Reference Corrections

[shvu 1]

Here is the translation of verse 3.12 of the Shvetasvatara Upanishad. I have also added the previous two verses to make it more clear.

 

tato yaduttaratatam tadarUpamanAmayam |

ya etadviduramrutAste bhavanti athetare dukhamevApiyanti || 3.10

 

That which is higher than the superior (cause) is without form (arUpa) and without disease. Those who know this, they become immortal, while the others get only sorrow.

 

sarvAnana shirogrIvaha sarvabhUtaguhAshayaha |

sarvavyApI sa bhagavAnstasmAt sarvagataha shivaha || 3.11

 

He who has all the faces, heads and necks, who resides in the intellects of all beings and is all-pervasive is the Lord and therefore the omnipresent Shiva.

 

mahAn prabhurvai purushaha sattvasyaisha pravartakaha |

sunirmalAmimAm prAptimIshAno jyotiravyayaha || 3.12

 

The Person is indeed the Great Lord; He is the impeller of the internal organ towards this absolutely pure [sunirmalAm] attainment. He is the ruler, the light and the indestructible.

 

Cheers

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

It would appear that the verse and translation of 3.12 of the Svetasvatara Upanisad that you refer to and the one utilized by the compiler of Sri Gaudiya Kantahara,Atulakrsna Dattaji, do not read the same.

 

"Atulakrsna Dattaji,also gave up his government service and came with his family to Caitanya Matha. After receiving harinama-diksa initiation from Srila Prabhupada (SBSST) he began to perform ekantika bhajana (exclusive worship of the Lord). He compiled Sri Gaudiya Kantahara ("The Necklace of the Gaudiya Bhaktas"). This excellent book contains a collection of verses from the Vedas, Upanisads, and other sastras which establish the siddhanta of suddha-bhakti."

---excerpted from Acarya Kesari Sri Srimad Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami, His Life and Teachings, by Tridandisvami Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja. pp.36,38

 

I am not in possession of an original copy of this upanisad, and don't read deva nagari, so I can only let you know the source of my quote which you can take or leave. I am certain you will reject it in favor of your prefered version. Since you have obvious disrespect for our gaudiya line, don't accept it's connection to Madhva and have a penchant for ridiculing Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura there isn't much point in our dialoguing, is there?

 

Side by side we can note the differences:

 

4. 1 (Sri Gaudiya Kantahara)

mahan-prabhur vai purusam sattvasyesu pravarttakam

surnimalam imam santisano jyotiravyam

 

The Personality of Godhead Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is brilliantly

effulgent and imperishable like molten gold . He is the Supreme

Controller. He controls the mode of goodness and through sankirtana

bestows spiritual intelligence on the living beings .In the guise of a

sannyasi, He is the source of spiritual purity and of liberation. He is

therefore known as "Mahaprabhu." (Svetasvatara Upanisad 3.12)

 

from shvu:

 

mahAn prabhurvai purushaha sattvasyaisha pravartakaha |

sunirmalAmimAm prAptimIshAno jyotiravyayaha || 3.12

 

The Person is indeed the Great Lord; He is the impeller of the

internal organ towards this absolutely pure [sunirmalAm] attainment.

He is the ruler, the light and the indestructible.

 

 

Cheers and Haribol to you!

 

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-04-2001).]

[shvu 1]

I am not in possession of an original copy of this upanisad, and don't read deva nagari, so I can only let you know the source of my quote which you can take or leave.

For those who are interested, a set of english translations of the main Upanishads are available online in www.sacred-texts.com

 

I am certain you will reject it in favor of your prefered version.

I don't know if we can prefer one translation over another, unless the words themselves have multiple meanings. But if you observe you will notice that there is nothing in the verse about Golden color, sanyasi or sankirtana. As far as I can see, this verse is not equivocal.

 

Since you have obvious disrespect for our gaudiya line, don't accept it's connection to Madhva and have a penchant for ridiculing Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura there isn't much point in our dialoguing, is there?

 

Disrespect for certain people in the Gaudiya line, not for the line itself. Yes, I certainly am of the opinion that Bhakti vinoda was a big time fraud and with good reason too. Perhaps you do understand that this is how any non-Gaudiya will feel after reading the dream sequences from the Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya.

 

The idea is that people should have all the information. What choice they make after that is upto them. I do know that the majority of the iskconites are exposed to hinduism only thru Iskcon. The situation is, there are so many points that they are not aware of, which I feel is important for them to know, since they are seriously into Hindu concepts.

 

The downside is that the followers get upset when they see their Gurus being criticized. But if we begin to get sentimental about things then we will get nowhere. After all the great Acharyas of the past did not hesitate to criticize other systems when they felt they were false. Hence it follows that it is not wrong to do so. The motive is to bring out the truth, without getting into personal attacks, without getting emotional.

 

Cheers

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-04-2001).]

[Jagat 1]

mahAn prabhur vai puruSaH

sattvasyaiSa pravartakaH

sunirmalAm imAM prAptim

IzAno jyotir avyayaH

 

An analysis of this verse on the Sanskrit thread.

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

You have made your position concerning Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura perfectly clear. As you said anyone can read the Nabadwipa Mahatmya, and:

 

"What choice they make after that is up to them."

 

To accept the Thakura's realizations and numerous commentaries or to accept yours. Interesting a scholar like you even uses a word like hinduism. I don't believe we'll find that word in the sruti though.

OM tat sat.

Cheerio.

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-04-2001).]

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Puru Das Adhikari:

It would appear that the verse and translation of 3.12 of the Svetasvatara Upanisad that [shvu] refer to and the one utilized by the compiler of Sri Gaudiya Kantahara,Atulakrsna Dattaji, do not read the same. ........................

