Understanding Krishna by Logic

[Guest guest]

The following is an excerpt from Narada Bhakti Sutra 75 Purport by HH Satsvarupa

Dasa Goswami, which too was interesting in view of our recent postings:

 

The bhakti method of receiving truth is by parampar#257;, or disciplic

succession. It is confirmed by a checks-and-balances system of hearing from

guru, #347;#257;stra, and s#257;dhu. On the other hand, one who rejects the

parampar#257; system and persists in hearing argumentation will never understand

the Absolute Truth. As Lord Kr#803;s#803;n#803;a states, bhakty#257; m#257;m

abhij#257;n#257;ti: "One can understand Me only by devotional service" (Bg.

18.55).

 

When Lord Caitanya first came to Jagann#257;tha Pur#299;, a dispute arose

between His followers and S#257;rvabhauma Bhat#803;t#803;#257;c#257;rya, who was

at that time a mundane logician. The Bhat#803;t#803;#257;c#257;rya and his

students refused to accept that Lord Caitanya was the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, although Gop#299;n#257;tha #256;c#257;rya presented much evidence from

Vedic scriptures. Finally the disciples of the Bhat#803;t#803;#257;c#257;rya

said, "We derive knowledge of the Absolute Truth by logical hypothesis."

Gop#299;n#257;tha #256;c#257;rya replied, "One cannot attain real knowledge of

the Supreme Personality of Godhead by such logical hypothesis and argument" (Cc.

Madhya 6.81). Gop#299;n#257;tha #256;c#257;rya further stated that only that

person who has received the mercy of the Lord by rendering Him devotional

service can understand Him. Logical hypothesis is not the way, but rather

#347;abda-brahma, hearing from authorized sources. Lord Brahm#257; made the

same point in his prayers to Lord Kr#803;s#803;n#803;a in Chapter Fourteen of

the Tenth Canto of #346;r#299;mad-Bh#257;gavatam:

 

"My Lord, one who is favored by even a slight trace of the mercy of Your lotus

feet can understand the greatness of Your personality. But those who speculate

in order to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead are unable to know

You, even though they continue to study the Vedas for many years" (Bh#257;g.

10.14.29).

 

Vain controversy may also include gossip and rumor (prajalpa). N#257;rada

previously stated that a bhakta shouldn't hear from people who speak of women,

wealth, and atheists (S#363;tra 63). Even members of a religious movement have

to be careful in their talks, or they too may become another association of

harsh and idle talkers like the nondevotees. One has to distinguish between

responsible dialogue on important issues and talk that leads nowhere. If we

enter into controversial topics, we should do so with restraint, sincerely

seeking the Vais#803;n#803;ava siddh#257;nta according to guru, #347;#257;stra,

and s#257;dhu. The #347;#257;stras are not to be researched merely as so much

ammunition for our own opinions. When we enter debate with an egoistic zest to

defeat the opposition, we miss the point and end up fighting with the

Vais#803;n#803;avas. In the prayer known as the Ham#769;sa-g#363;hya, offered by

Daks#803;a to Lord Vis#803;n#803;u, Daks#803;a concluded that the method of

logical dispute is actually a product of illusion:

 

I offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is

full of unlimited qualities and whose different potencies bring about agreement

and disagreement between disputants. Thus the illusory energy again and again

covers the self-realization of both disputants. [bh#257;g. 6.4.31]

 

 

 

Dasa

 

Narasimhan

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

even devotion is of no value if it is not true. thus truth is the

highest and is known through direct perception, logic in line with

scriptures, scriptures and ultimately the grace of the lord, which is

the basis of all three. sastras dont say that devotees are always

right but that even if they make mistakes, their work has to be

glorified because of carrying devotion.

 

i believe one has to accept sastras and reasoning in line with

sastras. even the statements of the acharyas have to be in line with

sastric statements. if sastras are not the basis, on what basis would

you be able to reject sankara ? so when it comes to your own

parampara, you cannot say that the statements of sastras are

irrelevant. and the statements of the acharyas are sastras. while

the statements of acharyas are apta vakyas, the statements of the

vedas are the verily the breadth of brahman. when there is

contradiction in the statements of acharyas one has to take recourse

to the sastras.

