Sri Vaishnava criticism of Gaudiya Vedanta ...

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

Please accept my humble obeisances.

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Regarding my earlier mail about the Sri Vaishnava

criticisms of Gaudiya Vedanta, I wish to humbly

highlight that my sole purpose has been to understand

what our Gaudiya acharyas have said in this regard and

to explain matters and understand the basis of the

criticism and how it can be responded to. This is

primarily for our own appreciation and understanding,

not for any vehement rebuttals. Is this not what this

achintya list is all about? This is primarily for

learning and appreciating our Gaudiya Vedanta more. I

am not interested in the persons who have leveled the

criticisms or their disposition. This is immaterial.

It is only the issue that is of concern. We cannot

slam the person or speak about his/her flaws or

tendencies when it comes to addressing the essence of

the subject matter that is being discussed. Be it Sri

Vaishnava or Madhva or any other criticism, our

purpose on this list I would assume is to see the

issue raised on its own merit or otherwise and leave

out the person and his/her motives for criticism. That

is only known to the supersoul in his/her heart. It is

not for us to speculate that these persons are envious

of their sampradaya people visiting ISKCON / Gaudiya

temples or participating in our congregations. These

things are at best conjectures or speculation on our

part.

 

That having been said, some of these persons may have

already decided what they want to be convinced with

and will never budge to anything else even of proper

sense and reasoning that comes from outside their

affiliated sampradaya. Everything else is viewed from

the coloured prism of their respective Vedanta

darshanas. That is fine and is up to the individual to

choose. But, we need to understand issues in a

substantive manner, not as person-based attacks. If we

are to always shy away or brush off such issues with

character assassinations or fault-finding of another

sampradaya’s predicament in practical matters such as

their devotees leaving India and brahminical culture

to work elsewhere, that still does not address their

criticisms properly. That would be a logical fallacy –

criticizing the person or persons and the motives

rather than counter the argument. Not everyone has

been following these debates from the onset. Some of

us are newer. If any substantial discussions have been

had, please let us know the posting urls or thread

details.

 

If the issues have been discussed before, that is

good. Many times, when I have sought to find answers

from Gaudiya Vaishnavas, all I have gotten is

counter-criticism of irrelevance related to some other

practical matter about some person or people in

another line doing this and that. Perhaps this may be

one reason why many also lose faith and go to other

lines. When questions are posed, they may not even get

a proper answer addressing the philosophical content

of the matter. On the contrary, they may get a reply

that just side-tracks or goes to something else. If

nothing has been discussed previously, let us discuss

then. Srila Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami has said in

the Chaitanya Charitamrta that controversy and doubt

are good if discussed properly for that will

strengthen faith. So, I humbly request devotees to

provide links to past postings or to discuss these

issues and delve deeper into what our Acharyas have

said. Let us see criticisms as a means to probe

further into our own sampradaya works and extract

answers and in this way appreciate what others may not

yet understand. Let us not see criticisms as coming

from a Sri Vaishnava like Anand Karalapakkam or a

Madhva like Srisha Rao. Let us see the issues as

substantive and find answers from our Acharyas’ works.

It is best to avoid people talk and get into issue

discussion. Only by churning does nectar come.

 

The Gita postings with the commentary of Srila

Viswanatha Chakravarti by Gerald Surya Prabhu and the

ensuing discussions are a welcome delight in this

connection. The introductory message posted on this

list speaks of Gaudiya Vedanta. But I am hardly seeing

anything in this connection on a regular basis.

 

Hari bol !

 

 

your servant

r. jai simman

Jakarta, Indonesia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

Excellent post!

 

iys

 

Aravind.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jai Prabhu,

 

We agree that the subject of the verse 1 .2.11 is "tattva" which we agree is

"advaya" (nondual) or "a-avaya" (without internal distinctions) and that there

are three words (sabdas) indicated in the verse. We also don't argue against

their interpretation which although true is superficial.

 

>Brahman is held as attributeless and ParamAtma as mere all-pervading

consciousness , how can this nirviSEsha Bramhan be same as BhagavAn and

ParamAtman, as held so fundamentally ? How is this nirviSEsha Bramhan related to

BhagavAn? If it is related, then it ceases to be nirviSEsha / nirguNa!

 

>Also, Ultimate reality is actually all-pervading. Effulgence is something which

"flows" - Basically it contradicts the all pervading nature of the Ultimate

reality.

 

In these two statements, the author is projecting the Advaitin's concept of

nirvisesa Brahman upon the Gaudiya concept of Brahman and then finding fault

with it. This is a strawman argument. Sri Bhagavan says "brahmano pratishtaham"

(BG14.27) and "maya tata. avyakta-murtina" (BG9.4) which indicate how impersonal

Brahman is related to Bhagavan. The Advaitin nirguna Brahman is certainly not

related to anything but that is a different doctrine.