I am not in possession of an original copy of this upanisad[sic], and don't read deva nagari, so I can only let you know the source of my quote which you can take or leave. I am certain you will reject it in favor of your prefered version. Since you have obvious disrespect for our gaudiya line, don't accept it's connection to Madhva and have a penchant for ridiculing Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura there isn't much point in our dialoguing, is there?

Yes, thank you for correcting yourself, my eagle eyes are ever watchful and I was about to swoop on you.

 

There are differences between your translation and the ones that shvu is quoting. The translation I have is also similar to Shvu's (see thread "Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is Krsna Himself). Shvu also gives context of the mantra. It is accepted universal principle in valid scriptural, statutory, canonical (etc) interpretation that one portion of something must be read in the context of the whole.

 

If you dont wish to dialogue with Shvu please try me. I have already been accused of being a believer in Gauranga Mahaprabhu as an Avatara because I consider the Shikshastaka as Shrooti.

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Puru Das Adhikari:

To accept the Thakura's realizations and numerous commentaries or to accept yours [shvu's].

This is weird logic Puru.

If a policeman pulls you up and gives you a friendly warning that you were driving a little too fast, you dont say, "Dam fuzz, here you drive my car then!"

 

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Doesn't appear weird to me. If we examine the life of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura;read all of his books, and compare the same with shvu's life and his writing I am content to see any thougtful person make his own evaluation of who is worthy of attention and who is worthy of disregarding.

 

Blind following is not advocated by my authorities. I simply know who I trust and who I don't.There is nothing friendly about shvus' admonitions,or attitutde, however politely he couches them in apparantly reasonable language. As I have already posted useless arguments with persons of differing faith and viewpoints in matters of faith and realization benefits no one.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-04-2001).]

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

shvu

Member

posted 07-02-2001 06:47 AM

 

 

That sanskrit verse :maha-prabhu..." is not svetasvatara 2.12 nor

4.1 I may be missing something here, but I did not see this verse in

the svetasvatara at all.

 

Cheers

 

After checking with my printed version of Sri Gaudiya Kantahara, as compared with the cyber version the verse was taken (4.1) from I find that this reference should read Svetasvatara Upanisad 3.12 not 2.12) Sorry for the error.

 

4. 1

mahan-prabhur vai purusam sattvasyesu pravarttakam

surnimalam imam santisano jyotiravyam

 

The Personality of Godhead Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is brilliantly effulgent and imperishable like molten gold . He is the Supreme Controller. He controls the mode of goodness and through sankirtana bestows spiuritual intelligence on the living beings .In the guise of a sannyasi, He is the source of spiritual purity and of liberation. He is therefore known as "Mahaprabhu." (Svetasvatara Upanisad 3.12)

 

There are also some slight differences in Cc. references as well betweent he cyber version and printed version that differ by one verse here or there. Anyone wants the details can contact me,otherwise not.

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-04-2001).]

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

4. 4

"krsna" - ei dui varna sada ya-'ra mukhe

athava krsnake ti-ho varne nija sukhe

dehakantye haya ti-ho akrsna-varana

"akrsna" - varane kahe pita-varana

The two syllables "krsna" are always in His mouth, or He always

describes Krsna with great pleasure. These are two meanings

of the words "krsna-varna." Indeed, nothing but Krsna issues from

His mouth. If someone tries to describe Him as being of blackish

complexion, the next adjective, "tvisakrsnam" immediately restricts

him. His complexion is certainly not blackish.Indeed, His not being

blackish indicates that his complexion is golden. (Caitanya

Caritamrta-Adi 3.53,56)

 

 

This is the reference from the cyber Sri Gaudiya Kantahara I earlier posted on the thread about SCM and Krsna being the same. After a more careful examination of the printed version of Sri Cc. the two Bengali verses are actually Cc. Adi. 54 & 57) and the English appears to be all four verses listed below Cc. Adi 54,55, 56 & 57.

 

************

 

TEXT 54

 

TEXT

 

'krsna' ei dui varna sada yanra mukhe

athava, krsnake tinho varne nija sukhe

 

SYNONYMS

 

krsna--krs-na; ei--these; dui--two; varna--syllables; sada--always; yanra--of whom; mukhe--in the mouth; athava--or else; krsnake--Lord Krsna; tinho--He; varne--describes; nija--His own; sukhe--in happiness.

 

TRANSLATION

 

The two syllables "krs-na" are always in His mouth; or, He constantly describes Krsna with great pleasure.

 

TEXT 55

 

TEXT

 

krsna-varna-sabdera artha dui ta pramana

krsna vinu tanra mukhe nahi aise ana

 

SYNONYMS

 

krsna-varna-sabdera--of the word krsna-varna; artha--the meaning; dui--two; ta--certainly; pramana--examples; krsna--Krsna; vinu--except for; tanra--of Him; mukhe--in the mouth; nahi aise--does not come; ana--anything else.

 

TRANSLATION

 

These are two meanings of the word "krsna-varna." Indeed, nothing else but Krsna issues from His mouth.

 

TEXT 56

 

TEXT

 

keha tanre bale yadi krsna-varana

ara visesane tara kare nivarana

 

SYNONYMS

 

keha--someone; tanre--to Him; bale--ascribes; yadi--if; krsna--black; varana--the color; ara--another; visesane--in the adjective; tara--of that; kare--does; nivarana--prevention.

 

TRANSLATION

 

If someone tries to describe Him as being of blackish complexion, the next adjective [tvisa akrsnam] immediately restricts him.

