how to understand sastra

[Guest guest]

Cc Madhya 9.103, ppt by HDG Srila Prabhupada:

 

 

According to the sastras: bhaktya bhagavatam grahyam na buddhya na ca

tikaya. One should understand the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam by

hearing them from a real devotee. One cannot understand them simply by

erudite scholarship or sharp intelligence. It is also said:

gitadhita ca yenapi bhakti-bhavena cetasa

veda-sastra-puranani tenadhitani sarvasah

To one who reads the Bhagavad-gita with faith and devotion, the essence of

Vedic knowledge is revealed. And according to the Svetasvatara Upanisad

(6.23):

yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau

tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakasante mahatmanah

[sU 6.23]

"Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and

the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically

revealed."

All Vedic literatures are to be understood with faith and devotion, not by

mundane scholarship. We have therefore presented Bhagavad-gita As It Is.

There are many so-called scholars and philosophers who read the

Bhagavad-gita in a scholarly way. They simply waste their time and mislead

those who read their commentaries.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the quote maharaj. This can be a very useful guidelines for all of

us. But, I have a couple of questions,

 

1) Does the acharya mean "Gaudiya Vaishnavas" when he says Vaishnava acharyas? I

believe so,as he talks about Govinda Bhasya. But, Srila Baladeva Vidybhusan does

draw heavily from Madhvacharya's philosophy, and so, I'm not sure.

 

2) Where can a student find such acharyas who are well-versed in Govinda-bhasya?

And, has Srila Prabhupada said anything on this that would serve as a guideline

to his followers?

 

in your service,

 

Aravind.

 

Bhakti Vikasa Swami <Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami wrote:

Here's an interesting point for would-be scholars of Vaisnava philosophy,

that I just culled from my ongoing reading of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati's works.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati warned that unless read in the original

Sanskrit, the subject matter of complex philosophical works such as

Govinda-bhasya is often not properly grasped; and unless studied under the

guidance of a Vaisnava acarya, could not be properly appreciated.

 

(Taken from Sri Sri Sarasvati Samlap, Allahabad edition, p. 62)

 

 

Achintya Homepage: achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: 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.

 

 

achintya/

 

achintya

 

 

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

Celebrate 's 10th Birthday!

Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

> Thanks for the quote maharaj. This can be a very useful guidelines

for all of us. But, I have a couple of questions,

>

> 1) Does the acharya mean "Gaudiya Vaishnavas" when he says

Vaishnava acharyas? I believe so,as he talks about Govinda Bhasya.

But, Srila Baladeva Vidybhusan does draw heavily from Madhvacharya's

philosophy, and so, I'm not sure.

>

 

I think the point is that one must study any given text under the

feet of a master. Obviously, this would be a Gaudiiya Vaishnava

teacher if the text is a Gaudiiya text.

 

This is why I recommed a strong dose of humility for anyone who, like

me, is in a situation where they are studying the texts more or less

independently. I don't discourage people from reading, but they

should understand that they don't have the perspective a bona fide

spiritual master's personal association and teaching.

 

Baladeva "borrowing" from Madhva is a matter of perspective. Another

way of looking at it is that Baladeva studied the Achintya Bedha

Abedha philosophy and wrote a Brahma-suutra commentary based on it.

The similarities with Madhva are to Madhva's credit - it's not as if

Madhva is going to differ from the Bhaagavata philosophy on every

point. In fact, there are some points that are shared between all

Vedaanta philosophies. The idea that Baladeva "borrowed" from Madhva

appears to be more of an academic view, or a Maadhva view, or both.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

I do agree with Susarla Prabhu's comments that one

needs to study any Vedantic literature at the feet of

a competent siksha or diksha guru, together with the

auxiliary knowledge fields such as nyaya, vyakarana,

etc. since these are considerably used in the

discussion of the aphorisms of the Brahma Sutra. While

all devotees have been instructed to read Gita and

Bhagavatam, there is need for a class fo scholars to

learn more and to properly and thoroughly know Vedanta

as well in order to strengthen the sampradaya and

preserve the tradition for posterity.

 

Also, as for Sripad Baladeva Vidyabhushana having

borrowed heavily from Sripad Madhvacharya's

commentary, this is basically an issue of

chronological observation. Semantics can be a very

powerful tool in creating positive or negative

feelings about anything. i have seen many websites

with such views that generally go against the grain of

accuracy. I recently read a Sri Vaishnava article

about the madhvas not recognising pancharatra. But

based on my reading of the latter's materials, this is

not at all true. Perhaps the approach in terms of

practical application may vary causing one with a

sectarian mindset to cast the other out of the

affiliational equation. One tradition can heavily be

based on the other if the former is in agreement with

most of the latter's tenets. It is not a sin to agree

and duly recognise that. In my earlier posting about

Vedantic discourses, I had asked this question

regarding why later-day acharyas should necessarily go

about providing a supposedly original metta-narrative

as well as a full polemical refutation of earlier

schools just to show themselves as unique. Also, 2

schools with close semblance can exist and develop

independently and it is not necessary for semblance to

always be attributed to duplication or influence

although it must be added that more than any other

school, our acharyas have openly expressed their

gratitude to the previous Vaishnava acharyas from the

other schools in their works such as the sandarbhas as

well as prameya ratnavali.

 

H.H. Tripurari Maharaja recently sent me a mail in

which he said that the Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas have

never adopted a defeatist mentality in this regard

that required knitty-gritty refutation of everything

that came before them. The Gaudiya Vaishnava attitude

generally has been to complement and complete certain

aspects that may have required further development and

detail in terms of rasa since that appears to be a

significant speciality of our line. It appears to me

at least that in explaining the nuances of rasa, a

strictly dualistic approach has its limitations

because the intensity of mellows in trascendental

relationships between the Lord and His devotees often

has a strong aspect of emotional semblance and a

coming together in unison of bhava. If we are to

accept that it is these mellows which are at the

zenith of spiritual understanding and perfection, then

it follows through that tattva darshana is the

foundation for the proper understanding of rasa

tattva. The former is crucial and goes together but it

is not the final goal. Generally, this is what I seem

to understand when I view the Gaudiya Vaishnava

approach to Vedanta darshana. Rasa tattva has a very

rich influence on Gaudiya Vedanta and the approach

adopted by it.

 

 

ys

r. jai simman

jakarta

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Celebrate 's 10th Birthday!

Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

http://birthday./netrospective/

[Guest guest]

>H.H. Tripurari Maharaja recently sent me a mail in

which he said that the Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas have

never adopted a defeatist mentality in this regard

that required knitty-gritty refutation of everything

that came before them.

 

How does a thorough refutation of a conflicting viewpoint

reflect a defeatist mentality?

 

ys

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

> How does a thorough refutation of a conflicting

> viewpoint reflect a defeatist mentality?

 

perhaps what he meant was that sometimes it is assumed

by certain sections of scholars that one must do a

thorough refutation of another school in order to

establish one's own school, just as a way of showing

one's creation or revival of an alternative system.

the gaudiya acharyas have generally not adopted this

approach of analysing in detail every point of another

sampradaya's philosophy and presenting a specific work

that refutes what is not agreed upon. they have not

seen the need for refutation in as much as

acknowledgement and adding on with due recognition

given to the previous acharya or an acharya in another

line.

 

ys

 

r. jai simman

jakarta