Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Battlefield Fancy by Danavir Goswami

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

 

The concluding verse 18.66:sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

...

 

"vraja" : go to Vrndavan and there surrender to Krishna

the Master and conjugal lover of the gopis.

 

 

 

How does "vraja" in "sarva dharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM sharanam vraja" mean "VrindAvan?" I must respectfully disagree with such an interpretation. Reasons:

 

1) "sharanam vraja" means to go surrender (to Krishna). This is exactly the sense in which everyone takes it, even the mAyAvAdis. None of the VedAnta schools takes Vraja in this context to mean VrindAvan.

 

2) If "Vraja" in this context is not a verb, but a substantive, then it is not declined correctly. If the interpretation is "go surrender in Vraja," then Vraja should be declined in the locative case. However, it is not. Nor does it appear to be in accusative case (go to Vraja and surrender).

 

3) Any verse must be interpreted in the overall context of the mahAbhArata, and other canonial histories. If Krishna's final instruction to Arjuna is that he go to Vraja (i.e VrindAvan), then what does that say of Arjuna that he did not do this? Whether you accept the account of his life's end in mahAbhArata or in the bhAgavata, the point is that Arjuna was never said to have gone to VrajabhUmi.

 

 

Raghu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what is called "dhvani." It does not mean Vraja in the sense of Vrindavan, and one knows that, but the sounds themselves carry a meaning that the Vraja devotee hears. Like "even the wind calls your name."

 

Is this legitimate exegesis? I think so, though it is not meant to be rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet folks like Danavir who go on a rally and declare how "none of the previous acaryas" etc. never read a bit from the previous acaryas. Jagat has compiled most of the relevant tikas to Grantha Mandir. Download the tika of Visvanath and send it to Danavir, ask him to compare them and tell us if there is an issue.

http://www.granthamandira.org/categories.php?cat_id=12

 

A man with an attitude is lost in the Vedabase, that's my diagnosis.

 

By the way, did anyone pay attention to the fact that he hardly quoted anything from the book he critiqued?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I doubt that would be a gamble. (I had a student some years ago--a veteran Navy SEAL--who made three weekend trips to Las Vegas a year and played poker the whole time. He never lsot money over the course of a weekend and cleared--after paying income tax--$45,000 a year from his poker. He considered it business, not gambling.)

 

Madhava: A man with an attitude is lost in the Vedabase, that's my diagnosis.

 

Very well said!

 

M: By the way, did anyone pay attention to the fact that he hardly quoted anything from the book he critiqued?

 

Not only that, but he started out by saying something that just is not true. It's terrible writing and wouldn't be acceptable from one of my first-year college students, at least by the end of the semester. And this fellow markets himself as Dr. Dane Holtzman. Doesn't reflect well on his alma mater and doesn't speak well for his project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I just don't get it. What's new. Yes I have seen Prabhupadas words used as a weapon quite often. Although I have never met someone enter the vedabase with Mahaprabhu's attitude.

 

Anyway, sorry to misdirect the thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

 

Does this attitude of dismissing the Vraja bhakti

Bh Gita commentation conducive for our spiritual realization.

 

Or do we follow the way of Sri vedabase siddhanta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does this attitude of dismissing the Vraja bhakti Bh Gita commentation conducive for our spiritual realization.

 

Or do we follow the way of Sri vedabase siddhanta?

 

 

 

This is a comment based on ignorance. Simply because someone quotes from their spiritual master it is labeled as a "Vedabase Siddhanta"? People who say this want to imply that the author has given no thought or effort in reaching his conclusion.

 

But if the author chose not to quote from Srila Prabhupada, then the same critics will say that he is not speaking as per Srila Prabhupada's view. In otherwords, these critics just want to find fault with the author and will criticize either way. That's fine, but better to address the actual topics of disagreement philosophically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I bet folks like Danavir who go on a rally and declare how "none of the previous acaryas" etc. never read a bit from the previous acaryas.

 

 

Rather than betting, why not ask him and get back to the readers here with factual information?

 

 

Download the tika of Visvanath and send it to Danavir, ask him to compare them and tell us if there is an issue.

