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

[Guest guest]

> However, as Vikasa Swami ji just mentioned, we have to do a hardcore study

> of Vedanta and relevant Sastras for multiple years.

 

Furthermore candidates need to do menial service and accept disciplinary

training so as to imbibe the humility and surrender required for such a

task.

 

Srila Prabhupada's Godbrother Siddhanti Maharaja has published commentaries

in Bengali on the principle Upanisads.

[Guest guest]

Well, some interesting discussions have taken place in my absence!

Here are a few comments of mine:

 

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

<rjsimman@s...> wrote:

 

> 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.

>

 

This may be in part due to a culture of anti-intellectualism that

seems to crop up around any movement with popular appeal. There are

some who feel threatened by an evidence-based discussion, as if Srila

Prabhupada's teachings will fall apart if examined critically.

Certainly we have witnessed it here, as well as in other places, the

attitude of some caste Gosvami followers, i.e. "We don't care about

scripture. We follow the Gosvamis." But lest it seems I am being

uncharitable, we have seen the same climate of anti-intellectualism

even in the West.

 

> 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.

>

 

The Gaudiiya aka Bhaagavata tradition is credible. This is actually

the subject matter of Shrii Tattva-Sandarbha. Although I would love

to see more translation and commentary of other literatures (Vedaanta-

suutras, Upanishads, for example), strictly speaking it is not

necessary as the Bhaagavatam contains everything that is needed to

achieve the supreme goal. It might, however, be helpful to learn the

language of Vedaanta to better communicate with other Vedaantist

traditions.

 

> 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.

>

 

I am not opposed to this in principle, but as a matter of tradition,

study of the shruti is limited to the twice-born. Then again, Srila

Prabhupada seems to have adjusted this tradition somewhat by

directing his disciples to publish and distribute Shrii

Iishopanishad, so maybe that's a moot point. But what is clear is

that study of shruti requires a greater degree of austerity and

intelligence than most people have at present, what to speak of a

bona fide guru.

 

> 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.

>

 

If memory serves, Srila Baladeva's Upanishad commentaries are no

longer extant, with the possible exception of Iishopanishad. Please

someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

>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.>

 

A more realistic goal would be for us to systematically study the

Bhaagavatam. We can't talk about Vedaanta without understanding the

Bhaagavatam first. I myself am rereading Bhagavad-giitaa to better

hammer out the basics in my mind.

 

Govinda-bhaashya (commentary on Vedaanta-suutra) is not difficult to

read if one wanted to, but it is pretty dry. Something that would be

more useful and practical to us is a guide as to how the Bhaagavatam

teaches the various principles and concepts discussed in the Vedaanta-

suutras. There is one Ramapada Chattopadhyay who wrote a book on

this, but it's all in Bengali. I believe Haridas Shastri also did

something similar, but it's in Hindi. Besides which, neither of them

are in our paramparaa and as such might not have views on this

subject which are 100% in line with that of the Gosvamis.

 

> 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.

>

 

Feel free to use Achintya for this purpose if you wish. What

specifically did you have in mind? A study group where everyone

agreed to read a designated text and share notes on a regular basis?

That might be the most practical use of this forum. Vijay Pai posts

the Bhagavad-gita verses daily - perhaps something similar with the

Bhaagavatam?

 

 

> 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.

>

 

I think I know exactly what you mean. Anyway, the bottom line is that

we follow the Bhaagavatam. It's the best commentary on the Vedaanta-

suutra, being compiled by the Vedaanta's author himself. Others might

not accept this, and they probably never will. Here is where learning

the language of Vedaanta might be helpful - in reality I don't think

you have to study Vedaanta-suutra specifically, but one should study

Srila Prabhupada's purports carefully. I especially like reading his

commentary on SB 1.1.1. It reads very much like Baladeva

Vidyabhushana's commentary on VS 1.1.1 and is almost a mini-Vedaanta

by itself.

 

> 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.

>

 

This will happen if we aren't afraid to question, and more

importantly, if we listen carefully to the answers to the questions

we ask. I have a very liberal view on this, but I have noticed that

some individuals get into the habit of assuming that because they can

express doubts, that those doubts ipso facto are unsurmountable.

Thankfully, those particular individuals don't seem to post here

anymore.

 

Also, H.H. Bhakti Vikas Swami made an important point about humility

and surrender - something I did not address adequately but which I do

not want to marginalize. Whatever we do or discuss here can't

possibly be taken as serious study unless we maintain the kinds of

standards that disciples should maintain. We can try, however - but

we can't take this as a substitute from learning it from a guru.

 

Jai Simman, one thing we could do is take specific Bhaagavatam

purports and dissect them, paragraph by paragraph, and make sure we

understand them accurately. Another point would be to take a given

text (like Ishopanishad) and go over it, one mantra + purport a week.

We did things like this before, but too many "participants" were

passive and thus these endeavors never lasted long. Why don't you

bounce these ideas off your friends and tell me what they think?

