can worship him. Indian> culture/tradition> allows us to believe in some one and look him as Lord. aadi sankara is> also supposed> to be an incarnation of lord Siva. Whether or not we accept it, we can> still look him as our teacher and follow him. A King and Teacher and> Mother are given the place of> lord traditionally.

3. Than I replied to this letter trying to say that regardless what do we believe in there are some historical facts and when scriptures give a prediction it is easy to see who is the predicted avatar because each of the avatars has particular mission to accomplish (like in the case of Shankaracarya or Lord Caitanya and all other avatars) at specific time. Only one personality will do that work already predestined so why is so difficult to see who is the real avatar?

4. Than you replied to my letter:

>Believers in advaita philosophy will consider the teachings of Adi Sankara as the final >truth, while believers in dvaita philosophy will downplay it, as you did above, saying >that Adi Sankara served the 'limited' purpose of bringing people back to Vedas from >"Budhism". While people may agree on some parts, they interpret some other parts >differently. There are many interpretations and opinions. Naturally, you will be biased >towards the teachings of the school you were initiated into. There is nothing wrong in >that. But I just want you to know that there are many schools of thought and great >philosophers spent their lives without knowing which is correct. So don't think you do.

Since we were talking about Lord Caitanya and references of His appearance in this Kali yuga what you said basically was that some people may agree to these references and predictions in different Puranas and some may not. Also you said that I may be biased towards the teachings of the school that I am initiated into as if I just follow my own mind or something, but not standard Shastra or acaryas.

Also by saying all this, knowingly or unknowingly you have challenged the position of Lord Caitanya and you made it very relative (depending if one believes in Lord Caitanya’s divinity or not). You have forgotten only one thing and that is that you are also initiated in His parampara and not only that but you are given a position of a guru in it and therefore you have responsibility to represent it properly.

This whole material creation is coming from Vasudeva or Krishna who is the giver of all the knowledge, Vedas and Vedangas. That means that only from God we can get knowledge free from flaws. Now if you consider Caitanya Mahaprabhu to be God (absolute) that the parampara that SJVC is in is bona fide Jyotish parampara, if you consider Caitanya Mahaprabhu to be just some human being or maybe some sadhu than SJVC comes in bogus parampara that was started by a person who even didn’t know any Jyotish and was just chanting Maha Mantra and dancing. So when you make position of Lord Caitanya relative is just like if you are cutting a branch of a tree on which you are sitting. It just doesn’t make any sense.

If Caitanya Mahaprabhu wasn’t avatar of Krishna then how Acyuta Dasa could receive knowledge from him since Lord Caitnaya wasn’t Jyotisha and was only interested in chanting Hare Krishna and dancing?

If Lord Caitanya is avatar of Krishna than it is not surprising that he could give full knowledge of Jyotish to Acyuta Dasa just by putting His hand on the Acyuta Dasa’s head and blessing him with Jyotish knowledge because as Parashara Muni wrote in Vishnu Purana:

aisvaryasya samagrasya

viryasya yasasah sriyah

jnana-vairagyayos caiva

sannam bhaga itingana

Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is one who is full in six opulences—strength, fame, wealth, knowledge, beauty, and renunciation. (Vishnu Purana 6.5.47)

So being an avatar of Krishna and having full knowledge, Lord Caitanya could easily give Jyotish knowledge (or any kind of knowledge) to Acyuta Dasa.

The reason that I wrote that you don’t know basics of philosophy and Bhagavad Gita is that Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita:

evam parampara-praptam

imam rajarsayo viduh

sa kaleneha mahata

yogo nastah parantapa

“This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.” (Bhagavad Gita 4.2)

Krishna’s words in above verse are valid for all Vedic sciences because they all require Guru to be learned from. So if you knew this verse which is one of the most important (if we can say that) in Bhagavad Gita than how could you put Lord Caitanya in relative position? Because of you statement it appears that you don’t understand this basics of philosophy of Bhagavad Gita which is the reason that I wrote what I wrote.

That Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s activities correspond to predictions about Him from Bhavisya Purana and Atharva Veda is also confirmed in Srimad Bhagavatam:

krsna-varnam tvisakrsnam

sangopangastra-parsadam

yajnaiù sankirtana-prayair

yajanti hi su-medhasah

“ In the Age of Kali, intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the name of Krishna. Although His complexion is not blackish, He is Krisha Himself. He is accompanied by His associates, servants, weapons and confidential companions. ” (Srimad Bhagavatam 11.5.32)

>(2) I only made a general comment that some things in Puranas are not as clear as they >may be in the English translations one may read. This is an absolutely correct statement. >My advice is not meant to push anyone into darkness, but to put things in the right >perspective. I am not telling you to not believe in what you read, as passed to you in >your parampara. Definitely belive in it, blindly. I am only suggesting that one should >keep an open mind and atleast have some basic respect for other schools. Some new >converts (I am not referring to any particular person) don't have the right perspective >and are often intolerant/fanatical towards other schools. I am only trying promote some >open-mindedness and the right perspective. I am not insulting any particular schools by >pointing out that there are several interpretations. I am sorry to know that you haven't >taken it well and I can't understand why.

Yes, you have made a general comments, but the whole discussion was in context whether Lord Caitanya is an avatar of Krishna predicted in different scriptures or not. You brought the whole discussion on the level on which you said that one may believe it or not disregarding all historical records, scriptures and acaryas who point in that direction. So if your comments were general than I guess they also apply to Lord Caitanya as well.

While stating that Puranas are “full of ambiguities which are interpreted by different schools in different ways” when I quoted from them while at the same time I was following standard texts and explanations of acaryas with references in shastras, at that time you continued quoting from Puranas without following any acaryas or references in the shastras and all of a sudden you didn’t complain about “ambiguities” in Puranas? If you were talking in general than what you said should be applicable to you and me equally. When discussing about scriptures it is appreciated if references in the scriptures are mentioned to back up our statements. I’ve never seen you doing that, at least not in our debates Usually you would ignore what I say and change the topic.

In connection with references to acaryas and scriptures it is interesting story about Vallabhacarya. He wrote to commentary to Srimad Bhagavatam that he wanted to show to Lord Caitanya. Lord Caitanya would always refuse to give him His audience and listen his commentary. Finally one day Lord Caitanya agreed to see him. When Lord Caitanya asked him which commentary on Bhagavatam he used as reference Vallabhacarya said none. Lord Caitanya told him that Vaishnavas follow Sridhar Swami (first commentator on Srimad Bhagavatam) and the one who doesn’t follow the Swami (Swami also means husband) is like a prostitute.

You suggest that we should have basic respect for other schools. I agree with that or you maybe consider that I was disrespectful to others when I said that Lord Caitanya was avatar of Krishna. Impersonalists (followers of Sankaracarya) and personalists (Vaishnavas) basically are talking about different aspects of the same person and there is no difference in conclusions of Sankarcarya and other Vaishnava acaryas. Lord Shankar (Shambu or Shiva) is the greatest Vaishnava (vaisëavanam yata sambhuh) so how can be any difference? The differences creep in only when people disregard the instructions of scriptures and acaryas and put them on the relative level which means that the truth is whatever they think it is regardless of what scriptures or acaryas say.

>(3) The expression that offended me the most is "posing as gurus in SJVC". When >Sanjay told me I would be an SJVC guru, I asked him if he thought I was qualified for >it. I told him I was embarrassed by the title "Pandit" and preferred my bare name >without any such high-sounding prefixes and titles. But it was Sanjay's decision to make >me a guru. I never asked for it. So why do you say that I am "posing as a guru in >SJVC"? Dina-natha Prabhu, this bitterness - all too evident in the word "posing as" - is >very unfair! Please reconsider.

Even if you didn’t ask to be a guru in the SJVC, but the fact you are means also that you have to properly represent SJVC and parampara in which you also are coming from. With your relativistic philosophy every time when I quote from Puranas you made me fell like Hiraëyakasipu on whom Narasimha(deva) may jump at any time.

I do respect the other schools of thought but my opinion is that at least we at SJVC should be clear of origin of our parampara especially those who have the role of guru in SJVC should be very clear about it.

>I am disappointed and offended by this unnecessary bitterness. May Jagannatha shower >his blessings on all of us and fill us with sattva guna.

I am sorry if you feel offended and I apologize for that, however I don’t think that it is unnecessary bitterness we need to get some things straight.

OM TAT SAT

Dina-natha Das.