Sarva-samvadhini

[Guest guest]

Haribol,

 

Has anyone come across the text called 'Sarva-Samvadhini'? This names appears in

a conversation between Dr. O.B.L. Kapoor and Steven Rosen (Satyaraja Das) on

'Impersonalism and Personalism'. I believe this is a text by Jiva Goswami (in

addition to his sandharbas) wherein he establishes his arguments against

advaita. I'm interested to know more about this. Awaiting eagerly,

 

in your service,

Aravind.

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram

<psuaravind> wrote:

> Haribol, Has anyone come across the text called 'Sarva-Samvadhini'?

This names appears in a conversation between Dr. O.B.L. Kapoor and

Steven Rosen (Satyaraja Das) on 'Impersonalism and Personalism'. I

believe this is a text by Jiva Goswami (in addition to his sandharbas)

wherein he establishes his arguments against advaita. I'm interested to

know more about this. Awaiting eagerly, in your service,Aravind.

>

 

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet

 

Sarva Samvadini is a commentary Jiva Goswami wrote on his

sandarbhas.

Sri Satya Narayana Das has written excellent commentary on Tattva

Sandarbha. His commentary on other sandarbha are awaiting print and

editing, he told me this in an email. If you want, i can provide you with

his email and contact address so that you can contact him whenever

you want to. If you ever go to vrindavan you can meet him too. He isn't

that far away from krishna balaram mandir of iskcon.

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> Hare Krishna

> Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet

>

> Sarva Samvadini is a commentary Jiva Goswami wrote on his

> sandarbhas.

> Sri Satya Narayana Das has written excellent commentary on Tattva

> Sandarbha. His commentary on other sandarbha are awaiting print and

> editing, he told me this in an email. If you want, i can provide

you with

> his email and contact address so that you can contact him whenever

> you want to. If you ever go to vrindavan you can meet him too. He

isn't

> that far away from krishna balaram mandir of iskcon.

>

 

SNd has indeed published a well researched translation of the Tattva

Sandarbha. However, if memory serves, he has also fallen for

the "diiksha only" deviation that other critics of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta have embraced. He does not accept Srila Prabhupada's

disciplic descent from Lord Chaitanya as genuine.

 

I did a google search on the internet and found the following which

is rather interesting:

 

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/nmj_articles/anti-

party/index.html

 

It discusses among other things, the points of difference between the

Saarasvata-Gaudiiya paramparaa and the critics who claim to represent

orthodox Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. Much of this echoes the discussion we

already had regarding the inherent flaws in those criticisms.

 

regards,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> SNd has indeed published a well researched translation of the

Tattva

> Sandarbha. However, if memory serves, he has also fallen for

> the "diiksha only" deviation that other critics of Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta have embraced. He does not accept Srila

Prabhupada's

> disciplic descent from Lord Chaitanya as genuine.

>

> I did a google search on the internet and found the following which

> is rather interesting:

>

> http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/nmj_articles/anti-

> party/index.html

>

> It discusses among other things, the points of difference between

the

> Saarasvata-Gaudiiya paramparaa and the critics who claim to

represent

> orthodox Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. Much of this echoes the discussion

we

> already had regarding the inherent flaws in those criticisms.

>

> regards,

>

> - K

 

 

Prabhuji I found no problems in his Tattva Sandarbha bhashya. But

yeah I know about this problem with SND. However I feel that we can

still read his Sandarbhas bhashya and if ever we find anything

conflicting with the official prabhupada sampradya we can reject

those parts. What do you feel ?

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Nityananda-Gauranga bol!

 

Krishna Susarla writes:

 

>> SNd has indeed published a well researched

translation of the Tattva Sandarbha. <<

 

Correct.

 

>> However, if memory serves, he has also fallen for

the "diiksha only" deviation that other critics of

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta have embraced. <<

 

Well the only question to ask is, how does this matter

concerning his edition of Tattva-sandarbha? Does his

rejected diksa have any obtuse effect on his high

level of scholarship? As has already been noted (by

myself) he has left his services in ISKCON and has

taken initiation from Haridas Sastri, one of the

greatest living pundits in Vrindavan today who is

coming in the Gadadhara-parivara.

 

Also, I think that certain words could have been

better chosen here. There is "deviation" at all in the

process of taking diksa in certain sampradayas. As has

been noted elsewhere in this posting, this was

discussed before with no clear result and consensus.

