Proposal for discussion of Prasthaana Traya and Gaudiya Vedanta ...

[Guest guest]

Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,

 

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obeisances

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada

 

It is good to see more shastric discussions on the list.

 

Recently in my discussion with some Vaishnavas from other sampradayas, I have

come to know of a general accusation they posit against our line, i.e. we are

too overly reliant on Goswami literature without much backing from the

Prasthaana Traya or presentation primarily based on its evidence. Prasthaana

Traya refers to the Trilogy of the Upanishads, The Vedanta Sutra and The

Bhagavad Gita.

 

While we as Gaudiya Vaishnavas know very well that this is not in the least true

if the matter is studied deeply, it is pertinent that with the development of

Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the contemporary era, as servants of the Krishna

Consciousness Movement, we study the works of our Acharyas in this regard and

revive a credible philosophical tradition based on deep understanding and

practice.

 

Evidences are there in bits and pieces. We do need to synthesise and providea

cogent presentation.

 

The metholody with which Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta and Achintya-bheda-abheda

tattva is arrived at needs to be understood well by all of us. I do humbly feel

that those of us with some inclination towards such intellectual study for

spiritual self-betterment and for upholding our Sampradaya Siddhanta in the

face of cultured opposition, ought to delve more into this aspect by studying

and systematically presenting the validity of our Siddhanta on the basis of

shruti pramana. For this, we do need to seriously enter into the study of Srila

Prabhupada's purports, the Sat Sandarbhas, The Govinda Bhasya and Srila Baladeva

Vidyabhushana's commentary on the 10 Principal Upanishads. For those of us who

have some training or understanding of Sanskrit terminology and the implied

meanings contained therein, or simply keen interest to understand things, it

may be good if we could all get together and render whatever resources

available to learn and understand and work towards a cogent presentation of our

sampradaya siddhanta. Certainly this would take time and energy but if not for

anything else external, I feel that we would become more fixed and developed in

siddhanta when we study these matters in a proper and mature intellectual

atmosphere. This has to be in a closed forum for only those who are focused on

this area. It cannot function within an open forum given the diversions that

can abound due to too many varieties of threads being posted.

 

I would like to humbly request that we come together for this very focused

endeavour. I have some devotees in mind whose participation would make this

endeavour worthwhile. There are many other devotees on the list too whose

postings I may be relatively unfamiliar with. The blessings of senior

Vaishnavas is always a must in such endeavours. We may humbly request suitable

devotees who have good exposure to these issues. However, we do need to

discipline ourselves to remain very focused and not bring in matters related to

institutional dynamics. This has to be a purely philosophical endeavour meant to

enable us to study, appreciate and love our siddhanta.

 

This is not in any way meant to be an official endeavour to be sent to any

official structural authority as such, not at least

for the time-being. But we should and must learn as best as we can the issues

discussed in our siddhanta in terms of its approach to establishing itself on

the basis of Veda pramana.

 

Generally, it has become common within the Vedantic intellectual circle to give

primary relevance to the commentaries of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. The

other commentaries such as ours are marginalised. This may be because the 3

acharyas mentioned above were pioneers in the modern era in terms of reviving

that aspect of the Vedas which they presented. The others have utilised much of

the concepts of the Ramanuja and Madhva bhasyas in their presentation. This of

course is understandable for no intelligent and mature person would write a

commentary simply to pose himself as some original propounder of a

philosophical conclusion and earn name and fame. What has already been dealt

with nicely would be given credit by the later Acharya and he would add on what

he feels may need more attention than that given in the previous commentary. So

in that sense, the later Acharyas like Vallabha and Baladeva may seem to be

less original in their establishment of a standpoint. However, I do also view a

type of sampradayic haughtiness in the view that only the 3 commentaries

highlighted before can stand as full-fledged Vedic schools and that the others

lack the necessary qualities for this. What is perceived as axiomatic may often

after serious study expose itself as mere bias or baseless rigidity entrenched

over time. All religious ideas are prone to this problem of the "end of time"

syndrome. An adherent of a philosophical standpoint can easily as a result of

personal conviction, deem the development of spiritual thought to end with the

presentation of his preceptor. The sense of time and the development it brings

stop with the conclusion of one's cherished acharya sampradaya. At times, given

the variegatedness of thoughts or conclusions during a certain time period, a

framework may have been established which later becomes rigid and almost

unquestioningly a divine given. But upon serious inquiry, we tend to realise

that things at times are more a historical tradition than a shastric condition.