 

so i think it is very relevant ask for sastric basis of hare krishna

maha mantra etc.

 

achintya, ranganathan narasimhan

<simhan74> wrote:

>

>

>

> The following is an excerpt from Narada Bhakti Sutra 75 Purport by

HH Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami, which too was interesting in view of our

recent postings:

>

> The bhakti method of receiving truth is by parampar#257;, or

disciplic succession. It is confirmed by a checks-and-balances system

of hearing from guru, #347;#257;stra, and s#257;dhu. On the other

hand, one who rejects the parampar#257; system and persists in

hearing argumentation will never understand the Absolute Truth. As

Lord Kr#803;s#803;n#803;a states, bhakty#257; m#257;m

abhij#257;n#257;ti: "One can understand Me only by devotional

service" (Bg. 18.55).

>

> When Lord Caitanya first came to Jagann#257;tha Pur#299;, a dispute

arose between His followers and S#257;rvabhauma

Bhat#803;t#803;#257;c#257;rya, who was at that time a mundane

logician. The Bhat#803;t#803;#257;c#257;rya and his students refused

to accept that Lord Caitanya was the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

although Gop#299;n#257;tha #256;c#257;rya presented much evidence

from Vedic scriptures. Finally the disciples of the

Bhat#803;t#803;#257;c#257;rya said, "We derive knowledge of the

Absolute Truth by logical hypothesis." Gop#299;n#257;tha

#256;c#257;rya replied, "One cannot attain real knowledge of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead by such logical hypothesis and

argument" (Cc. Madhya 6.81). Gop#299;n#257;tha #256;c#257;rya further

stated that only that person who has received the mercy of the Lord

by rendering Him devotional service can understand Him. Logical

hypothesis is not the way, but rather #347;abda-brahma, hearing from

authorized sources. Lord Brahm#257; made the

> same point in his prayers to Lord Kr#803;s#803;n#803;a in Chapter

Fourteen of the Tenth Canto of #346;r#299;mad-Bh#257;gavatam:

>

> "My Lord, one who is favored by even a slight trace of the mercy of

Your lotus feet can understand the greatness of Your personality. But

those who speculate in order to understand the Supreme Personality of

Godhead are unable to know You, even though they continue to study

the Vedas for many years" (Bh#257;g. 10.14.29).

>

> Vain controversy may also include gossip and rumor (prajalpa).

N#257;rada previously stated that a bhakta shouldn't hear from people

who speak of women, wealth, and atheists (S#363;tra 63). Even members

of a religious movement have to be careful in their talks, or they

too may become another association of harsh and idle talkers like the

nondevotees. One has to distinguish between responsible dialogue on

important issues and talk that leads nowhere. If we enter into

controversial topics, we should do so with restraint, sincerely

seeking the Vais#803;n#803;ava siddh#257;nta according to guru,

#347;#257;stra, and s#257;dhu. The #347;#257;stras are not to be

researched merely as so much ammunition for our own opinions. When we

enter debate with an egoistic zest to defeat the opposition, we miss

the point and end up fighting with the Vais#803;n#803;avas. In the

prayer known as the Ham#769;sa-g#363;hya, offered by Daks#803;a to

Lord Vis#803;n#803;u, Daks#803;a concluded that the method of

> logical dispute is actually a product of illusion:

>

> I offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, who is full of unlimited qualities and whose different

potencies bring about agreement and disagreement between disputants.

Thus the illusory energy again and again covers the self-realization

of both disputants. [bh#257;g. 6.4.31]

>

>

>

> Dasa

>

> Narasimhan

>

>

>

>

>

>

> vote. - Register online to vote today!

>

>

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram>

wrote:

> even devotion is of no value if it is not true. thus truth is the

> highest and is known through direct perception, logic in line with

> scriptures, scriptures and ultimately the grace of the lord, which

 

My understanding is that the Gaudiyas dont accept perception as a

valid mean to know the truth. They rely on sabda only.

