In response to opinions on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and its conclusions

[Guest guest]

Dear Vaishnavas,

 

Hare Krishna.

Please accept my humble obeisances.

 

Having read the various postings on the srimad bhagavatam and Gaudiya

Vaishnava siddhanta vis-a-vis visishtadvaita, I would like to humbly state

that the whole matter has been totally misunderstood by the writers. Gaudiya

Vaishnava theology and the concept of achintya bheda-abheda is much deeper

than as presented or projected by the writers of the articles. Their

postulations as to what constitutes the Gaudiya position on Vishnu and

Krishna are also not all that correct. It is only half the story heard and

even that not from the lips or the pen of a Gaudiya Vaishnava but an

external discourse. In fact, the way the presentation has been written is

very superficial and appears to be half-truth at best of the actual Gaudiya

Vaishnava conclusion. To explain these concepts on a posting list would not

be totally feasible nor practical because these like any other esoteric

aspect of siddhanta can only be understood from a serious Gaudiya Vaishnava

sadhaka.

 

This list is essentially for Sri Vaishnava siddhanta, visishadvaita. As

such, I shan't post elaborate materials on Gaudiya Vaishnavism here. Anyone

writing in the future on inter-vaishnava discussions could do so on another

list meant for that purpose or write to a Gaudiya forum.

 

The superiority of Lord Krishna's form when compared with His other features

is not so much related to Vishnu tattva and serious differences amongst the

forms. It is more related to rasa-tattva as elaborated by the sad-goswamis

of Sri Vrndavana, the direct disciples of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. amongst

whom appears Srila Gopal Bhatta Goswami, who originally hails from Srirangam

and was the son of Sri Vyenkata Bhattar.

 

By stating that it is only out of extreme love of Lord Krishna that we see

other forms as inferior, the writer has indirectly thrust the allegation of

sentiment without siddhanta upon the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. As a Gaudiya

Vaishnava, I wish to add that we are not such fools as to do that. As

explained earlier, the superiority is related to rasa-tattva which forms a

very esoteric and sublime part of the Vedas, something that even the other

sampradayas have not touched upon in as much detail as the Gaudiya Vaishnava

Acharyas, especially in terms of the sweetness of parakiya rasa or unwedded

paramourship as displayed in Radha-Krishna lila.

 

Only in terms of the rasa is the form of Lord Krishna seen as more complete

in terms of the Lord's manifesting the rasas in full. All the forms are

complete. It is only a question of complete and more complete. never the

case of deficiency. That does not make the other forms inferior. This is

also the Gaudiya point of view. The Gaudiyas also agree that all forms of

the Lord are similar in prowess and in all other opulences. That is not

denied.

 

Yes, the Lord has unlimited qualities. That is also admitted. What Srila

Rupa Goswami enumerates as the 64 qualities of the Lord are the principal

qualities, the pradhana kalyana gunas. Just as Parasara Muni defines

Bhagavan as one endowed with the 6 principal qualities in full in the Vishnu

Purana, so also has Srila Rupa Goswami highlighted 64 principal features.

That does not in any way refute the fact that the Lord's qualities are ever

expansive. As Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj states in his Sri Chaitanya

Charitamrta, even Anantasesha despite glorifying the Lord with his many

millions of mouths, is still unable to find the end. So there is no

contradiction here.

 

When it is stated that Lord Krishna is the original, it does not resemble

the term "original" in terms of material calculation. It is much more than

even subtle spiritual science. Just like in the case of pramanas which was

brought up sometime ago. Pratyaksha pramana as Sripad Ramanujacarya or any

other Vedic authority views it, should not be made a slave of our own

sensory perceptions. Those grilled in Vedic understanding, even in terms of

their pratyaksha experience, view the most mundane objects through shastra.

Therefore, they are known as shastra-chakshu, i.e. those who see things

through the eyes of shastra. As such, even the term "pratyaksha" and

"anumana" as viewed by the Acharyas may not be narrow and akin to the modern

day understandings of our paltry senses and mind. This being the case, what

then are we to speak of their powerful understandings related to anumana and

shabda.

 

Essentially, we are like the dwarfs seeking to catch the moon. In that

process, we should be careful not to bring the moon to the height of the

dwarf. That would be impractical foolishness and disrespect at their best.

 

Similarly, the term "original" or "svayam" is not to be mixed up with some

material causative principle related to gross science. It is a different

subject matter altogether and if one wants to actually understand the

Gaudiya understanding of the word "svayam", then one should approach a

Gaudiya sadhaka and seek clarification, not ask for wheat in the shop of a

rice-seller (i.e. - not ask another sampradayic follower for clarification,

prior to asking the original propounder or his followers and practitioners).

 

Furthermore, the reason as to why Krishna is initially classified as an

avatara in the Puranas and the Pancharatra Agamas and why later on He is

referred to as the svayam Bhagavan and avatari, is also explained by

Kaviraja Goswami in his Chaitanya Charitamrta, Adi Lila. I shan't elaborate

too much on this for fear of being accused of making postings related to an

external sampradaya on a Sri Vaishnava list. Those desiring to know more of

this would do well to read this work as translated by my beloved spiritual

master, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

 

 

Your servant,

R. Jai Simman

Singapore

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Jaisimman,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

> By stating that it is only out of extreme love of Lord Krishna that we see

> other forms as inferior, the writer has indirectly thrust the allegation of

> sentiment without siddhanta upon the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. As a Gaudiya

> Vaishnava, I wish to add that we are not such fools as to do that. As

> explained earlier, the superiority is related to rasa-tattva which forms a

> very esoteric and sublime part of the Vedas, something that even the other

> sampradayas have not touched upon in as much detail as the Gaudiya Vaishnava

> Acharyas, especially in terms of the sweetness of parakiya rasa or unwedded

> paramourship as displayed in Radha-Krishna lila.