There is no absolute correctness in the former sense. In fact, we see that all

Acharyas met with opposition precisely because of this general mentality within

their contemporary intellectual circle. But having smashed that mentality or

marginalised its relevance, when the Acharya establishes his siddhanta and

parampara, the same disease creeps into the line after some time.

 

Therefore, as Sripad Jayatirtha Swami established the siddhanta of his spiritual

preceptor Sripad Madhvacharya through the Nyayasudha and as Sripad Baladeva

Vidyabhushana established the siddhanta of the Sad Goswamis and Sri Chaitanya

Mahaprabhu on firmer footing, it is our responsibility as the servants of Srila

Prabhupada to endeavour to again and again firmly establish His Divine Grace's

works on a sound sampradayic and Vedic and Vedantic footing, both as part of

our own application of whatever inclination we have to the service of our

Spiritual Master's desires, and as per the Sampradaya lakshana that the

disciple must undertake efforts to defend the sampradaaya siddhanta in the face

of philosophical criticism.

 

Please do provide feedback in this regard.

 

 

 

your servant

r. jai simman

singapore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

achintya

achintya

Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:29 PM

Digest Number 935

------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~-->Special

Sale: 50% off ReplayTVEasily record your favorite shows!CNet Ranked #1 over

Tivo!http://us.click./WUMW7B/85qGAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM---~->To

from this group, send an email

to:achintyaAchintya Homepage:

achintyaDISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on

Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to

other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya

postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by

the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school.

------There

are 8 messages in this issue.Topics in this digest: 1. BHAGAVAD-GITA 3:9

Vijay Sadananda Pai <vijaypai (AT) ece (DOT) rice.edu> 2. Question about

BG 2.62 ranganathan narasimhan <simhan74 > 3. Re:

Question(s) on Shiva as Vishnu Transformed. ranganathan

narasimhan <simhan74 > 4. Re: Question(s) on Shiva as Vishnu

Transformed. "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981 > 5. Re:

Question(s) on Shiva as Vishnu Transformed. "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> 6. Re: Question about BG 2.62

"sumeet1981" <sumeet1981 > 7. Re: Question(s) on Shiva as

Vishnu Transformed. "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981 > 8.

Re: Srila Prabhupada smashes rascal scientists "sumeet1981"

<sumeet1981 >__________Message:

1 Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:00:00 -0500 (CDT) Vijay Sadananda Pai

<vijaypai (AT) ece (DOT) rice.edu>BHAGAVAD-GITA 3:9 BHAGAVAD-GITA 3:9

yajnarthat karmano 'nyatra loko 'yam

karma-bandhanah tad-artham karma kaunteya

mukta-sangah samacara WORD FOR WORDyajna-arthat--done only

for the sake of Yajna, or Visnu; karmanah--than work; anyatra--otherwise;

lokah--world; ayam--this; karma-bandhanah--bondage by work; tat--of Him;

artham--for the sake; karma--work; kaunteya--O son of Kunti;

mukta-sangah--liberated from association; samacara--do perfectly.

TRANSLATIONWork done as a sacrifice for Visnu has to be

performed, otherwise work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O

son of Kunti, perform your prescribed duties for His satisfaction, and in that

way you will always remain free from bondage.

PURPORTSince one has to work even for the simple maintenance of the body, the

prescribed duties for a particular social position and quality are so made that

that purpose can be fulfilled. Yajna means Lord Visnu, or sacrificial

performances. All sacrificial performances also are meant for the satisfaction

of Lord Visnu. The Vedas enjoin: yajno vai visnuh. In other words, the same

purpose is served whether one performs prescribed yajnas or directly serves

Lord Visnu. Krsna consciousness is therefore performance of yajna as it is

prescribed in this verse. The varnasrama institution also aims at satisfying

Lord Visnu. Varnasramacaravata purusena parah puman/ visnur aradhyate (Visnu

Purana 3.8.8). Therefore one has to work for the satisfaction of Visnu. Any

other work done in this material world will be a cause of bondage, for both

good and evil work have their reactions, and any reaction binds the performer.