 

http://www.granthamandira.org/categories.php?cat_id=12

 

 

 

Rather than talking about downloading a file from the internet and emailing it to maharaja (as if he doesn't have a copy of the book in his library), why not go through the commentary of Vishwanatha and show us how many places he brings out the vraja bhakti meaning of verses. That would be meaningful and relevant rather than implying that Maharaja has never read the book and has never even seen a copy of it (and thus we need to help him by emailing him a file from the internet).

 

 

A man with an attitude is lost in the Vedabase, that's my diagnosis.

 

 

Can anyone show where Srila Prabhupada cites these higher meanings of Gita? I'm not saying he doesn't, but I would like to see some evidence rather than just accusing the author of using Vedabase with an attitude. If the Vedabase has been misused in this regards then I'm sure others will be able to find plenty of quotes about these higher Vraja interpretations of the Gita in Srila Prabhupada's writings.

 

 

By the way, did anyone pay attention to the fact that he hardly quoted anything from the book he critiqued?

 

 

Perhaps you can write to him and ask him what he finds specifically objectionable by verse number. I think he made it clear he objects to the overall presentation of the book. In a short review there aren't many details you can get into.

 

Regardless, this is his opinion and I have no problem with him having his own view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jndas: Perhaps you can write to him and ask him what he finds specifically objectionable by verse number. I think he made it clear he objects to the overall presentation of the book. In a short review there aren't many details you can get into.

 

His review is almost 9,000 words Including the quotations, which make up more than half). It's just good writing to give examples to support any assertion the writer makes; it's at least as desirable to do so in a review. He doesn't quote one word of the book he's critiquing. The evidenece is that he either has not read it at all, has not read very much of it, has read it carelessly, or is not being honest. My evidence? His second paragraph, where he claims that Tripurari Maharaja translates ramanti in 10.9 as "conjugal love." The attitude his review conveys is that because he has the positions he has, offers namaskar at the beginning of his essay and ends it with "Om tat sat," whatever he writes must be accepted as true. I'm sorry, but that doesn't work in the world, and it doesn't work with very many of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madhava: Babhru is working on a response. Any clues when you'll have it ready?

 

I'd like to have it ready today, but it is not the only thing I have going on this weekend. House cleaning, stack of papers to grade, japa (not finished yet), so many things to do.

 

sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

i think he makes it pretty clear what his objections

are, using references to vraja lila and

rasa in vraja to explain bhagavad gita

verses

 

The prakrta-sahajiya depict themselves as the most advanced, transcendentally blissful devotees, deeply absorbed in devotional service and mad to taste transcendental mellows. They also describe themselves as the most advanced devotees in spontaneous love, as knowers of transcendental mellows, as the topmost devotees in conjugal love of Krsna, and so on. Not actually knowing the transcendental nature of love of God, they accept their material emotions to be indicative of advancement. In this way they pollute the process of devotional service. To try to become writers of Vaisnava literature, they introduce their material conceptions of life into pure devotional service. Because of their material conceptions, they advertise themselves as knowers of transcendental mellows, but they do not understand the transcendental nature of devotional service. (Caitanya Caritamrta, Antya 20.29 Purport)

 

Srila Prabhupada compared using Bhagavad-gita for preaching one's own philosophy to smoking ganja through another man's hand to avoid the discoloration and bad smell adhering to one's own hand. At least if someone wants to do some activity, he should take the responsibility himself and not attribute it to another. In this case, Krsna's Bhagavad-gita is specifically meant to explain the basic science of bhakti and its value is not enhanced by contorting the verses with imagined interpretations from Vraja-lila. Although shallow preoccupation with gopi bhava appears to be the qualification of the Vraja-imagined Gita commentary, Sri Krsna's song becomes appropriated as a non-consenting accomplice.