 

TEXT 57

 

TEXT

 

deha-kantye haya tenho akrsna-varana

akrsna-varane kahe pita-varana

 

SYNONYMS

 

deha-kantye--in the luster of the body; haya--is; tenho--He; akrsna--not black; varana--the color; akrsna-varane--by a color that is not blackish; kahe--one means; pita--yellow; varana--the color.

 

TRANSLATION

 

His complexion is certainly not blackish. Indeed, His not being blackish indicates that His complexion is yellow.

 

HDGACBSP

Cc. Adi lila 3.54-57

 

Sorry for any confusion. I am not certain who compiled the Kantahara found on line, and apologize for any inaccuracies. Hope this clears it up for any bengali scholars of Cc.

 

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Puru Das Adhikari:

Doesn't appear weird to me. .................

 

 

Methinks you might have missed my point.

Maybe I didnt CUT AND PASTE enough

 

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Not at all. Me thinks the essential point is that people that speak different languages and accept different authorities,axioms and devotional practices for understanding the true purport of the Vedas can't talk to each other and communicate effectively when such commnication admonishes those authorities so one party can satisfy his own agenda. Vitandi or jalpa discussions in the guise of a vada (search for truth) will not do.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-05-2001).]

[shvu 1]

 

To accept the Thakura's realizations and numerous commentaries or to accept yours.

 

I am guessing this is about the dreams and not about the Svetasvatara. In either case I have no commentaries of *mine* and even if there was one, the question of *accepting* a commentary over another can happen only after sufficient analysis.

 

In the specific case of the Svetasvatara, the translation which is more true to the actual sanskrit words and the context is the one to be accepted irrespective of who the translator maybe. Doesn't matter how many books he wrote or in which century he lived or how famous he is/was.

 

Coming to the dream sequences, it is strictly my opinion based on my knowledge of Madhva and Ramanuja's life stories. While Madhva was openly worshipping Vishnu, Bhakti Vinoda Thakur would have people believe that he was *secretly* worshipping Chaitanya instead. Madhva was *secretly* aspiring to see that golden form,while all the time, he was misleading his disciples and writing something else thus making him a hypocrite of the highest order.

 

This being the situation, will I accept Madhva's integrity or that of someone who went back in time to see dreams that are offensive to Madhva and also *found* a missing portion of the Atharvana Veda which coincidentally supports his own position?

 

The answer is, I accept the integrity of Madhva and thus my opinion on the other gentleman. If someone doesn't care for the integrity of Madhva and would rather opt for BVT, it is his choice. I am certainly not pressing anyone to switch positions.

 

Interesting a scholar like you even uses a word like hinduism.

 

I am no scholar by any standards, and I see no problem with using the term hindu or hinduism for it is an established word now and the meaning is clear to all.

 

Cheers

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Because Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has observed something about Madhvacarya's internal mood, which you are not privy to does not make him incorrect. Your appreciation of Madhva is only surface.

 

Your evaluation of "hypocrisy" is not valid at all. IN the same way you could calculate that Shankaracarya was a hypocrit for preaching mayavada, when he is actually an incarnation of Lord Siva. Lord Siva is always meditating on his worshipful Lord Sri Krsna. As Sankaracarya he was simply fulfilling the Supreme Lord's larger plan for kali yuga. We are told he instructed his followers on his depature, bhaja govinda, bhaja govinda bhaja govinda mudha mate? Was this hypocrisy? Why is Bhisma considered one of the twelve mahajanas when he fought against the Pandavas (the Supreme Lord's dear friends)? and did not speak out during the insult of Draupadi. Was he a hypocrit? No! he was privy to Svayam Bhagavan's desire for the battle of Kuruksetra to take place and acted accordingly. Was Kaikeyi, who was a pure devotee of Lord Rama, acting hypocritically when she demanded of Maharaj Dasaratha Rama's exile? No, she also was simply fulfilling Lord Rama's plan for manifesting his pastimes and simply acting on Rama's direct request of her.

 

 

Yours evaluation of hypocrisy is simply a mundane calculation based on your historical perspective and lack of sraddha in who Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is. Your lack of appreciation for how rasa has developed throughout history by the presentations of so many different acaryas, culminating in the appearance of Sacanandana GourHari is also clear. I doubt you'll accept our examples as they come through our guru param para, but no matter.

 

Hindu is a relatively meaningless term that only refers to those living near the Indus river, with a British mispronunciation of the word. Santana dharma makes more sense.

 

I will check into the source of the Kantahara translations and get back. 3.12 is one of many slokas that was posted. We do not reject the Srimad Bhagavatam, Sri Caitanya Caritamrta and other literatures that you similarly see no value in. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is not limited by your evaluations of Him. If He chose to inspire his devotees to preach according to time and circumstance for His larger plan to offer the world unnata ujvala rasa, we are not bewildered.

 

The doctine of bhedabheda or dvaitadvaita which Nimbarka propounded is incomplete. It is in accepting the teachings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu that the vaisnava world has attained the complete perfection of the doctrine of bhedabheda. The principle foundation -stone of acintya bhedabheda is sac-cid -ananda vigraha , and it is because Sri Madhva Acarya has accepted the sac-cid-ananda vigraha that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted the Sri Madhva Sampradaya.