 

K

[Guest guest]

[Edited for length]

Dear Prabhu,

                       Hare Krishna. Its true about what you say. I fully agree

with you. As far as philosophy is concerned, I feel that it has already been

explained very nicely in Srila Prabhupada's books. Hence, I don't see the

necessity in taking up such a task. I feel, we can dissect Srila Prabhupada's

purports thread bare and analyse. We are conducing programs here in Chennai &;

believe me, once we start discussing even simple purports, we find that we

eventually run out of time bcos of the heavyness of the contents.Presently, I

too have started with the purports of Srila Prabhupada's BG As it is once

again, this time with the aid of His lectures &; Bhurijana Prabhu's books.As I

read, even the first chapter seems so wonderful! Can you imagine Srila

Prabhupada has given a full lecture for 1.4(Just mentions the names of the

warriors) which most will just pass off

as uninteresting!

                   I think achintya is the best forum to discuss Srila

Prabhupada's Purports. Like Maharaj mentioned Sri Baladeva's Upanishad

translations are available in Bengali.

                      If someone is serious about such a task then it is

definitely welcome, provided, He is initiated, very serious about Srila

Prabhupada, has sufficient devotional maturity, has a humble service attitude,

else we will see yet another intellectual, dubious of Srila Prabhupada's

Knowledge &; Scholarship.

Hare Krishna.

Dasan

Narasimhan.

 

The New with improved product search

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, krishna_susarla wrote:

> > 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.

>

> This may be in part due to a culture of anti-intellectualism that

> seems to crop up around any movement with popular appeal.

 

At the same time, it sometimes also results from a genuine and mature

appreciation of the real value in a sacred principle all the acaryas, all the

sastras, and all the sampradayas uphold--that it is the bonafide spiritual

master, or mahajana, who is the ultimate arbiter of meaning of the sastra. It is

often to practically implement (and thus perpetuate) this essential truth that

devotees sometimes seem to favor the authority of their acaryas over everything

else. To one degree or another, devotees in all sampradayas do this, too. If

Gaudiyas emphasize the above principle more than others, that's more likely a

quality rather than a flaw (Cc, Adilila, 12.10):

 

acaryera mata yei, sei mata sara

tanra ajna langhi’ cale, sei ta’ asara

 

"The order of the spiritual master is the active principle in spiritual life.

Anyone who disobeys the order of the spiritual master immediately becomes

useless."

 

PURPORT

Here is the opinion of Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami. Persons who strictly

follow the orders of the spiritual master are useful in executing the will of

the Supreme, whereas persons who deviate from the strict order of the spiritual

master are useless.

 

 

 

 

> The Gaudiiya aka Bhaagavata tradition is credible. This is actually

> the subject matter of Shrii Tattva-Sandarbha. Although I would love

> to see more translation and commentary of other literatures (Vedaanta-

> suutras, Upanishads, for example), strictly speaking it is not

> necessary as the Bhaagavatam contains everything that is needed to

> achieve the supreme goal. It might, however, be helpful to learn the

> language of Vedaanta to better communicate with other Vedaantist

> traditions.

 

The BBT is currently preparing an edition of the Sat-sandarbhas.

 

 

 

 

> But what is clear is

> that study of shruti requires a greater degree of austerity and

> intelligence than most people have at present, what to speak of a

> bona fide guru.

 

This may be why most acaryas, including Srila Prabhupada, considered it more or

less idle to discuss Vedanta without having accepted a bonafide guru.

 

 

 

 

> A more realistic goal would be for us to systematically study the

> Bhaagavatam. We can't talk about Vedaanta without understanding the

> Bhaagavatam first. I myself am rereading Bhagavad-giitaa to better

> hammer out the basics in my mind.

 

The importance of this cannot be stressed too much. Bhagavad-gita alone is

completely sufficient to fulfil most people's spiritual desires.

 

 

 

 

> Feel free to use Achintya for this purpose if you wish. What

> specifically did you have in mind? A study group where everyone

> agreed to read a designated text and share notes on a regular basis?

> That might be the most practical use of this forum. Vijay Pai posts

> the Bhagavad-gita verses daily

 

I've seen very few people comment on or question anything in these. There must

be some reason for that.

 

 

 

 

> > 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.

>

> This will happen if we aren't afraid to question, and more

> importantly, if we listen carefully to the answers to the questions

> we ask. I have a very liberal view on this, but I have noticed that

> some individuals get into the habit of assuming that because they can

> express doubts, that those doubts ipso facto are unsurmountable.

> Thankfully, those particular individuals don't seem to post here

> anymore.

 

The late Tamal Krishna Gosvami was just completing his dissertation of Srila

Prabhupada's unique theological contribution to the religious world when he left

us.

 

 

 

 

> Also, H.H. Bhakti Vikas Swami made an important point about humility

> and surrender - something I did not address adequately but which I do

> not want to marginalize. Whatever we do or discuss here can't

> possibly be taken as serious study unless we maintain the kinds of

> standards that disciples should maintain. We can try, however - but

> we can't take this as a substitute from learning it from a guru.

 

Yes.

 

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, mpt@u... wrote:

>

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, krishna_susarla wrote:

> > > 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.