 

>Sometimes, gaudiyas also say that Impersonal Bramhan is the effulgence of

BhagavAn. Actually, the light emanating from Lord's divine body is a property of

the Suddha-Sattva tattva {in being luminous}. But that light by itself is not a

part of the "Bramha tattva / Supreme Tattva". He

 

This is actually an example of the duality within visistadvaita: they see that

the Lord is different from His form and attributes such as the effulgence. The

principle of visesa, implicit in all three foundational texts-Vedanta, Gita and

Upanisads, demonstrates that the Lord is actually non-different from these.

 

 

>Also, what is then the relationship between this sort of Impersonal Bramhan and

BhagavAn ? If they are non-different in all aspects, then one should not speak

of the other as the different feature of BhagavAn.

 

This is not correct. The principle of visesa allows us to speak of the

different features or, for example, the organs of the Lord as though they are

different, even though they in fact are not. All of His limbs can perform the

functions of any other.

 

> Conclusion: .. ParamAtma is not without all kalyana (auspicious)

gunas(attributes), and they are one and the same as Bhagavan. But the sabdas

(words) emphasise the sense of Ishvara(personal God) in asending order.

 

This is exactly our point: the same entity can be known in different degrees of

personal intimacy. Paramatma is according to both Bhagavatam 1.3.28 and

Bhagavad-gita 10.42 an expansion (svamsa) of Bhagavan and displays a portion of

the Lord's glory, although Paramatma and Bhagavan are non-different. The

limitation in visistadvaita philosophy in understanding the full sense of these

three sabdas or words is due to the lack therein of the visesa principle.

Therefore, in their best understanding the three words refer to the so-called

essence of Godhead beyond all spiritual form, quality, name, etc.

 

your servant,

Gerald Surya

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

For starters, you may want to refute the dvaita rebuttal to the

gosai.com charge about the interpretation of "krsnas tu bhagavan

svayam" verse of SB, starting at http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-

list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001088.html

 

There is also an ongoing series started that challenges the Gaudiya

translation of some verses of Bhramara Gita in 10th canto of

Bhagavatam (10.47.58-62) on the dvaita list. I think the claims are

quite scholarly, and deserve a scholarly rebuttal from Gaudiya

scholars (and not pure personal criticisms as that would evade the

issue they are raising).

 

Regards,

Anant

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000> wrote:

>

> There is also an ongoing series started that challenges the Gaudiya

> translation of some verses of Bhramara Gita in 10th canto of

> Bhagavatam (10.47.58-62) on the dvaita list. I think the claims are

> quite scholarly, and deserve a scholarly rebuttal from Gaudiya

> scholars (and not pure personal criticisms as that would evade the

> issue they are raising).

 

By all means feel free to post such a rebuttal, free of any purely

personal criticism. That is what this list is for, among other things.

However, please be advised that challenges of this nature are

themselves not scholarly in origin. Many of them have been addressed in

one way or another in the past, but in my experience those rebuttals

are simply ignored and the same objections raised again and again.

 

You will be quite disappointed if you are expecting something like a

collegial, polite, scholarly, inter-sampradAya discussion with them. It

is becoming more and more clear to me that the objections will be there

for purely sectarian reasons, and that objectors will find

the "scholarship" to fill in the gaps later.

 

As far as finding writings of pUrvAchAryas which address these

criticisms, again... good luck. I for one would be interested in such

things were they in fact in existence. However, by and large I have not

seen much of this in the writings of the Gosvamis or of any traditional

Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I get the impression that the Gosvamis either did

not care for these things or were simply not faced with any such

challenges during their time. This gets back to what I've said earlier

about such "scholarly objections" being seemingly fueled not by

legitimate doubts, but rather by sectarian concerns. I ask the

question - as there was no dearth of Sri Vaishnava or MAdhva scholars

in 16th to 17th century India, why is it the only "scholarly"

challenges against gauDIya siddhAnta we are aware of were only raised

in the past 10 - 15 years? Is it any coincidence that this time period

coincides with the massive brain drain India is experiencing, with

thousands of South Indian Vaishnava brahmins giving up their

traditional calling to study and work in the West, only to find solace

in ISKCON temples?

 

Because it seems frankly wrong to me somehow that all the allegedly bad

points of gauDIya vaishnavism should only become an issue with other

sampradAyas when their members start converting. It seems to me,

idealistic and naive as I no doubt am, that incorrect philosophy should

be objected to always as a matter of principle, and not simply as a

response to socio-political change (i.e. conversions) and so on. To use

a more concrete example - I will always object to certain philosophical

points of Advaita and Buddhism, although I do not seriously consider

either of them as very seductive or influential in my family. I need

not wait for someone to voice an interest in Advaita in order to object

to it - incorrect conclusions are always incorrect and must be objected

to regardless of whether or not they are politically troublesome. That

is an example of what I mean by principle.