 

"There is a technical difference between the philosphical ideas which the previous Vaisnava acaryas have propagated because there are some slight incompleteness in those philosphical ideas. The difference in sampradaya is due to this technical difference. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who is directly para-tattva, has shown compassion on the world and given His own thoroughly pure and realised doctrine of actinya-bhedabheda. By the power of His omnisceince, He has completed and made flawless all those opinions which were suffering from some deficiency, for example Madhva's sac-cid-ananda nitya vigraha, Ramanjua Acarya's sakti-siddhanta, Visnu-swami's suddhadvaita siddhanta and tadiya sarvasvatva and Nibarka's nitya dvaitadvaita siddhanta." (The Teachings of Sriman Mahaprabhu, p.110)

 

Srila B.V. Narayan Maharaj

pp. 426-427

Acarya Kesari Sri Srimad Bhakti Prajna Kesava Gosvami/ His life and Teachings

 

In this book SNM outlines 8 succinct objections and refutations concerning how the Sri Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradya is in the line of Sri Madhva. They can all be presented one by one for examination if anyone has any interest in our position, otherwise not.

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-05-2001).]

[amanpeter 0]

At last a worthy opponent for Shvu! Go to it, prabhus!

 

------------------

No offense meant to anyone...

[animesh 0]

Puru Das wrote:

If someone tries to describe Him as being of blackish complexion, the next adjective, "tvisakrsnam" immediately restricts him. His complexion is certainly not blackish.Indeed, His not being blackish indicates that his complexion is golden.

 

I disagree with you. The word "tvisakrsnam" says that lustre is not black. It does not saay that colour is not black. Colour and lustre are two different things. So, there is no contradiction if we say that "krsnavrnam" means "of blackish complexion".

[shvu 1]

 

Because Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has observed something about Madhvacarya's internal mood, which you are not privy to does not make him incorrect.

 

Because I have observed something about Bhakti vinoda Thauka's internal mood, which your are not privy to does not make me incorrect. See the point?

 

I never said BVT was wrong. I have no way of proving he was right or wrong. Based on what Information I have, I choose to reject BVT in favor of Madhva. Of course, I may be wrong about BVT; he may have been right and maybe Madhva did have secret aspirations, but BVT's stories of the dreams of Madhva, Ramanuja and Nimbarka simply don't sound convincing to me. And over that we also have his finding_an_upanishad story. Which is why I said earlier that it is strictly an opinion.

 

The "mood" concept (internal and external) is strictly a Gaudiya concept. I have never heard or read about moods in any non-Gaudiya literature and hence it is also likely that I have no idea what you mean when you say "internal mood".

 

Your evaluation of "hypocrisy" is not valid at all. IN the same way you could calculate that Shankaracarya was a hypocrit for preaching mayavada, when he is actually an incarnation of Lord Siva.

 

Assuming for a moment that Shankara was indeed an avatar, how does it make him a hypocrite? Advaita to the Advatins is the only true interpretation [eternal, actually]of the Sruti and the Gita. Hence, to them it is the message of Krishna himself.

 

Lord Siva is always meditating on his worshipful Lord Sri Krsna.

 

To clarify, Shankara never taught people not to worship Krishna. Au contraire, he has written a commentary on the Gita and several stotras worshipping Krishna, Govinda, etc are attributed to him.

 

We are told he instructed his followers on his depature, bhaja govinda, bhaja govinda bhaja govinda mudha mate? Was this hypocrisy?

 

I am aware that such a story is being circulated in iskcon and is unfortunately false because Shankara composed Bhaja Govindam long before his death. The general idea is Advaitins do not worship God and are some kind of atheists. It is a false notion and that answers the above argument.

 

Why is Bhisma considered one of the twelve mahajanas when he fought against the Pandavas (the Supreme Lord's dear friends)? and did not speak out during the insult of Draupadi. Was he a hypocrit? No! he was privy to Svayam Bhagavan's desire for the battle of Kuruksetra to take place and acted accordingly.

 

Irrespective of whether there was a master plan by swayam bhagavan or not, a person who teaches one thing while secretly diagreeing with his own teaching qualifies as a hypocrite going by the meaning of the term.

 

About the master plan, your logic says that some people's actions are controlled and governed by the lord while other peoples actions are not. This doesn't jell with the message in the Gita [viz., 18.61]. Note that there are no conditions here for he says sarvabhutAnAm [all beings]. Thus if we agree to say God made x act, then the logic has to be extended to say God makes all people act. It doesn't apply for one select set of people.

 

Yours evaluation of hypocrisy is simply a mundane calculation based on your historical perspective and lack of sraddha in who Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is.

 

Yes. Lack of Sraddha for I have examined that list which says who Chaitanya is and found it to be bogus. I trust when you were given the list you accepted it prima facie, without actually verifying the content for the list came thru a famous person. How can that person be wrong? would have been your logic. But I am in awe of no one and so I don't generally believe things prima facie and tend to investigate, which turned out to be worthwhile in this case.

 

Your lack of appreciation for how rasa has developed throughout history by the presentations of so many different acaryas, culminating in the appearance of Sacanandana GourHari is also clear.

 

Rasa is strictly a Gaudiya concept and has no basis in any of the prasthana trayi [viz., Sruti, Gita, sutras] and hence is rejected by people who choose to believe in them. Now if one says one should have faith in the Gaudiya Acharyas to understand Rasa, that would qualify as blind faith which you yourself are opposed to, as you mentioned earlier. See the diffculty?

 

I doubt you'll accept our examples as they come through our guru param para, but no matter.

 

Shankara defeats the pUrva-mimasaka scholar Mandana Mishra after a long debate. Mandana is amazed and asks Shankara "How could an all-knowing sage like Jaimini have come up with a false doctrine? Please explain this to me". Shankara says "Jaimini taught the truth. But it was for a time and circumstance and is not eternal". What he means to say is "my teaching is eternal".