 

> > This may be in part due to a culture of anti-intellectualism that

> > seems to crop up around any movement with popular appeal.

>

> At the same time, it sometimes also results from a genuine and

mature appreciation of the real value in a sacred principle all the

acaryas, all the sastras, and all the sampradayas uphold--that it is

the bonafide spiritual master, or mahajana, who is the ultimate

arbiter of meaning of the sastra.

>

 

I'm not really all that convinced that the individuals whom I see

relativizing shaastra have this sort of genuine appreciation. For one

thing, there are many such people whom, in my observation, can easily

be made to change their views by being attracted to an unusually

charismatic leader, regardless of shaastric considerations. For

another thing, almost anyone can blindly follow a guru; such blind

following does not make it ipso facto genuine appreciation of the

guru's position.

 

This reminds me of the threefold classification of devotees into

kanishtha, madhyama, and uttama adhikaaris. This is discussed in

Chapter 3 of Nectar of Devotion. The uttama or first class devotee is

described as follows:

 

"The devotee in the first or uppermost class is described as follows.

He is very expert in the study of relevant scriptures, and he is also

expert in putting forward arguments in terms of those scriptures. He

can very nicely present conclusions with perfect discretion and can

consider the ways of devotional service in a decisive way. He

understands perfectly that the ultimate goal of life is to attain to

the transcendental loving service of KR^iShNa, and he knows

that KR^iShNa is the only object of worship and love."

 

Of course, there are other attributes that characterize this first-

class devotee - but expert in the scriptures is definitely one of

them. This is in contrast to the second class devotee who has firm

faith in the objective, although he cannot always give expert

arguments from scripture.

 

>

It is often to practically implement (and thus perpetuate) this

essential truth that devotees sometimes seem to favor the authority

of their acaryas over everything else. To one degree or another,

devotees in all sampradayas do this, too. If Gaudiyas emphasize the

above principle more than others, that's more likely a quality rather

than a flaw (Cc, Adilila, 12.10):

>

> acaryera mata yei, sei mata sara

> tanra ajna langhi' cale, sei ta' asara

>

> "The order of the spiritual master is the active principle in

spiritual life. Anyone who disobeys the order of the spiritual master

immediately becomes useless."

>

 

There is a time and place for everything, I think. When defending our

conclusions from the probing inquiries of others sampradaayas, I

don't think quoting the necessity of having faith in the aachaarya

will be very convincing. But then again, I think it goes without

saying that one should demonstrate that he is prepared to surrender

to some guru before his inquiries are given much emphasis. I for one

don't much like arguing with rogues who have no interest in accepting

any sampradaaya. Though I might argue for the sake of others who

might be swayed by their opinions.

 

List members will recall a certain individual who was certain our

sampradaaya was a complete fabrication. When it was pointed out that

the basis for his objections were moot, given historical examples of

people like Baladeva Vidyabhuushana, Kavi Karnapuura, Madhva, and

others, he simply revised his theory over and over so that he could

evade such rebuttals. This is a perfect example of an individual who

does not argue very honestly, and seems to be more attached to his

opinions than to the idea of trying to get at the truth. It is like

evolutionary biologists who initially proposed the "gradual

evolution" theory (as per Darwin), only to have it pointed out that

the fossil record showed multiple periods of abrupt change rather

than gradual evolution. But no, that doesn't contradict our theory!

Instead, now we propose "punctuated equilibrium" so that we can still

stay on top! Like that, some individuals just change their theory so

they can keep arguing. And they never accept any guru.

 

> The BBT is currently preparing an edition of the Sat-sandarbhas.

 

I for one would love to hear of a release date. I would be the first

to buy them when they do publish.

 

> > But what is clear is

> > that study of shruti requires a greater degree of austerity and

> > intelligence than most people have at present, what to speak of a

> > bona fide guru.

>

> This may be why most acaryas, including Srila Prabhupada,

considered it more or less idle to discuss Vedanta without having

accepted a bonafide guru.

>

 

Anything we (those of us without a proper guru) do is going to be

covered by this fault. On the other hand, I know many people who

accept a guru but don't seem to care for Vedaanta, even in terms of

reading the Bhaagavatam. I would still maintain that the best way for

us to go about this is to focus on the Bhaagavatam (rather than

reading any nondevotee books) and try to understand the Vedaanta

principles which it illustrates. Certainly concepts like shakti-

parinaamavaada are discussed in there, I would think.

 

> > That might be the most practical use of this forum. Vijay Pai

posts

> > the Bhagavad-gita verses daily

>

> I've seen very few people comment on or question anything in

these. There must be some reason for that.

>

 

We have a tendency to become complacent with what we know. Only when

someone challenges us and we find ourselves unable to defend our

conclusions authoritatively do we suddenly wish to be experts. The

thing is, it won't happen overnight. This is why I'm rereading

Bhagavad-gita systematically and carefully. I may not be very

knowledgeable now, but maybe 10 years from now I will have a better

grasp of the fundamentals than I do currently.

 

K