 

It is intersting for me to know to which sampradaya Madhva or

Sankara they claim alliance, as I personally find it very

confusing ..

[Guest guest]

pranams,

 

a more info from sarva samvadhini by jiva goswami:

 

TEXT: tad uktam purusottama-tantre, "sastrartha-yukto 'nubhavah pramanam

tuttamam matam / anumadya na svatantrah pramana-padavim yayuh" iti

 

TRANSLATION: This is stated in the Purusottama-tantra: "Realization

incorporating the ideas taught in sastra is considered the most excellent means

of correct knowledge. Inference and the other means of knowing cannot

independently claim authority."

 

 

TEXT: tathaiva matam brahma-sutra-karaih, "tarkapratisthanat", "srutes tu

sabda-mulatvat" ity-adau. tatha ca srutih, "naisa tarkena matir apaneya

proktanyenaiva su-jnanaya prestha", "niharena pravrta jalpyas ca" ity-adyah.

jalpa-pravrttas tarkika iti sruti-padarthah.

 

TRANSLATION: This is also the opinion of the author of the Brahma-sutras in such

sutras as "Because logical speculation is never final" (2.1.11) and "No, because

the revealed scriptures say otherwise, and knowledge of the Supreme is derived

from transcendental sound" (2.1.27). There are also such statements of sruti as:

"My dear boy, this knowledge cannot be obtained by mental speculation. It can be

properly understood only when an especially qualified person speaks it" (Katha

Upanisad 1.2.9) and "They are enveloped in a fog and prone to useless talk."

(Rk-samhita 10.82.7) The sense of the word jalpyah in this sruti text is

"speculators engaged in useless talk."

 

TEXT: ata eva varaha-purane, "sarvatra sakyate kartum agamam hi vinanuma /

tasman na sa saktimati vinagamam udiksitum" iti.

 

TRANSLATION: Thus it is said in the Varaha Purana: "In all situations one can

always apply the traditional authority of scriptures even without using logic.

Therefore logic is impotent to see the truth without the help of scripture."

 

TEXT: yat tv agame kvacit tarkena bodhana drsyate, tat tatraiva sobhanam

agama-rupatvat, bodhana-saukaryartha-matroddista-tarkatvat.

 

TRANSLATION: And when we see sometimes in the revealed scriptures that

information is provided by speculative logic, it is in those cases praiseworthy

because it is part of scripture, being speculation offered only for the sake of

making understanding easier.

 

NOTE: The scriptures also teach very reasonably in order to make understanding

easier.

 

TEXT: yadi ca yat tarkena sidhyati, tad eva veda-vacanam pramanam iti syat, tada

tarka evastam, kim vedeneti vaidikam-manya api te bahya evety ayam abhiprayah

sarvatraiva.

 

TRANSLATION: Persons who imagine themselves followers of the Vedas may say "If

something is proven by logic then it must be the very words of the Vedas and

authoritative. So let us use logic; what need have we of the Vedas?" But those

who speak thus are actually opponents of the Vedas, and this is indicated

everywhere.

 

TEXT: ata eva tesam srgalatvam eva gatir ity uktam bharate.

 

TRANSLATION: Thus it is stated in the Mahabharata (Santi-parva, 180.47-49) that

these people will become jackals in their next lives.

 

TEXT: yat tu srotavyo mantavyah ity-adisu mananam nama tarko 'ngi-krtah,

tatraivam evam uktam yatha kurma-purane, purvaparavirodhena ko nv artho 'bhimato

bhavet / ity-adyam uhanam tarkah suska-tarkam ca varjayet iti.

 

TRANSLATION: And when speculation under the name of "reflecting" is acknowledged

in such statements as "It should be heard about and reflected on"

(Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.5), it is in the following sense that such is being

said, as stated in the Kurma Purana: "Speculation means to conjecture in such

ways as asking which meaning of a text is appropriate without contradicting what

precedes and follows it. Dry speculation, however, should be rejected.

 

 

 

Also vedanta shyamantaka

(http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/baladeva/vedanta-syama\

ntaka.html)

 

by baladeva is also informative wrt this pramanas etc..

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!