 

This is the stoic story handed out by people of all systems. "Move over all of you for your teaching was for a certain time and circumstance unlike mine which is the true eternal one." Similarly another joker will come along a hundred years later and say the same thing about Gaudiya Viashnavism. The monopoly of this statement is held by the one who is most recent.

 

We do not reject the Srimad Bhagavatam, Sri Caitanya Caritamrta and other literatures that you similarly see no value in.

 

I don't recall rejecting the Bhagavatam in toto. The general approach of a school of vedAnta is that smriti [viz., Bhagavatam] is authority *only* when it does not contradict Sruti and not otherwise. I am certainly opposed to pulling out random verses, out of context to project a false impression as has been done by a few.

 

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is not limited by your evaluations of Him. If He chose to inspire his devotees to preach according to time and circumstance for His larger plan to offer the world unnata ujvala rasa, we are not bewildered.

 

Which however is subject to the conditions that,

 

1. Chaitanya was an avatar.

2. The person who claimed to see flashback dreams was speaking the truth.

 

Since 1 has been shown to be bogus, 2 loses value. Even if 1 was true there is simply no way for anyone to accept 2, except by faith. But believe it or not, if a dream of Madhva [whatever content] was reported by a later Acharya in his own line, the masses would still be dubious about it. What to say about a dream from someone who is not in his line?

 

It is in accepting the teachings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu that the vaisnava world has attained the complete perfection of the doctrine of bhedabheda.

 

I trust you are aware that the majority of the Vaishnavas in India are not bhedabhedins.

 

The principle foundation -stone of acintya bhedabheda is sac-cid -ananda vigraha , and it is because Sri Madhva Acarya has accepted the sac-cid-ananda vigraha that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted the Sri Madhva Sampradaya.

 

If he accepted the Madhva sampradaya, it certainly does not reflect in his teachings of Bhakti > Mukti, etc which are all radically opposed to tattava-vada as taught by Madhva. I am guessing you have read the position paper of the tattva-vadis vis-a-vis iskcon.

 

There is a technical difference between the philosphical ideas which the previous Vaisnava acaryas have propagated because there are some slight incompleteness in those philosphical ideas.

 

This "slight difference" will be taken seriously, when it is based on prasthana trayi and not otherwise. In the absence of such evidence it is only natural that such a claim is unacceptable by anyone outside the respective line. Note also that ever line calls their own teaching as perfect and so this is not a new claim.

 

In this book SNM outlines 8 succinct objections and refutations concerning how the Sri Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradya is in the line of Sri Madhva. They can all be presented one by one for examination if anyone has any interest in our position, otherwise not.

 

Interestingly sometime back the dvaita.org team came out with a position paper describing how the two traditions are different. The response from the ikscon people was not to show that their positon was shown incorrectly, Instead they went to the Udipi maths and complained about the web site and got a set of letters from them telling people not to fight. Highly unprofessional, in my opinion. It appears like they could not find any faults in the paper and hence resorted to this technique.

 

Imagine the 13th century: Madhva challenges the Advaita tradition calling it false. The Advaitins instead of rebutting his claim run to Sringeri and complain about this bully.

 

Cheers

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Dear shvu,

Thank you so much for yet again clarifying your position. I don't have very much time today, since I am preparing to leave for India soon, so this reply will have to be brief. I'll be happy to answer your specific points later.

 

So you know, I am not part of current day iskcon, so I can't be responsible for what they do or don't do conerning the matha in Udupi and their reaction to philosophical controversies. I'm not surprised they (iskcon) were hard pressed to discuss such a topic in depth. I have no doubt your evaluation of their behavior has some merit. You will find that gaudiya vaisnavas who accept the principle of anugatya from a siksa guru will be more inclined to discuss such topics in depth.

 

Suffice it for now to say that the philosophical position concerning Madhva and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu have been outlined to my satisfaction, if not yours, by Srila Bhakti Pranjan Kesava Maharaj in Gaudiya Patrika and Gaudiya Kantahara articles and summarized quite nicely, and now in English, by his disciple, Srila B.V. Narayana Maharaj. As I have the time I'll reproduce those objections and refutations for all to read and we can make both of our positions in the matter more perfectly clear. Then you can assess for yourself if we accept Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's connection to Madhva blindly, without any thought or investigation or examination. The matter of His divinity is another topic that will require even more

presentation as time permits.

 

After that discussion is over then perhaps we shall find time to discuss Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and the gaudiya view of rasa, its history through time etc. and the different mantras that have come to us over the history of this millenium. A very large topic that can't be answered in one post or injudiciously.

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-06-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Originally posted by SHVU:

I never said BVT was wrong.

I believe your exact statement was that he was a fraud. Or did you use the words "major fraud". I don't recall the details.

 

Rasa is strictly a Gaudiya concept and has no basis in any of the prasthana trayi...

Prasthana-traya refers to the shruti, smriti and nyaya [brahma-sutras] texts, and thus rasa is a concept supported by it.

 

But believe it or not, if a dream of Madhva [whatever content] was reported by a later Acharya in his own line, the masses would still be dubious about it.

How about Raghavendra appearing to the British government officer? (Thomas Munroe?)

 

I haven't seen anyone doubting the story, especially from the madhva line.

 

I trust you are aware that the majority of the Vaishnavas in India are not bhedabhedins.

I would disagree. The majority of Vaishnava schools accept some form of oneness and difference. Madhva seems to be the only hardliner who refuses to accept any oneness, though he accepts "similarity".

 

The response from the ikscon people was not to show that their positon was shown incorrectly...

Not really. There has been no response at all from ISKCON. They don't seem to care about it.

 

 

Instead they went to the Udipi maths...

ISKCON had nothing at all to do with this. It was done by one Narasingha Chaitanya Gaudiya Matha.