 

>> It discusses among other things, the points of

difference between the Saarasvata-Gaudiiya paramparaa

and the critics who claim to represent orthodox

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. <<

 

In fact, that essay is several years old and it is

almost impossible to count the number of careless

mistakes in that article. Suffice to say, it is

worthless as a piece of evidence of any sort.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jay

 

=====

"One who chants Gauranga's name will get the mercy of Krsna, and he will be able

to live in Vrndavana. One who worships Krsna without chanting the name of

Gauranga will get Krsna only after a long time. But he who takes Gauranga's name

quickly gets Krsna, for offenses do not remain within him."

 

- Sri Narada Muni, Navadvipa Dhama-mahatmya, Chapter 7

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

> Nityananda-Gauranga bol!

>

> Krishna Susarla writes:

>

> >> SNd has indeed published a well researched

> translation of the Tattva Sandarbha. <<

>

> >> However, if memory serves, he has also fallen for

> the "diiksha only" deviation that other critics of

> Srila Bhaktisiddhanta have embraced. <<

>

> Well the only question to ask is, how does this matter

> concerning his edition of Tattva-sandarbha?

 

It matters because many devotees in the West have a tendency to read

books with an uncritical eye, especially after they have heard any

sort of glorification of the author's devotional credentials. They

never consider whether the glorification is indeed well deserved or

if the person doing the glorifying knows what he is talking about. I

stated that the edition was well researched (which is why I like it).

I have refrained from making any specific case on his

spiritual "potency" or some other intangible factor, except for

pointing out the undisputed fact that he clearly differs from the

Saarasvata-Chaitanya line in the very important matter of guru-

tattva. That of course puts him at odds with Lord Chaitanya's own

instructions and many shaastric precedents, as quoted in earlier

discussions. I am aware that you disagree. Suffice it to say that we

can reincarnate the discussion if you wish.

 

Does his

> rejected diksa have any obtuse effect on his high

> level of scholarship?

 

To put it simply, yes. I don't need to quote the example of "evam

paramparaa praaptam idam raajarshayoH viduH" or other verses like it

as an obvious prescription to receive spiritual knowledge in a proper

paramparaa. It is indeed a problem to write any treatise on spiritual

knowledge without the proper qualification. There are so many

warnings against it that it seems more an insult to your intelligence

to actually quote them.

 

I think where we differ is in what we consider to be a bona fide

paramparaa. As I have stated previously, I do not consider someone to

be a bona fide Gaudiiya Vaishnava if they differ with Lord Chaitanya

and the spirit of His instruction, even if they mechanically follow

certain regulations. Similarly, one can mechanically follow certain

regulations, but reveal his deviation when he criticizes those who

follow other regulations.

 

As has already been noted (by

> myself) he has left his services in ISKCON and has

 

Needless to say, I don't fault anyone for joining or leaving any

particular society. I judge based what he speaks and whether or not

it seems consistent with guru, saadhu, and shaastra.

 

> taken initiation from Haridas Sastri, one of the

> greatest living pundits in Vrindavan today who is

> coming in the Gadadhara-parivara.

 

Of course, such praise is based on the implicit assumption that

everone accepts Haridas Shastri's spiritual credentials. I doubt if

most people ever heard of Haridas Shastri until Satyanarayana dasa

published the Tattva-Sandarbha under his tutelage. Then again, being

popular (or not being popular) has nothing to do with being a bona

fide Vaishnava. My point is simply that you probably aren't in a

position to judge his spiritual standing accurately, and as such your

pronouncement is just unqualified opinion. For example, can you even

say that you met him? Or that you have studied his writings?

 

"Greatness" is such a subjective thing. We can't estimate an

aachaarya's authenticity if we don't look at him in the context of

those who preceeded him. This is both in terms of how he behaves and

what he teaches. Blind acceptance or rejection does not do anyone

justice.

 

> Also, I think that certain words could have been

> better chosen here.

 

I disagree. To deviate means to diverge from an accepted party line

(in this case, both the spirit of Mahaaprabhu's movement and the

shaastras upon which it is based).

 

Deviation is hardly a bad word when compared to some of the

outrageous remarks made by the critics against Srila Prabhupada's

paramparaa (from http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat.php?

Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=2717&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1):

 

"Throughout this essay it is shown that the followers of

Bhaktisiddhanta distribute namaparadha.... Is their 'success' then

really so great? All their followers are encouraged to commit and

spread namaparadha." (blatant generalization based on the activities

of some)

 

"Even if there were any kind of parampara in Gaudiya Math/Iskcon,

their initiation must still be rejected on the basis of their

systematic and collective slander of the Vaisnavas," (not that the

original author was collectively slandering anyone in the above quote)

 

On page 3 of that same discussion thread, in an article dated 6/11/00

we also find

 

"That Saraswati Thakur did indeed start a new sampradaya, the Brahma

Madhva Gaudiya Saraswata sampradaya. Though it is new, it claims to

be true to the original goals of Mahaprabhu, Rupa and Raghunath." (in

other words, he is basically saying the same thing, that Saraswati

Thaakura was deviating from his predecessors)

 

Feel free to read the original articles to get the full flavor and

context.

 

There is "deviation" at all in the

> process of taking diksa in certain sampradayas.

 

The specific point at issue here is whether diiksha is necessary and

sufficient to legitimize a paramparaa. The puurva-pakshins argue that

it is both. If this is correct, then it effectively invalidates the

Saarasvata line, which as listed by Srila Prabhupada in Bhagavad Gita

As It Is, consists of many shiksha connections.

 

There is no middle road here, as I understand their position.

Accepting their position requires that you accept that Srila

Prabhupada and his line are not bona fide, Gaudiiya Vaishnavas. We

should be clear on that.

 

(1) That diiksha is not sufficient to legitimize paramparaa is

obvious to anyone who sees who how it is done these days - usually by

a priest who is paid to initiate the "disciple" without any heed to

his qualification and any attempt to instruct him (after which he

then goes away and is never heard from again). It is analogous to

saying that a brahmin is a brahmin simply because he was given the

sacred thread - a proposition that is blatantly wrong.

 

(2) That diiksha (in the official sense of the word) is in some cases

not even necessary is seen from the many examples in the paramparaa

where there was no evidence of diiksha (in the offical sense of the

word, where a fire ceremony is performed and so on and so forth).

These include such cases as Krishna to Brahmaa, Brahmaa to Naarada,

Naarada to Vyaasa, Vyaasa to Madhva, and so on.

 

(3) The puurva-pakshin could argue that these were still diiksha

initiations on the strength that there was still transmission of a

mantra even though an official ceremony was not performed. But then,

by that argument, many "shiksha" connections could be claimed to be

diiksha connections - we will never know about mantra transmission

between two links in the paramparaa as shruti mantras like the

Gaayatrii are transmitted in secret between the guru and disciple.

 

(4) Then the puurva-pakshin could argue that the diiksha only rule

only applies to Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, and not those who preceeded our

paramparaa. This argument only has merit if the paramparaa were never

listed from Krishna, but from Chaitanya only. If the purpose of the

paramparaa is to reveal the original Vedic knowledge, then defining

it so narrowly that even the Aadi-guru's paramparaa (Krishna-Brahmaa-

Naarada-Vyaasa) is excluded makes no sense. It is sensible to list

the paramparaa from Madhva when we explicitly make clear our

departure from his doctrine; but if we are going to claim to depart

from Lord Krishna and His example and instruction, then our

paramparaa has no validity.

 

(5) Then the puurva-pakshin argues that Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana

lists the paramparaa only to satisfy the other Vedic pandits at the

historic Jaipur conference. The implicit understanding is that he

gave a list that is not true to form just to satisfy someone else.

This has two problems. First, it accuses of him of writing

falsehoods. Either that paramparaa listing is correct, or it is not.

Context is important, but so is a basic assumption of the aachaarya's

character. I am not prepared to say that Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana was

a liar, however indirectly or politely it may be worded. Secondly,

Kavi Karnapura lists the exact same paramparaa in his Gaurang-

ganodesha-diipika, a fact acknowledge by OBL Kapoor in his

_Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya_. So who was Kavi trying to

impress?

 

As has

> been noted elsewhere in this posting, this was

> discussed before with no clear result and consensus.

 

....which is besides the point. Correctness is not dependent on

consensus, any more than siddhaanta is dependent on vox populi.

 

> In fact, that essay is several years old

 

Age of course, has nothing to do with correctness, unless we are

discussing current events, which that essay most certainly was not.

 

and it is

> almost impossible to count the number of careless

> mistakes in that article. Suffice to say, it is

> worthless as a piece of evidence of any sort.

 

That is a very bold statement, if not explicitly substantiated.

Suffice it to say that the specific URL to it has been provided and

every opportunity given for you to back up your claim with a point-by-

point analysis, on this very forum if you wish. I am neither standing

by it nor attacking it. I am simply pointing out that you must make

your case in a less arbitrary fashion.

 

regards,

 

- K