We need Sri Chaitanya Sandarbha

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

I have seen that though we have some scriptural verses to fall back

on incase someone asks us about Sastric proof of Sri Chaitanyas'

divinity, however we cannot defend it well against critiques.

 

Often people resort to making claims like "Look at the level of

spiritual achievements of Sri Chaitanya and his followers so what

more proof you are looking for". What they forget is that from day

one the proper vedic way of ascertaining what is correct and what is

incorrect is "sastra". Sastra is no simple book, it is eternal word

of God. Vyasdeva who is incarnation of God himself refutes erroreous

conceptions about Vedas through Vedanta Sutra. Vedanta Sutra itself

are based on upanisads vakyas. They are not Vyasas creation.

Vyasadeva has only reasoned properly using the authorities of Vedic

upanisads. Therefore his vedanta sutra are so revered.

 

Also, look at Sri Jiva Goswami if you read Krishna Sandarbha you will

see that Jiva Goswami presented his position and then countered his

position with his opponents position. And then he defended his

position against his opponents either by showing how they can be

reconciled or by showing that opponent is correct in limited sense

only or by showing that opponent is wrong and what should be the

correct interpretation. The end result is that his opponents are not

able to refute Jiva goswamis position. So he safegaurds his claims

through "logical interpretation/understanding of scripture".

 

In this way it is very scholarly established that Krishna is Original

Form of God. Jiva Goswami doesn't says that Sri Chaitanya who is

Krishna himself said this and so says bhagavatam, so Krishna is

supreme person. Rather he took great pains to explain in detail why

Krishna is Original Supreme Person. If you read the sandarbha you

will see Jiva Goswamis' adept mind thought of all types of counter

arguement that can be posed against our position - Krishna being

Original Form. And after presenting them, he on a sastric basis

respectfully and logically refuted all of them.

 

Same is needed for Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. We already have

scriptural references just like we had Krsna tu bhagavan svayam for

Lord Krishna being Orginal form. But what we don't have for Sri

Chaitanya is the kind of defence Sri Jiva provided in support of

Krsna tu bhagavan svayam.

 

Others please let me know what they think about this.

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Some good points made. I just wish to make a few myself.

 

Some people say our siddhaanta requires that Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu be

Krishna. If Chaitanya is not Krishna, then our whole philosophy of

Achintya Bheda Abheda has no validity. True, the divinity of Lord

Chaitanya is a unique point of our tradition. But speaking strictly

from the standpoint of determining a philosophy's legitimacy, we need

not invoke Mahaaprabhu's divinity for this purpose because the

philosophy is itself based on shaastra. You sort of touched on this

already.

 

We do, however, want to defend the scriptural basis of Chaitanya

worship, since our aachaaryas have concluded that Chaitanya is

Krishna, and others may reasonably challenge from time to time. This

is not going to be any easier than a Sri Vaishnava proving that

Raamaanuja is an incarnation of Aadi-Sesha, or a Maadhva proving that

Aananda-Tiirtha is an incarnation of Vaayu.

 

There are many verses in mainstream texts which are suggestive of

Mahaaprabhu's identity. But we want the ones that are indisputable.

The trouble is, these explicit references are only found in texts

most Vedaantins have never heard of - Chaitanya Upanishad, Ananta

Samhitaa, Brahma-yaamala, etc. Or it may be that the evidence is in a

mainstream text, but only in a non-extant recension. For example, the

Seshi-khaNDa of the Vaayu Puraana (a translation of which appears in

Kushakratha's _Lord Chaitanya Predicted In Scripture_) gives very

explicit evidence. But this Seshi-khaNDa does not exist in any of the

extant, published editions of that Puraana.

 

If one wants to settle this matter, one has to somehow demonstrate

that the above references are not sectarian in origin. One should

look for references to such texts in other, more widely accepted

texts, for example. Or one should look for evidence that such texts

were preserved by non-Gaudiiya pandits. This kind of work needs to be

carried out by a well-funded team of scholars. I don't think any of

us will be able to do it.

 

Of course, some people will say "we can't convince those who don't

want to be convinced." But the situation is a little more complicated

than that. We would like to be satisfied that we have settled the

matter according to a reasonable standard of proof, beyond which we

can be certain that one who still refuses to accept it is only doing

so out of sectarian bias.

 

Until that time, we can settle for preaching Achintya Bheda Abheda.