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

I made some mistake while editing and now golden words are lost.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-06-2001).]

[Jagat 1]

The thing that mystifies me in all of this is why did Bhaktivinoda Thakur write this book in his own name in the first place?

 

We are fairly certain that three books the Thakur published as ancient works were in fact composed by him. These three -- CaitanyopaniSad (1887), Prema-vivarta (1906) and Navadvipa-satakam (n.d.) have certain common characteristics – they were all connected to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the glorification of his birthplace.

 

The motives seem fairly clear: the Thakur was trying to promote Mahaprabhu’s birthplace and he did it in a fashion time-honored in India. He simply wrote the material he needed and attributed it to someone who had historical credibility. Rather than attributing his works to Vyasa or Narottam Das Thakur as the counterfeiters of the past, however, he used the names of Jagadananda Pandit and Prabodhananda Saraswati. But what then made him think that Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya could be distributed under his own name and still find credibility?

 

As Shivu points out, the kinds of things we find in this book are in fact far more radical than anything found in any of the three above-mentioned texts. Madhva and Ramanuja are not the only names that are dropped in this book – there are also demigods, Vedic rishis, and other historical figures like Jayadeva, all of who have premonitions of Mahaprabhu’s appearance and spend time in his Dham.

 

As such, this is a pretty typical “Mahatmya” style of text. Most Sthala-puranas introduce many puranic or Vedic personalities and ascribe to them activities and words that glorify the place in question. Had this book been written in Puranic Sanskrit two or three hundred years earlier, it may have been treated somewhat differently -- though I doubt that Shivu (or any other scholar) would give it any more credibility than he does now.

 

As it is, however, the Thakur decided to publish it in Bengali and in his own name. This could only mean that he was either sufficiently confident of his social standing as a “realized Vaishnava” who could claim to have mystic visions of this sort and be believed, or that he never intended for it to be taken literally as history, but as a fanciful work in glorification of Mahaprabhu.

 

The idea here, I believe, would be that in some dimension or alternate reality these events were not only possible, but historically true, even if they were not necessarily so in our universe. In this sense, we can compare it to Bhaktivinoda's other works like HarinAma-cintAmaNi, which the Thakur wrote as a conversation between Haridas Thakur and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in Jagannath Puri, or Jaiva Dharma, which includes historical characters like Gopal Guru Goswami and Dhyana Chandra – a kind of historical fiction, as it were. There is a certain literary license that has been taken and may be forgiven, as long as we recognize and accept the genre.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur did in fact publish many rare manuscripts of genuine Vaishnava literature, such as Sri Krishna Vijaya and many padyAvalis, etc. He was not the only one who yielded to the temptation of counterfeiting. Nevertheless, I personally find it problematic that someone who contributed so much to the Vaishnava religion, who worked so hard to instil a spirit of morality and honesty into Vaishnavism, whose life was in general a monument of commitment to service to Mahaprabhu and His principles, who in his worldly life was a justice and so presumably knew a thing or two about ethics and the law, saw fit to take such a chance.

 

Furthermore, in view of his familiarity with scholarly historical method, it is hard to understand how he thought that he could get away with it. Perhaps he thought his personal probity put him above suspicion, but did he really think that a single manuscript found by chance in mysterious circumstances, only to disappear again after its publication, would not cause people to examine the published text more carefully? And if that text contains elements of language and content that not only point to a modern origin, but to the very person who claims to have discovered it, will our suspicions not be exacerbated?

 

I can only say that in his enthusiasm to see Mahaprabhu’s birthplace be glorified and become a center of pilgrimage – as it has indeed become – the Thakur took a chance with his personal reputation and that of his religion. He succeeded in making Mayapur a magnet for pilgrims from around the world. His disciples, grand-disciples and great-grand-disciples have succeeded in creating a devotional environment that is quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder at the masi-bindu that stains his otherwise sparkling white cloth. Can we not expect people to ask the question that naturally arises: How can a religion that needs lies to spread its message make any claims to be the truth?

 

It does not give me pleasure to remind us that Bipin Bihari Goswami, whom we are accustomed to thinking of negatively as someone who was rejected for his caste consciousness and bad habits like tobacco smoking, publicly renounced Bhaktivinoda Thakur as his disciple shortly before dying in 1921. The reason he gave for this drastic act was precisely for “preaching falsehoods” connected to the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is easy to condemn Bipin Bihari Prabhu for having some self-interest in this matter, but the doubts that have been brought up in this thread tend to give justification to the Goswami.

 

As I said, I find it rather painful to bring the matter up, and I do so in the full expectation of being heartily condemned, but I would like to see those who love the Holy Name and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu face this problem head on, much in the way that Roman Catholics have decided to accept the terrible things in their history – things which are many times worse than those we have mentioned here – and still find a way to justify their faith.

 

Faith has to be honest to be genuine, and such honesty has to extend to our forefathers, even those to whom we have attributed the highest spiritual perfection. It is a shock to accept that our divinities may have had human failings, but is this not a necessary step to take in order to face our own failings?

 

Human psychology is such that we often compensate for our own human frailties by placing faith in someone else. We say, “I am not perfect, but my guru is. I have no personal qualifications, but this does not matter because the parampara is perfect.”

 

This is a psychological trick and results in ego inflation. By identifying with the guru and the parampara, we appropriate their perfection and their authority for ourselves. Unfortunately, this inflates into the kind of distorted personal psychology that is not only historically present in Iskcon, but can often be seen on forums like this one.

 

Jagat

 

[if anyone is interested in having more detailed information about the authenticity problems surrounding the three works mentioned above, let me know.]