 

If you take Bhagavad-gita, then you must present it as it is. Don't distort it. You may have got some idea, but you explain that idea in your different book. But don't place it as the explanation of Bhagavad-gita. That is not very good. If you have got different theory, you can write in a different book. But we cannot permit or do not like that as the commentary of Bhagavad-gita you will place something different. That is not very honest. You put your own theory. Why should you try to put your theory through Bhagavad-gita? That we protest. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gita As It Is. (Room Conversation with Yoga Student — March 14, 1975, Iran)

 

 

then his other objection

 

2. Maryada-Vyatikrama (Impertinent Over-Stepping)

 

In Sanskrit, maryada-vyatikrama means impertinently attempting to surpass a greater personality. The new Vraja Gita version seeks to surpass the exalted acaryas of the disciplic succession by declaring its new imaginative Vraja-bhakti interpretation of Bhagavad-gita to be deeper and higher than the accepted understanding. Although in particular, Srila Prabhupada and his Bhagavad-gita As It Is are slighted, the Vraja interpretation also oversteps all the previous acaryas who never ventured into describing Bhagavad-gita in terms of Vraja bhakti

 

then he complains about sahajiaism

 

Therefore the sahajiyas, they do not read Bhagavad-gita. They say, "We have nothing to do with Bhagavad-gita." They jump over to the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Tenth Canto, Krsna's rasa-lila, as if Krsna is connected with rasa-lila and not with this lila. They make distinction. (Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 1.4 — London, July 10, 1973)

 

 

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

 

the first complaint doesn't apply,

it is based on assumption and is speculative

to give Tripurari an inner view that he

doesn't actually promote.

Prabhupada

said as he describes that you shouldn't use the gita

to validate your own philosophy,

Is Tripurari giving some different philosophy

then to follow the path of Krishna Bhakti ?

 

if so ,show where.

 

 

his second complaint showing a quote from prabhupada(above)

where prabhupada says if you have a different theory

about the meaning of the gita then that of the gita,

make a different book,dont use it to contort the gita's message, again where is tripurari distorting

the message of the gita ?

 

isn't the message of the gita to engage in bhakti yoga ?

is tripurari reaching a different conclusion from the

message of the gita?

 

 

then his third complaint saying that tripurari

claims his gita to be superior to others,

does he say this,or is that mistating his words

and intentions based on speculation on his motives

and thoughts ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiva, his complaints are clear but completely without substance. He makes claims that he does not support at all. He uses quotations from Srila Prabhupada but never shows where in Tripurari Maharaja's book he says anything that answers to the criticism Srila Prabhupada makes. This is, as you point out, the case with his complaint that it's a sahajiya perspective, and it's the same with his accusation of impertinence or cheekiness (maryada-vyatikrama). He makes the accusation but shows no evidence that Tripurari Maharaja acually commits any of these sins. Sure, he's free to offer his opinion, but it should not be based on ignorance. And it should not be an excuse for thinly veiled vaishnava aparadha. That's especially true because this writer is a prominent ISKCON sannyasi, guru to a number of disciples, and markets himself on the Web as holding a doctorate and serving as president of a vaishnava college. This is writing that would pass none of my courses for developmental or first-year students for two big reasons: he doesn't know how to use quotations, and he never supports any of his charges with any evedence whatsoever.

 

I'm going to send him a note, but I'm not going to wait for him to respond to submit my response. After all, rather than communicating his concerns privately to Tripurari Maharaja, he chose to publish his rant on the World Wide Web.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the article does not slam any specified book or author there could be four separate rebuttals with respect to four possible works:

 

1. Srila Sridhara Maharaja's Gita,

2. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu's treatise,

3. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's commentary,

4. Srila Tripurari Swami Maharaja's newest "Feeling and Philosophy".

 

This just to be thorough and not presumptuous, since all four seem to be ridiculed and maligned to some extent or other in the review. While some of these works may not be new releases advertised on the net, still the charges should be addressed for the sake of the honor and reputation of these sages, and for our own peace of mind.

 

gHari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the $64K question is: What is Danavir Maharaja's motive in this action? Taking so many liberties both with the text of the criticized book and SP's quotes used as his hammer to beat on it must have been done for a very specific reason. What is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is indeed a (if not the) crucial question. I was going to suggest you ask him, but I imagine his answer would be to protect innocent devotees from being led to Hell. (Did you know there's a ministry in for the protection of ISKCON?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...