Therefore, one has to work in Krsna consciousness to satisfy Krsna (or Visnu);

and while performing such activities one is in a liberated stage. This is the

great art of doing work, and in the beginning this process requires very expert

guidance. One should therefore act very diligently, under the expert guidance of

a devotee of Lord Krsna, or under the direct instruction of Lord Krsna Himself

(under whom Arjuna had the opportunity to work). Nothing should be performed

for sense gratification, but everything should be done for the satisfaction of

Krsna. This practice will not only save one from the reaction of work, but also

gradually elevate one to transcendental loving service of the Lord, which alone

can raise one to the kingdom of God. Copyright 1983 The Bhaktivedanta Book

Trust International. Used

withpermission.__________Message:

2 Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:54:41 -0700 (PDT) ranganathan narasimhan

<simhan74 >Question about BG 2.62Sri sumeet

<sumeet1981 > wrote: >Why has SP given example of Lord Shiva as one

who couldn't control >his senses ? Lord Shiva is known to be a great devotee of

Lord >Vishnu. Vaishnava yatham sambhu....... How is then mentioning Lord

>shivas' name in this context acceptable ? And another thing I >remember from

seeing Shiva Mahapuran serial on DD in india that >Kartikeya was needed at that

time to help devtas win over asurs. It >is not that Lord Shiva fell to lusty

desire like Vishwamitra did in >front of menka. Also, we should remember skanda

or kartikeya is a >vibhuti of Lord Krishna. BG 10.24 >"Of priests, O Arjuna,

know Me to be the chief, Brhaspati, the lord >of devotion. Of generals I am

Skanda, the lord of war; and of bodies >of water I am the ocean."Dear Prabhu,

That the skandha avatar was required is the version of the tamasa

puranas. I do not know the version of the sattvic puranas. Even going by the

version of the tamasic puranas, it is that Lord Shiva's potency is necessary.

But then, no body bothered about going to Lord Vishnu. It is assumed there that

Lord Shiva is far suprior to Lord Vishnu.That is the problem in undertaking

puranic/ shastric studies without guidance. Regarding Lord

Karthikeya being the Vibhuti of Krishna, there are so many vibhutis, including

the banyan tree or the month Margazhi or gambling! In fact if someone is a

great orator, even that is Krishna's vibhuti. Krishna is only giving an

indication of His vibhuti in this material universe.(Mama Tejo'msa

sambhavam)Regarding Lord shiva going under illusion, even Lord Brahma was put

under illusion. It is for us to understand that as soon as we think we are

independent of the Lord, immediately we are put under illusion, however great

we may be.DasanNarasimhan

[This message contained

attachments]__________Message:

3 Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:23:00 -0700 (PDT) ranganathan narasimhan

<simhan74 >Re: Question(s) on Shiva as Vishnu

Transformed.sumeet1981 <sumeet1981 > wrote:>How then we preserve

statements which says that Vishnu/brahman is >immutable and He always exists as

He is, without slightest trace of >unadulteration ? How can he come under sway

of his own maya as Lord >Shiva is sometimes said to be influenced by maya

?>Basically how can the immutable change into something it isn't in >reality.

>How Vishnu's nature can be adulterated ?Dear Prabhu, Maya

itself is Krishna isn't it. Our philosophy is that everything is simultaneously

one & different with Krishna. They act in inconceivable ways. Lord Shiva coming

under Maya is no wonder as it is Krishna's Maya.Lord Shiva is the same as

Krishna. At the same time, he is also quite different, in that in many

occassions He acts like a Jiva does, because of Krishna's

Maya.DasanNarasimhan

[This message contained

attachments]__________Message:

4 Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:00:14 -0000 "sumeet1981"

<sumeet1981 >Re: Question(s) on Shiva as Vishnu

Transformed.achintya, ranganathan narasimhan

<simhan74> wrote:> > > sumeet1981 <sumeet1981> wrote:> >How then we

preserve statements which says that Vishnu/brahman is > >immutable and He

always exists as He is, without slightest trace of > >unadulteration ? How can

he come under sway of his own maya as Lord > >Shiva is sometimes said to be

influenced by maya ?> > >Basically how can the immutable change into something

it isn't in > >reality. > > >How Vishnu's nature can be adulterated ?> > Dear

Prabhu,> > Maya itself is Krishna isn't it. Our

philosophy is that everything is simultaneously one & different with Krishna.

