[Achintya] Quibbling

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Jan Brzezinski wrote:

> We must look at both Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Siddhanta

> Saraswati in their time and place.

 

Thanks, Jan, for your exhaustive anthropological insights

into Gaudiya Vaisnava history. Your empirical outlook permeates

these to such a degree that almost every sentence contains at

least one serious theological discrepency; in short, your

opinions seem better suited to an academic conference dedicated

to looking at sociology, religion, history, etc., in that

fashion.

 

Why not just go all the way and subject Krsna's earthly

lilas to such creative socio-historical theories too?

 

The kind of speculative data you prefer to share here

(for reasons best known only to your good self) may be wholly

novel to many people--who may then find themselves as fascinated

by it as you obviously are. However, in a Vaisnava conference,

why should those with healthy faith have to listen to such a

theologically unnecessary and circumstantially inappropriate

barrage of empirical data that challeges their faith (if in fact

it isn't actually calculated to do so)--when most of them are

simply not academically equipped to respond to it? Necessarily,

your contribution is only destructive.

 

However, not all of us fall into the above category anyway.

We've studied all these things as well, and still disagree with

your mixed-up approach. It may do you well to meditate (or better

yet, pray for deeper insight) as to why we aren't so moved by it

as you are. Deeper insight is always possible for those who truly

seek it, but it comes from Krsna.

 

At the very least, some sensitivity to your audience is

in order; your transparently motivated attacks on your previous

acaryas are also needlessly disturbing the devotional sentiments

of the many devotees now privately complaining about it. Why not

acommodate the possibility that their sentiments are as much the

absolute truth as the Taittiryopanisad suggests (raso vai sah)?

 

At any rate, there are standard pramanas we must respect

in practice. In short, your viewpoint is essentially (that is,

Essentially) material. Vaisnavas need to discuss the teachings

of acaryas, as received from their guru. In other words, here

we need "cakhu-dana" for "dibya-jnana" instead. I'm positive you

understand why this is most appropriate, especially since the

moderator has now also indicated it as well. So please feel

free to do the needful.

 

With respect,

 

MDd