 

Many of these objections, though couched in scholarly language, are not

based on principle. In the past when I have sought to engage the

seemingly moderate critics of Gaudiya Vaishnavism in dialog, I have run

into the same hurdles I have faced when interacting with hardliners.

These include:

 

1) The tendency to behave as if they have not "heard" you or considered

certain key points you have brought up. They will often attack points

which you have never stated, for example.

 

2) The tendency to make highly arbitrary and often self-contradictory

assumptions (i.e. one minute quote the Vishnu Puraana as authority, and

then totally reject the Bhaagavata Puraana because it is merely

smriti... Itihaasas and Puraanas are fifth Veda one minute, and then

next minute they are unacceptable on the count of not being shruti, etc

etc)

 

3) The generally condescending tone of the objectors.

 

4) Attempts to remove any attempt at rebuttal on their forums, citing

the principle that their forum is for their siddhAnta only. Yet

continuing to allow people to object to GauDIya siddhAnta on their

forum, the logic being something like "It's relevant to our sampradAya

to knock down someone else's philosophy, it's just not relevant to give

the other side a fair representation."

 

All in all, I must admit to being rather disappointed with what I've

seen to date. I guess I only say this because chances are good that

some individuals here will not see much desire of GauDIyas to respond

to these "scholarly" objections and interpret that as weakness. All I

want you to take home tonight is the point that you will see the same

kinds of disappointing pseudo-scholarly behavior elsewhere too. Be

forewarned before throwing in your chips too quickly.

 

Yours,

 

k

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000> wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna!

>

> For starters, you may want to refute the dvaita rebuttal to the

> gosai.com charge about the interpretation of "krsnas tu bhagavan

> svayam" verse of SB, starting at

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-

> list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001088.html

>

> There is also an ongoing series started that challenges the Gaudiya

> translation of some verses of Bhramara Gita in 10th canto of

> Bhagavatam (10.47.58-62) on the dvaita list. I think the claims are

> quite scholarly, and deserve a scholarly rebuttal from Gaudiya

> scholars (and not pure personal criticisms as that would evade the

> issue they are raising).

>

 

At the risk of beating a dead horse, here is an example of why I

think dialog of this nature is somewhat pointless.

 

These are the first two paragraphs of the person whose "scholarly"

rebuttal can be found at the link provided above:

 

"This is in response to some kinks made by those who claim to

be the followers of Gaudiya tradition. Their interpretation

of the Bhagavata statement "kR^ishhNastu bhagavAn.h svayam.h"

and their rebuttal against Dr. B.N.K. Sharma's comments in

his book "The Bhagavadgita Bhashya", are nothing short of

puerile in nature.

 

[snip]

 

The write-up within there demonstrates their serious

shortcoming not only in the undrestanding of Sanskrit and

logic, but also in that of English."

 

This is then followed by the typical cyber-mAdhva-sangha reasoning to

the effect that madhva already brought up his interpretation of the

verse in question and thus gauDIyas aren't even supposed to disagree

with it, since they have madhva in their paramparA.

 

It amazes me to no end how you can explain over and over again how

the paramparA is not a continuity of philosophy but simply of gurus -

yet this same issue of "madhva is in the paramparA, don't disagree

with him" comes up again and again. It's as if they never heard you

the hundreds of times you tried to explain this to them in the past,

whether it was on , on the Usenet, or personal e-mail.

 

This is then followed by the invariable lambasting of gauDIya

philosophy on the grounds that it is different from madhva's in so

many other ways. Again, why try to open one's mind to the concept of

a sampradAya that has a common origin but a different doctrine when

it is so much easier to feign myopia and knock down a whole line of

strawmen on this basis?

 

For what it's worth, I don't see any real reason for gauDIyas to

apologize for their interpretation of the kR^iShNas tu bhagavAn

svayam" verse, which happens to be straightforward and pretty

literal. It is Madhva and others who have had to come up with a very

cumbersome means of explaining it away to fit in with their

philosophies. All glories to them for the task that they faced. But

the fact that their explanations are so round-about is what people

like K. Tadipatri et. al. are trying to conceal with their harsh and

condescending remarks.

 

Like I said in the past - you are quite mistaken if you think they

want to engage you in objective dialog on this subject. They are more

interested in depicting you and the philosophy you represent as

puerile and unworthy of them. I for one am rather ashamed that there

are people who call themselves Vaishnavas who behave like this. It

makes me think that perhaps our culture really isn't worth saving,

when the so-called scholarly Vaishnavas seem more interested in

bickering with other devotees than in facing their real nemesis.

Vaishnava sampradAyas in India are facing certain extinction -

materialistic Bollywood culture is on the rise, atheistic anti-Hindu

politicians are strong as ever, and Indian universities continue to

bow to colonialist prejudices... yet despite all this our so-called

Vaishnava friends see only Chaitanya followers as the one problem

worthy of their attention. That is truly sad.