They act in inconceivable ways. Lord Shiva coming under Maya is no wonder as it

is Krishna's Maya.Lord Shiva is the same as Krishna. At the same time, he is

also quite different, in that in many occassions He acts like a Jiva does,

because of Krishna's Maya.> > > Dasan> > NarasimhanHare Krishna,Dear Sir you

didn't answer my question. Perhaps you didn't understand it. Let me be

clear.Lord Shiva is not energy of Brahman[sri Krishna] neither manifestation of

its energy. He is not manifestation of Krishnas energy like this material world

or jivatama etc..... Lord Shiva is brahman itself why because according to

Gaudiya Philosophy he is brahman transformed.Philosophy of achintya

bedha-abheda is related to sakitman and its sakti and not between saktiman and

saktiman. Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna both comes under category of Saktiman,

possesor of energies. Hence achintya bheda abheda isn't applicable in their

case.So, back to my question how can immutable brahman transform ? How can it

be adulterated ?Your Servant AlwaysSumeet. > > > >

> > SiteBuilder - Free,

easy-to-use web site design

software__________Message:

5 Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:28:22 -0000 "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>Re: Question(s) on Shiva as Vishnu

Transformed.achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981>

wrote:> So, back to my question how can immutable brahman transform ? How can >

it be adulterated ?Sumeet, this is a good question. The answer is that Vishnu

does not "transform" and become Shiva. The wording of the Brahma-samhitaa is

designed to explain the relationship between the two even though the language

may be limited for the task. It is like saying that the Lord is the "author" of

the Vedas, or that He "created" the jiivas, even though both Vedas and jiivas

are without beginning. Or it's like saying that Balaraama is expanded from

Krishna, even though Balaraama's existence is eternal and without beginning.

Similarly, the description of Shiva as a "tranformation" of Vishnu is to get

across the idea that he is almost like Vishnu, but not quite - due to an

adulterating principle present in Shiva. Sadaashiva's existence is also

eternal, so it's not that there was some time before which he did not exist,

and then Vishnu decided to expand/transform Himself to get Shiva. Shiva is not

the Supreme Brahman, but he is almost like that Brahman. But he is not a jiiva.

So the language employed is used to illustrate the fact that Shiva is more like

Brahman than a jiiva, i.e. like yogurt is very similar to milk but not quite

the same. But he is not exactly the same - hence "transformation." It is not

that Vishnu "transformed" Himself to get Shiva. You are quite correct that

according to Vedaanta, Brahman is unchangeable. The language of

"transformation" is meant to make clear that Shiva is in an intermediate

category between jiivas and

Brahman.__________Message:

6 Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:24:39 -0000 "sumeet1981"

<sumeet1981 >Re: Question about BG 2.62--- In

achintya, ranganathan narasimhan <simhan74> wrote:> Dear

Prabhu,> > That the skandha avatar was required is the

version of the tamasa puranas. I do not know the version of the sattvic

puranas. Even going by the version of the tamasic puranas, it is that Lord

Shiva's potency is necessary. But then, no body bothered about going to Lord

Vishnu. It is assumed there that Lord Shiva is far suprior to Lord Vishnu.That

is the problem in undertaking puranic/ shastric studies without guidance.> >

Regarding Lord Karthikeya being the Vibhuti of Krishna, there are so

many vibhutis, including the banyan tree or the month Margazhi or gambling! In

fact if someone is a great orator, even that is Krishna's vibhuti. Krishna is

only giving an indication of His vibhuti in this material universe.(Mama

Tejo'msa sambhavam)> > Regarding Lord shiva going under illusion, even Lord

Brahma was put under illusion. It is for us to understand that as soon as we

think we are independent of the Lord, immediately we are put under illusion,

however great we may be.> > Dasan> > Narasimhan> Well sir thanks for giving me

that respect. But please don't call me Sri, since I am younger than you. Prabhu

is fine.This is my question:Lord Shiva is topmost vaishnava. This is verdict of

Bhagavata. He is also a mahajan. Again its verdict of bhagavata. If Lord

Krishna extends his maya over a devotee for purpose of his lila then its

understood, but if devotee percieves independence like mayic jivas then how can

he be called mahajan or vaishnavam yatham sambhu. How can parvati tempt Lord

Shiva into lust etc... ?Remember Lord Shiva isn't jivatma. So that is why i

ask why has SP given example of Lord Shiva as one who couldn't control his

senses ? Lord Shiva is an established devotee of Lord Vishnu and he is also

known as Gopeshvara Mahadeva. How can some one who is capable of entering rasa

lila of Sri Krishna be attracted to lust etc..... How come he couldn't control

his senses ? Or you would want to say that there was an accidental fall down in

case of Lord Shiva ?"You must understand the context in which SP presents the

example of Lord Shiva and Haridasa. ----> Sense Control."Its a well known fact

from bhagavata, that he who understands Rasa Lila of Lord Krishna can never be

affected by kama[lust]. So again how come Lord Shivas example is valid in this

context.[Context being Sense

Control.]http://www.vina.cc/stories/PHILOSOPHICAL/2002/12/gopeshwar_mahadev.htmlLord

