Guest guest Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 In Digest Number 846 Gerald Surya wrote: > this > critical passage is (mis)taken by Ramanuja and Nimbarka Thankyou for the interesting insights on Vedanta exegesis. However I suggest that we be thoughtful in choosing words and not state (for instance) that Ramanuja and Nimbarka are "mistaken." Even if Madhva and others use such terms to criticise other acaryas, it is probably best that we refrain from doing so, or that we employ euphemisms. Ramanuja and Nimbarka are acaryas and worshipable; their intelligence and realization is ever far above ours. Even if something they state may appear incorrect, it is better that we consider the Lord has thus inspired them for a particular purpose. Caitanya Mahaprabhu when criticising Sankaracarya's philosophy said as much about Sankaracarya (see CC Adi 7.114). Apart from that I personally feel that without sidestepping philosophical issues we should take care to respect and maintain friendship with members of bona fide sampradayas. A few of them may hotheadedly blast us, but others are very appreciative. Persons dedicated to Visnu are rare in this world and it is better that we focus on our similarities and try not to step on each others' toes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 achintya, "Bhakti Vikasa Swami" <Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami@p...> wrote: > In Digest Number 846 Gerald Surya wrote: > > > this > > critical passage is (mis)taken by Ramanuja and Nimbarka > > Thankyou for the interesting insights on Vedanta exegesis. However I suggest > that we be thoughtful in choosing words and not state (for instance) that > Ramanuja and Nimbarka are "mistaken." Even if Madhva and others use such > terms to criticise other acaryas, it is probably best that we refrain from > doing so, or that we employ euphemisms. Ramanuja and Nimbarka are acaryas > and worshipable; their intelligence and realization is ever far above ours. This is a very good point. We should be careful in how we employ words when we must step up to defend our sampradaaya. I wish other Vaishnavas were similarly sensitive when talking about our aachaaryas, but I am sure having a superior standard of etiquette will be beneficial in the long run. yours, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 achintya, "krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla@h...> wrote: > achintya, "Bhakti Vikasa Swami" > <Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami@p...> wrote: > > In Digest Number 846 Gerald Surya wrote: > > > > > this > > > critical passage is (mis)taken by Ramanuja and Nimbarka > > > > Thankyou for the interesting insights on Vedanta exegesis. However > I suggest > > that we be thoughtful in choosing words and not state (for > instance) that > > Ramanuja and Nimbarka are "mistaken." Even if Madhva and others use > such > > terms to criticise other acaryas, it is probably best that we > refrain from > > doing so, or that we employ euphemisms. Ramanuja and Nimbarka are > acaryas > > and worshipable; their intelligence and realization is ever far > above ours. > > > This is a very good point. We should be careful in how we employ > words when we must step up to defend our sampradaaya. I wish other > Vaishnavas were similarly sensitive when talking about our > aachaaryas, but I am sure having a superior standard of etiquette > will be beneficial in the long run. > > yours, > > - K Hare Krishna Well, vaishnavas from Sri and Madhva Sampradya think too high of themselves. They think that Gaudiya philosophy is nothing serious and is made without any intellectual reasoning. Many people even outside Gaudiya circles have the same feelings, that these followers of Mahaprabhu just know how to sing and dance but have no capability to contribute to intellectual Vedanta discussion. In combating this we must follow Lord Chaitanyas footsteps. When he was in banaras, chanting and dancing singing Lord Krishnas' name, the mayavadis thought him to be a sentimentalist bhakta incapable of highly philosophical vedanta discussions. But Mahaprabhus respectable, polite etiquette combined with his scholastic knowledge of Vedanta won the hearts of those mayavadis. So we should maintain polite behavior like mahaprabhu but at the same time we should also follow mahaprabhus way of making ourselves learned in Vedanta Sutra, Upanisad, Gita and Bhagavatam[& Sandarbha]. This will surely win us respect amongst fellow Vaishnavas. At last always remember: " One should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street; one should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly. " (Sri Siksastaka 3) Your Servant Always Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote: > Well, vaishnavas from Sri and Madhva Sampradya think too high of > themselves. They think that Gaudiya philosophy is nothing serious and > is made without any intellectual reasoning. Many people even outside > Gaudiya circles have the same feelings, that these followers of > Mahaprabhu just know how to sing and dance but have no capability to > contribute to intellectual Vedanta discussion. Unfortunately, we have no one else but ourselves to blame for this. Like it or not, there definitely is a climate of anti-intellectualism in the Western Gaudiya Vaishnava community. This attitude holds that scriptures are useful when it comes to refuting someone else's philosophy. But when those same scriptures are used against us, instead of responding in kind we have a habit of becoming indignant, fanatical, sentimental, or finding some other way of evading our responsibility to defend our aachaaryas. There is definitely a very appropriate warning in our tradition against pursuing scholarship for its own sake. We aren't interested in studying the Vedas for any mundane purpose. But when so many things can be used in Krishna consciousness (guitars, rock and roll music, etc) then why not also Vedic studies? We forget that titles like "Bhaktivedanta" in our tradition do not discourage all scholarship, but rather show the *proper* place of scholarship - for the purpose of promoting Krishna-consciousness. Krishna declares in Bhagavad-gita that those who study it are actually worshipping Him with their intelligence. It's therefore not acceptable to not know Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, and other books published by Srila Prabhupada. > In combating this we must follow Lord Chaitanyas footsteps. When he > was in banaras, chanting and dancing singing Lord Krishnas' name, the > mayavadis thought him to be a sentimentalist bhakta incapable of > highly philosophical vedanta discussions. But Mahaprabhus > respectable, polite etiquette combined with his scholastic knowledge > of Vedanta won the hearts of those mayavadis. > > So we should maintain polite behavior like mahaprabhu but at the same > time we should also follow mahaprabhus way of making ourselves > learned in Vedanta Sutra, Upanisad, Gita and Bhagavatam[& Sandarbha]. > Right on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2003 Report Share Posted June 26, 2003 On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, sumeet1981 wrote: > Well, vaishnavas from Sri and Madhva Sampradya think too high of > themselves. They think that Gaudiya philosophy is nothing serious and > is made without any intellectual reasoning. Many people even outside > Gaudiya circles have the same feelings, that these followers of > Mahaprabhu just know how to sing and dance but have no capability to > contribute to intellectual Vedanta discussion. However, most mainstream, accomplished (and especially younger) Indological scholars of South Asian languages, literature, and religion, certainly don't share this view. Gaudiya Vaisnavas since the 16th century have been highly appreciated for their original and prolific contribution to these fields, and their wide influence on society. This is especially the case in Sanskrit literature. However, I have observed that Indian scholars generally privelege the Sri, Dvaita, and Sankara sect as the main Vedanta schools; apart from sectarian interests that minimize the Srimad-Bhagavatam, I suspect this tendency indirectly represents tenacious assumptions popularized by European Orientalists in the last two centuries, who also favored classical Vedic studies over everything else. Of course, if we're talking only about ISKCON, then we may have room for improvement, since even Srila Prabhupada said his main criticism of its members was that they didn't read his books very much. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.