Really, we ought to be focused on this first, and introducing

Mahaaprabhu's divinity second. When one understands the beauty of

Achintya Bheda Abheda, it is only natural to develop appreciation for

and inquire about Lord Chaitanya. Then perhaps it is more reasonable

to explore His identity.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

hare krishna

 

thanks for the mails

 

but we must remember one thing - no matter how scholarly and convincing we are,

there will never be universal acceptance.

there will always be one type of protest or the other from some section of some

sampradaya about this. so, we should try our best and go on with the mission.

we need not bother about all the barking. all sampradayas have people barking

at them for one reason or the other. that is the situation. so knowing the

nature of the material world, let the dogs bark but the caravan goes on.

there was one time that a sri vaishnava in a forum was criticising our gaudiya

line based on some internal politics we have. i told him that the people of his

line cannot even decide on the shape of the tilak on their foreheads ! why go

criticise others ?

 

of course, we can endeavour to prove the case to the best of our ability and

learning more about the issues will increase our faith and conviction, but we

should not try to simply do things just to convince hard-headed people. we

should simply try to carry out srila prabhupada's order. the rest is not in our

hands.

 

if gopala bhatta goswami, sarvabhauma bhattacharya, prakasananda sarasvati,

baladeva vidyabhushana, etc. all got convinced of mahaprabhu's divinity, i m

sure others can be too but the Lord must be kind. otherwise u can give all the

evidence in the world,

but still the hard head will not accept.

 

hare krishna

 

 

your servant

r. jai simman

singapore

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

My point is not to make people accept Mahaprabhus divinity. Because

it is so often seen in this world that even when people are proven to

be wrong, they won't admit it. Its just a fact. But my point is that

we should have full defence of our claims, so that we are aware in

our honest mind that we ain't proven wrong on a sastric basis. We

should be able to defend us against any kind of objection. That is

what Sri Jiva Goswami has done in Krishna Sandarbha. That is what

should be done in form of Sri Chaitanya Sandarbha. I repeat the point

is not to make people change their minds. The point is to defend

ourselves to our honest satisfaction.

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

achintya, "Jai Simman s/o R. Rangasamy"

<rjsimman@s...> wrote:

> hare krishna

>

> thanks for the mails

>

> but we must remember one thing - no matter how scholarly and

convincing we are, there will never be universal acceptance.

[Guest guest]

Regarding the necessisty to prove Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

being Krishna, Srila BhakthiVinoda Thakura quoting Sri Vishwanatha Chakravarthi

Thakura states in His Sanmodana Bhashya as follows:(Not exact quote) Lord

Krishna & His abode are of the same spiritual substance and my supreme

worshippable objects. The greatest devotion was performed by the Gopis of

Vraja. Srimad Bhagavatham is the greatest Pramana. All this is the opinion of

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu & hence the opinion most favored by us.Any other

opinion is neither favored by nor even interesting to us.

So, here neither of the two acharyas stress that Mahaprabhu needs to be accepted as Krishna.

But once we are introduced to the Mahamantra,

naturally we get attracted to Mahaprabhu, because the mercy of Mahaprabhu is

flowing through our acharyas & coming to us and that is how we are introduced

to the Maha Mantra. Hence my personal opinion is that, anyone who is introduced

to the Mahamantra through this sampradaya & accepts it is going to accept

Mahaprabhu's divinity, initially, on the basis of faith, later in one's own

heart by realisation.

In trying to answer a few critics, I started to

look into various Puranas for statements regarding Sri Krishna & Srimati Radha

Rani.

I found wonderful quotations in Padma Purana, Narada Purana & Narada

Pancharatra. There are numerous statements which very clearly state the Divine

position of Krishna & Srimati Radha Rani.( Though Brahma Vaivarta Purana also

carries lots about them, I chose the sattvic ones)

Yet, there are die hard adherents of other

schools(Vaishnava) who still will not accept our conclusions.(Narada

Pancharatara is not accepted as bonafide). I felt that, our motive is not to

preach to Vaisnavas of other schools, but only to others. Adherents of other

sampradayas already have clear cut siddhanta & unshakeable faith in the Lord.

We should not try to disturb their faith & peace of mind. We have the whole

world to preach.We might only risk committing offenses commenting about them,

due to our emotional attachment to Mahaprabhu.

Narasimhan.