 

SrI VaishnavAs are also not fools in not understanding the

rasa tattvas. When you say that Lord KrishNa's superiority is

due to the rasa tattva, it means that sweetness as in parakiyta

rasa / mAdhurya rasa is exhibited more only by Lord KrishNa (ie.

reciprocation of such rasa with the jIvAtmas are more sweet with

Lord KrishNa). According to you, Lord KrishNa is one with two

hands etc and this invariably puts the constraints unto other

forms as being not manifesting so much sweetness as in

Lord KrishNa's form. There is no Sastric authority for these

theories. These are only sectarian theories of GVs.

 

Moreover, these rasAs are experienced by baddha jIvAtmas in

various ways. Based on the lIlas displayed by Lord in some

vibhava avatAra, don't pass judgements on the experience of

a mukta. It is in 100% contradiction to Upanishads and Brahma

sUtras (refer esp.4th adhyAya, 4th pAda esp. "SankalpAdEva

tat SrutE" => mukta is satya sankalpa and is free to serve

Lord the way he wants, etc) to say that muktAs have intrinsic

differences within themselves based on the rasAs ie. as though a

mukta will only experience mAdhurya rasa with Lord in particular

form, another mukta will only experience sAnta rasa with Lord in

a particular form etc. All these are sectarian theories of GVs

which has no authority in the prashna traya viz. Upanishads,

Brahma sUtras and Bhagavad gIta. I will elaborate with pramAnams

on this issue later.

 

You certainly don't know head or tail of whats in AzhwAr

pAsurams. Whatever rasAs you GVs say are also experienced by

AzhwArs. Be it parakiya rasa, vipralambha bhAva etc all are

commented very well by SrI VaishNava AchAryas. Don't make

such irrational statements in this SrI VaishNava list as if we

SrI VaishNavas haven't touched upon the rasA theories quite well

etc. But, you also don't know the tattva behind these things and

mixes up the lIlas displayed in the vibhava avatAra to that

of the experience in the mukta state.

 

VEdas say "rasO vai saha" and it doesn't advocate the theories

as explained by GVs for the muktas etc. The means to attain

Lord is explained in the 3rd adhyAya of the Brahma sUtras.

The sUtras explain well the nature of many Brahma Vidyas

ie.upAsanas prescribed in the Upanishads as the means to attain

Him. There is no advocation of the rasa theory/nAma-sankeertanam

etc as the means for attaining Lord. These UpAsanAs (meditations)

are futher clarified in Bhagavad gIta as "bhakti yOga" and we get

some more information on the nature of upAsanas. One has to

know how all these are interlinked and failure in

understanding this leads to many misconceptions and becomes

the reason for advocating theories which contradict many

pramAnas. Having a narrow look into BhAgavatham devoid of

understanding esp. Upanishads, Brahma sUtras and Bhagavad gIta

will not fetch any good understanding of the tattva, hIta and

purushArtha. Only those who understand the prashna traya well

can appropriately interpret the upabrahmanas like SrImad

BhAgavatham such that it doesn't contradict the facts

established in the prashna traya.

 

Please go through the following article for understanding

the tattva behind rasas :

 

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jul99/0056.html

 

 

I have also read GV books and even the MAdhurya KAdambani of

SrI ViSwanAtha Chakravarthi. Don't make dogmatic statements

as if we SrI VaishNavas haven't dealt with rasa theory well

etc. It only exposes your utter ignorance of the SrI VaishNava

works.

 

> Only in terms of the rasa is the form of Lord Krishna seen as more complete

> in terms of the Lord's manifesting the rasas in full. All the forms are

> complete. It is only a question of complete and more complete. never the

> case of deficiency. That does not make the other forms inferior. This is

> also the Gaudiya point of view. The Gaudiyas also agree that all forms of

> the Lord are similar in prowess and in all other opulences. That is not

> denied.

 

Answered above. There is no SAstric pramAna to say that

only in Lord KrishNa's form all the rasAs are manifested in

full etc. Moreover, the state of mukta is different from

the experience in the state of a baddha.

 

> Similarly, the term "original" or "svayam" is not to be mixed up with some

> material causative principle related to gross science. It is a different

> subject matter altogether and if one wants to actually understand the

> Gaudiya understanding of the word "svayam", then one should approach a

> Gaudiya sadhaka and seek clarification, not ask for wheat in the shop of a

> rice-seller (i.e. - not ask another sampradayic follower for clarification,

> prior to asking the original propounder or his followers and practitioners).

 

Well, you then please tell me as to what is meant by "Svayam",

in the private mail. No amount of beating around the bush

will help.

 

> Furthermore, the reason as to why Krishna is initially classified as an

> avatara in the Puranas and the Pancharatra Agamas and why later on He is

> referred to as the svayam Bhagavan and avatari, is also explained by

> Kaviraja Goswami in his Chaitanya Charitamrta, Adi Lila.

 

Lord rAma is svayam bhagavAn, Lord RanganAtha is svayam

bhagavAn, LOrd KrishNa is svayam bhagaAn etc. All are

bhagavAn themselves. Lord KrishNa is definitely a

vibhava avatAra as per pramAnas and no amount of sectarian

logic and arguments will change the fact.

 

All these misunderstandings arise from the unawareness of the

difference between the DivyAtma Swaroopa of Brahman and

the form of Brahman. I will elaborate it in my document.

 

I also have read your GV literature quite well. I will

address all those issues in the document later.

 

Lets close the discusion on this issue in the list. If

you (Or any GV) want to say something, write to me in a

private mail and I will incorporate them in the document.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.