<small><font color=#dedfdf>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-06-2001).]

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

The other point that I forgot to mention in preamble to any further discussion with shvu, is that we approach the writing of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura from the angle of vision of accepting him as a nitya siddha self realized acarya in our line. Therefore we consider his "opinion" a world of difference from that of a bhadda jiva.

shvu may like to reduce the samadhi bhasya of a self realized Vaisnava as his "opinion" but we are not going to debate on this point.

WE are also fully aware that jagat shares the same skepticism and sees some of the writing of Srila Bhaktivinoda from his scholastic perspective. He has expressed his doubts about the Thakura's motives and therefore suggests he was fallable,or untruthful, a point of view we don't share.

 

Simply everyone can understand we approach the subject matter from a different attitude of love and affection for Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and the preceptorial line that comes after him. Of course we don't expect shvu or jagat to be in "awe" of our acaryas,or agree with eveything they say. However we are hearing from them according to Krsna's direction in the Bg. 4.34,

tad viddhi pranipaten sevaya

upadeksyanti te jnanam

naninas tattva-darsinah

 

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The

self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.

 

PURPORT

 

The path of spiritual realization is undoubtedly difficult. The Lord therefore advises us to approach a bona fide spiritual master in the line of disciplic succession from the Lord Himself. No one can be a bona fide spiritual master without following this principle of disciplic succession. The Lord is the original spiritual master, and a person in the disciplic succession can convey the message of the Lord as it is to his disciple. No one can be spiritually realized by manufacturing his own process, as is the fashion of the foolish pretenders. The Bhagavatamsays: dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam--the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge. Such a spiritual master should be accepted in full surrender, and one should serve the spiritual master like a menial servant, without false prestige. Satisfaction of the self-realized spiritual master is the secret of advancement in spiritual life. Inquiries and submission constitute the proper combination for spiritual understanding. Unless there is submission and service, inquiries from the learned spiritual master will not be effective. One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple, he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding. In this verse, both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned. One should not only hear submissively from the spiritual master, but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries. A bona fide spiritual master is by nature very kind toward the disciple. Therefore when the student is submissive and is always ready to render service, the reciprocation of knowledge and inquiries becomes perfect.

HDGACBSP

Bg. As It is 4.34

purport

 

jagat's consistant efforts in doubting these works of Srila Bhaktivinoda or rejecting them outright is not suprising. He also casts doubt on the Thakura's estimation of the site of Mahaprabhu's appearance, but we also know that his realization was confirmed by his siksa gurudeva, Srila Jagannatha das babaji maharaj. Scholastic skepticism in the efficacy of our preceptorial line and its acaryas has been seen on these forums before. Indeed it thrives here. Couched in polite language lack of faith in SBT is simply that.

WE don't really think the Thakura is discredited by his style of writing in Sri Nabadwipa Mahatmya and are not that concerned if the dream sequences were offered as historical events or illustrative of philosophical conceptions conerning Nabadwipa dhama and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. We trust the Thakura's motives and presentation and don't see him "cheating" in any way, despite the opinions of shvu or jagat. We are not ready to analyze Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's "honesty" as jagat is prone to do. He is always prone to try to slot our acaryas from his own angle of vision towards them. No surprise.

 

 

Vydavyasa in Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.18 along with our gurudeva's purport gives our angle of vision in such matters:

 

TEXT 18

 

TEXT

 

nasta-prayesv abhadresu

nityam bhagavata-sevaya

bhagavaty uttama-sloke

bhaktir bhavati naisthiki

 

SYNONYMS

 

nasta--destroyed; prayesu--almost to nil; abhadresu--all that is inauspicious; nityam--regularly;bhagavata--Srimad-Bhagavatam, or the pure devotee; sevaya--by serving; bhagavati--unto the Personality of Godhead; uttama--transcendental; sloke--prayers; bhaktih--loving service; bhavati--comes into being; naisthiki--irrevocable.

 

TRANSLATION

 

By regular attendance in classes on the Bhagavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact.

 

PURPORT

 

Here is the remedy for eliminating all inauspicious things within the heart which are considered to be obstacles in the path of self-realization. The remedy is the association of the Bhagavatas. There are two types of Bhagavatas, namely the book Bhagavata and the devotee Bhagavata. Both the Bhagavatas are competent remedies, and both of them or either of them can be good enough to eliminate the obstacles. A devotee Bhagavata is as good as the book Bhagavata because the devotee Bhagavata leads his life in terms of the book Bhagavata and the book Bhagavata is full of information about the Personality of Godhead and His pure devotees, who are also Bhagavatas. Bhagavata book and person are identical.

The devotee Bhagavata is a direct representative of Bhagavan, the Personality of Godhead. So by pleasing the devotee Bhagavata one can receive the benefit of the book Bhagavata. Human reason fails to understand how by serving the devotee Bhagavata or the book Bhagavata one gets gradual promotion on the path of devotion. But actually these are facts explained by Srila Naradadeva, who happened to be a maidservant's son in his previous life. The maidservant was engaged in the menial service of the sages, and thus he also came into contact with them. And simply by associating with them and accepting the remnants of foodstuff left by the sages, the son of the maidservant got the chance to become the great devotee and personality Srila Naradadeva. These are the miraculous effects of the association of Bhagavatas. And to understand these effects practically, it should be noted that by such sincere association of the Bhagavatas one is sure to receive transcendental knowledge very easily, with the result that he becomes fixed in the devotional service of the Lord. The more progress is made in devotional service under the guidance of the Bhagavatas, the more one becomes fixed in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. The messages of the book Bhagavata, therefore, have to be received from the devotee Bhagavata, and the combination of these two Bhagavatas will help the neophyte devotee to make progress on and on.

