Srisha Rao's and Sumeet Chandra's criticisms of Gaudiyas

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000> wrote:

>

> http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-

> March/date.html

>

> This is not to cause any hurt feelings (apologies in advance if it

> does), etc, but as a spiritual seeker, there are many questions

that

> may arise about the various philosophies, whose answer determines

> what

> path to follow. It was disturbing to find the heavy criticism of

> Gaudiya Vedanta on this forum in the last 3-4 days. Can some

scholar

> on this forum address them?

 

It's nothing new. There will always be criticism by people who refuse

to take the time to get their facts straight. Incidentally, it looks

like our own Sumeet Chandra has now bought into their neurotic

propaganda. Very disappointing, really.

 

If you want to discuss issues of philosophy, then why don't you

summarize (in your own words) what are the salient doubts that arose

from your reading? We can then discuss those here for your sake.

 

If you want some panacea to get them to be more civil (and honest),

then I would say don't bother. You can't even say anything about

Gaudiyas at all without starting the cyberspace equivalent of a riot

on that list. They just don't want to hear that there is anything at

all which is good about us, in my experience.

 

Incidentally, you may not be aware that a proposal for a

soc.religion.vaishnava.dvaita was out a few years ago, in order to

make the Tattvavada list a public newsgroup moderated by Srisha Rao

and Manish Tandon. The vote failed, not because people voted against

it, but because only 10% of the Tattvavada list voted for it. Now I

don't mean to delve into politics, but I take this as evidence that

the Tattvavadis, as much as they benefit from Srisha's list, don't

buy into his heavy-handed dealings with other Vaishnavas. In

retribution, Srisha then kicked off the 90% of the list members who

did not vote for the list.

 

So do keep a perspective on things - the opinions of a 50 or so

software engineers who gave up their bramhinical calling and instead

moved to USA to make money simply don't speak for all Tattvavadis.

[Guest guest]

It was disturbing to find the heavy criticism of

> Gaudiya Vedanta on this forum in the last 3-4 days. Can some

scholar

> on this forum address them?

 

 

Purport to 18.65

"These words stress that one should concentrate his

mind upon Krsna--the very form with two hands carrying

a flute, the bluish boy with a beautiful face and

peacock feathers in His hair. There are descriptions

of Krsna found in the Brahma-samhita and other

literatures. One should fix his mind on this original

form of Godhead, Krsna. He should not even divert his

attention to other forms of the Lord.

Purport to 18.64,

"What Krsna is saying in this connection is the most

essential part of knowledge, and it should be carried

out not only by Arjuna but by all living entities."

 

 

This quote is portrayed on the Dvaita list as being "unacceptable."

The problem is one of recognizing context. According to Srila Rupa

Gosvami's

Bhaktirasamrtasindhu, one may develop love or prema for Krishna or for

other

forms of the Lord. In the case of Krishna it is called "kevala" or

pure, only

in the madhurya sense of the term. Since madhurya-rasa does not figure

as predominantly in regards to other forms, prema for other forms is not

termed kevala. In this light, the purport to verse 64 is an

instruction

to Gaudiya followers who are already directing themselves to

kevala-prema. This is not meant to undermine the idea that some

devotees will worship other avataras and attain Their respective abodes.

 

The idea of the same Lord promulgating different Vaishnava philosophies

which are "irreconcilable" on "significant points" is supposedly

incorrect because it

leads to the idea that the jnana of the Lord is contradictory and

that He is

imperfect.

 

All the Vaishnava traditions accept the path of bhakti as supreme above

all others.

Since bhakti is an energy of of the Lord's Hladinisakti, all Vaishnavas

sampradayas

are certainly based on the Lord's mercy to one degree or another. If

one Vaishnava

says that another Vaishnava has no bhakti as implied elsewhere, then

one wonders how

much bhakti the former really has. The Gaudiya acaryas recognize that

bhakti exists in many

other schools. However, only in the Gaudiya tradition is pure bhakti

(uttama-bhakti) very clearly

distinguished from mishra-bhakti or mixed forms of devotion.

 

For example, the Maadhva concept of liberation is practically always

discussed in reference to the

arciradi path which is mentioned in the Gita at the end of chapter 8,

Vedanta sutra, etc.

This is definitely a bona-fide path back to Godhead and is based on

the mercy of the Lord.

However, according to Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's

commentary to that section of the Gita this is a lower path compared to

that of the

ananya-bhaktas who take birth into Krishna's manifest lilas somewhere

in the material

cosmos before finally returning to the spiritual world. So all the

sophisticated knowledge

and associated hermeneutics of the gradual path to liberation in the

Dvaita writings refers to

just one specific path mentioned by Krishna. A Gaudiya does not need

to deny certain

truths of other traditions in order to be philosophically secure in

those of his own.

 

Another point is that are specific irreconcilable points taught by the

founders of the

sampradayas or only their followers? The modern followers of Ramanuja

say that the Lord

is different from His form, qualities, etc., but can they substantiate

this based on the

words of Ramanuja?

 

In short, there is nothing wrong with the idea of the Lord teaching

variant forms of bhakti

through different teachers.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

Purport to 18.64,

"What Krsna is saying in this connection is the most

essential part of knowledge, and it should be carried

out not only by Arjuna but by all living entities."

 

Actually I just reread this section after posting--this injunction

under 18.64 is directing one to be a pure devotee of the Bhagavan

feature (which may include any avatara) feature as opposed

to Supersoul decribed earlier. This is definitely applicable to all

living entities. It is the second paragraph of 18.65 that

is specifically directed towards Gaudiyas.

 

ys

GS

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

 

> This quote is portrayed on the Dvaita list as being "unacceptable."

> The problem is one of recognizing context.

 

The other problem is simply one of intellectual dishonesty. All of

us were taught in our high school writing classes (hopefully at

least by college writing), that one cannot prop up a thesis by

ignoring contradictory evidence. One must not only give the

supporting evidence but also show how the contradictory evidence is

not in fact contradictory.

 

So it is here that Srisha Rao wanted to ring the alarm by "showing"

that Gaudiyas distinguish between Krishna and worship of other forms

of Vishnu. This quote was provided as evidence, and I would not have

expected them to know about the context of Bhakti-rasaamrita Sindhu.

But they could have addressed other statements in which Prabhupada

refutes any such distinctions, such as the following:

 

"But Narayana, Visnu, or Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

does not belong to this world." (BG 4.12 purport)

 

"The ultimate goal, Visnu, can be attained only by this chant and by

devotional service, and not by mental speculation or argument." (BG

10.11 purport)

 

"Therefore, the Lord of the living entities is the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, Visnu." (BG 3.10)

 

There is also Srila Prabhupada's personal example - he toured all of

India and worshipped with devotion in many non-Krishna Vaishnava

temples such as Tirupati (as did Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu).

 

Sumeet Chandra, who at least reads Gaudiya literatures more, could

have pointed these out to Srisha Rao, et. al. but he did not do so,

because that would have been inconvenient for the strawman argument

they were creating, which was that Prabhupada considers Krishna to

be superior to Vishnu.

 

This is why I have been rather reluctant to engage such people in

dialogue. How can you have an intelligent discussion with people who

are bent on discrediting your beliefs, by simply ignoring all

evidence contrary to their position?