Shiva is gaurdian of Rasa lila how can he be ever attracted to material

lust.Between i agree if Krishna wants to sway Lord Shiva by his maya then its

fine and acceptable, but how come Lord Shiva will do it independently out of

his own consent.Your Servant

AlwaysSumeet.__________Message:

7 Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:51:12 -0000 "sumeet1981"

<sumeet1981 >Re: Question(s) on Shiva as Vishnu

Transformed.achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:> So the language employed is used to illustrate

the fact that Shiva is > more like Brahman than a jiiva, i.e. like yogurt is

very similar to > milk but not quite the same. But he is not exactly the same -

> hence "transformation." It is not that Vishnu "transformed" Himself > to get

Shiva. You are quite correct that according to Vedaanta, > Brahman is

unchangeable. The language of "transformation" is meant to > make clear that

Shiva is in an intermediate category between jiivas > and Brahman.Krishna

Prabhu if you read commentary of Sril sarasvati prabhupada you will see:" The

nondistinction is established by the fact that just as milk treated with acid

turns into curd so Godhead becomes a subservient when He Himself attains a

distinct personality by the addition of a particular element of adulteration.

"Please refer to your copy of brahma samhita otherwise BS is available on

iskcon.org under literature.Your Servant

alwaysSumeet.__________Message:

8 Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:17:21 -0000 "sumeet1981"

<sumeet1981 >Re: Srila Prabhupada smashes rascal

scientistsachintya, rbshah@m... wrote:Dear Sumeet,Hare

KrishnaAlthough very soon you will get many befitting replies >>> Hare krishna

prabhu ji. Well lets see them as they come.1.All cars, aeroplanes etc..... just

proves the validity of science. Agreed these comforts exist , but to claim

that science can give the ultimate truth is an unnecessary claim and just a

show of pride. >>> Did you read my reply properly ? How come you got the idea

that I said that science can provide ultimate truth ? Have you seen my posts in

this forum ? Are any of them suggestive of my believing that science is the way

to ultimate truth. What I said was that "All cars, aeroplanes etc..... just

proves the validity of science. Its not all together invalid." Please read the

words "not all together invalid" again. And i hope then everything makes sense

to you.And yeah i believe no matter whatever happens in this world, devotional

service can be practised without any hindrance. Indeed, devotional service can

be practised in hell too. <<<<<A small but growing number of people believe

that am never went to the moon. Several scientists and engineers from from the

original NASA team say that that there are a number of inconsistencies in the

video clippings provided by NASA., they are too numerous to be enumerated

here.If you haven't seen the CD , let me know , I will send it to you.Also

known is the fact that several attempts to explore the mars have resulted in

failure . I can give you the details on request.>>>> Well I have heard about

all that stuff. Its upto an individual to believe what is true what is not. If

trip to moon is impossible, china and india wouldn't try that now. And about

mars, yeah many missions in my memory i can recall 22 mission failures. I read

it in time magazine. But the mission of pathfinder, vikings etc.... was a

success. And martian surface was found to be without life. All that i am saying

is simple, if there are demigods etc..... living there then what is the

difficulty in seeing them. If someone visits earths surface you can see life

here. Then why not one can see the same on mars or moon ? <<<<It should be

absolutely clear to you that humans have four defects. Imperfect senses,

propensity to be illusioned, tendency to commit mistakes and to cheat . Whereas

spiritual preceptors shastras and Shrila Prabhupada are free from it We are

helpless , we have to rely on some authority .>>>> Theoretically this seems

very nice and agreeable. But have you ever found differences in words of

spiritual masters. According to Ramanuja the avatars of Lord are not eternal,

though they are not mayic in nature as advaitins claim. But this claim is

countered by gaudiyas and madhvas. Which one of them is right ? Who has

committed mistake and who hasn't ? Please answer me. <<<< Whether you choose

the rascal scientists or the great souls, the choice is yours.>>>> Using this

kind of harsh terminology for scientist won't help our cause - propagating this

movement further. Such words will only defame our character and that of our

movement. If we want to differ from scientists and show they are wrong, then we

can do that peacefully and respectfully. Follow example of Sriman Mahaprabhu:

"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."He showed all respect to the mayavadis who are bigger cheaters

than scientists, yet defeated them by sound arguements. Peoples' heart is won by

polite etiquette, this kind of fired up behavior will not win us anyones' heart

and neither anyones' respect. <<<<Your Servant AlwaysSumeet.

__________Your

use of is subject to