SB 1.1.18

translation and purport

HDGACBSP

 

shvu considers Srila Bhaktinovda Thakura on an equal level with anyone else who has an "opnion" but we consider him person bhagavata and this discussion only continues as long as all parties have some sensitivity or at least try to understand our perspective. jagat certainly has no discomfort second guessing Srila Bhaktivinoda's motives from his perspective also. Jagat will not hesitate to caste doubt on the validity of accepting the gaudiya acaryas from SBT to SBSST ,HDGACBSP,and others as absolute authorities. He is welcome to his point of view, which we do not share. We've seen this before also,and we have also seen jagat's estimations of those who he considers follow them blindly. Over intelligence never yields bhakti.

 

I'll certainly discuss the matter of the Caitanya Upanisad and Nabadwipa Mahatmya with other senior vaisnavas and report back after dec. anything further they have to say about them.

 

Therefore we caution the participants of this discussion to consider this sloka from the skanda purana:

 

nindam kurvanti ye mudha vaisnavanam mahatmanam

patanti potrbhih sardham maharaurava-samjnite

hanti nindati vai dvesthi vaisnavan-nabhi-nandati

krudhyate yati no harsam darsnae patanani sat

 

"A fool who blasphemes Vaisnavas goes to the worst kind of hell along with generations of his ancestors. One who kills a devotee, as well as one who blasphemes devotees, or one who is envious of devotees, or who who fails to offer obeisances to Vaisnavas upon seeng htem, or one who becomes angered at a Vaisnava, or who does not become joyful upon seeing a Vaisnava--these six classes of men are al considred to be candidates for falling down into hell.

(Skanda Purana)

Sri Gaudiya Kantahara 17.81

 

It is one thing to have skepticism about something that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written because of one's different orientation toward the Vedas,or scholastic perspective, and quite another to commit aparadha at his lotus feet. Another of our acaryas, Srila Promode Puri Goswami has written:

 

"THE ETYMOLOGICAL development of the word aparadha is radhat arthat aradhanat-

apagatah, which means "to be distanced from worship." Offenses committed at the lotus feet of Vaishnavas, the Devotees, distance one from devotional service to the Supreme Lord. But in a higher sense it means to be removed from the service of Sri Radha. All divine service to Krishna is being conducted under her direction. To offend her servitors is to make one unfit for her divine service. The whole aim of Krishna consciousness is radha-dasyam, the divine service of Sri Radha, and offenses at the lotus feet of Vaishnavas make one unfit for such service.

 

We have no intention of making personal derisive remarks about any of the followers of Madhvacarya who do not accept Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. However we do believe their position is atheistic,to some extent, on the basis of other statements by Sri Krsna in the Bg, because we are accepting Mahaprabhu as Svayam Bhagavan Himself. Krsna say in Bg.

9.11. I beleive even shvu will understand this point.

 

avajananti mam mudha

manusim tanum asritam

param bhavam ajananto

mama bhuta-mahesvaram

 

"Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be."

 

PURPORT

 

can be found here:

http://www.asitis.com/9/11.html

 

Lord Brahma is the founder of the Brahma Madva sampradaya, and Madhvacarya its leading acarya. We have no hesitation to also in future quote from Sri Brahma Samhita to offer some indications by Brahmaji of spiritual variegatedness. The validity of the 5 primary and 7 scondary rasa, fully elucidated in the books of Srila Rupa Gosvami, our rasacarya is the next discussion after Sri Krsna's glory is understood from Brahma-samhita. Then Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's position on chanting the Hare Krsna Maha mantra and his glorificaiton of Sri Caitnya Mahprabhu, the yuga avatara of this millenium will come closer to being understood by one and all,otherwise not

 

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-06-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-06-2001).]

[shvu 1]

 

Not at all. I doubt that Shivu is clapping his hands for anyone who is channeling lost Tamil texts from the lost continent of Lemuria; certainly I am not.

I am not clapping either. Just like there are people who choose to believe in BVT, there will be people to believe in this channelling guy too. Just like there are people who believe in Mahesh yogi's flying capabilities although they have never seen him fly. One person said "People who believe in a virgin Mary will believe in anything." Which makes sense, because if one is ready to beleive in miracles, then he has to accept all miracles from everyone. I don't see how one be selective wrt to miracles.

 

Offhand, I can remember Ludo Rocher's work on the Purana recensions in India.

 

About tamil in the Bhagavata, it is news to myself. But the yuga-bheda is a little confusing. What happened to the version specifically written for this yuga? And where is this yuga-bedha explanation documented?

 

Cheers

 

[shvu 1]

 

To think that some author thousands of years ago was trying to copy another text, and he was just too stupid to match the stories properly.

It in fact, rules out the copying idea. But it clearly shows that they were different authors.

 

Cheers

 

[Jagat 1]

I have already exceeded my allotted time for Internet discussions, probably done a month's worth in the last three days, but I would like to add one other comment.

 

I am very much in favor of the idea of progressive spiritual understanding. I don't know why, if as individuals our spiritual understanding can evolve, that as a sampradaya we cannot evolve in the same way.

 

This, to me, is accepted in the Gita's yadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnir verse.

 

From the point of view of comparative religion, theisms generally seem more open to accepting linear history, rather than circular. Although Krishna consciousness would never adopt a purely linear model of history (as in Christianity), one that allows for every individual to be a conduit for revelation would perhaps allow a new dynamism to enter the movement.

 

There is surely a way that tradition and progress can be reconciled.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagadananda.