No bad name calling - only references.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

Pranams

 

Ok, here are few small comments; if you so much desired it you have it. But

you should really recommend to those Vaisnavas to study the Brahma samhita

properly.

 

The simple gist is that Madhvacharya interpreted the word

"Apala" as young damsel and when the scholars there persisted

that the word meant "a leper", Acharya advised them to await

another scholar for verification and moved ahead. Just as

foretold, there came a scholar bearing the very marks and

gave out the same meaning as was decided by MadhvAcharya.

The learned not only realized the Purnaprajna's proficience

in vedic knowledge, but also his omniscience and ability to

see the past and future.

 

A - It is very offensive to compare Gaudiya Vaisnavas to Mayavadis. Already

the start is not in proper mode. What will be the next let see.

 

Q - What we object to is their very approach to bring gradation

among various forms of the Lord. Krishna has made it

quite clear in Gita that He is the Supreme One. That, by

no means, indicates that His other forms are inferior.

 

A - So, we have to reject the HIGHEST AUTHORITY, the DIRECT MEANING of

Krishna's words in the Bhagavad-gita matta-parataram nanyat. "there is no

HIGHER truth than ME". He is here referring to his Krishna rupa two handed

form. So, there are certainly gradations.

 

When Lord Caitanya met Venkatha Battha, He jokingly clarified this point. The

following section is from the

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0301/ET22-7743.html

I think it is appropriate to have the text here as well. Have a nice reading.

 

As Venkata was a Vaisnava belonging to the Ramanuja-sampradaya, he worshipped

the Deity of Laksmi Narayana. His pure devotional service to the deities was

very pleasing to Lord Caitanya. Being in constant association with one another,

Lord Caitanya and Venkata gradually developed a friendly relationship. Indeed

sometimes they use to joke and laugh together. For example, Lord Caitanya told

Venkata, "Your worshipful goddess of fortune, Laksmi, who always remains on the

chest of Narayana, is certainly the most chaste woman in the creation. How is

it that she wants to associate with my Lord, Lord Krsna, a cowherd boy, who is

engaged in tending cows?"

 

Venkata replied, "According to transcendental realization, there is no

difference between the forms of Narayana and Krsna. Yet in Krsna there is a

special transcendental attraction due to the conjugal mellow, and consequently

He surpasses Narayana. Mother Laksmi considered that her vow of chastity would

not be damaged by her relationship with Krsna. Rather, it was in great fun that

Laksmi wanted to associate with Krsna. Why are you joking so much about this?"

 

The Lord said, "But can you tell me why goddess Laksmi, who for a long time

accepted vows and regulative principles and performed unlimited austerities,

could not enter the rasa dance? The authorities of Vedic knowledge (Sruti)

could attain Krsna through practice of tapasya?"

 

Venkata replied, "I am an ordinary human being. Since my intelligence is very

limited, my mind cannot enter within the deep ocean of pastimes of the Lord.

You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead Krsna Himself. You know the purpose

of Your activities, and the person whom you enlighten can also understand your

pastimes." (CC. 2.9)

 

The Lord said, "Krsna has a specific characteristic; He attracts everyone's

heart by the mellow of His personal conjugal love. By following in the

footsteps of the inhabitants of the planet known as Vrajaloka, or Goloka

Vrndavana, one can attain the shelter of the lotus feet of Sri Krsna.

 

However, these Vrajavasi's do not know that Lord Krsna is the Supreme

Personality of Godhead. Rather, they know Krsna as the son of the king of

Vrajabhumi, and consider that there cannot be any relationship with the Lord in

the rasa of opulence.

 

So, this much for now. Maybe I continue other points in other letter.

 

ARd

 

 

 

 

Shopping

Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Shopping

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

achintya, avadhuta raya <avadhutaraya>

wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna.

>

> Pranams

>

> Ok, here are few small comments; if you so much desired it you

have it. But you should really recommend to those Vaisnavas to

study the Brahma samhita properly.

 

The Brahma Samhita is not accepted by other sampradayas as an

authoritative text. Since Gaudiyas accept Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

as God, they have faith in the Brahma Samhita. But those outside the

Gaudiya tradition do not consider it to be an authentic pramana.

 

> Q - What we object to is their very approach to bring gradation

> among various forms of the Lord. Krishna has made it

> quite clear in Gita that He is the Supreme One. That, by

> no means, indicates that His other forms are inferior.

>

> A - So, we have to reject the HIGHEST AUTHORITY, the DIRECT

MEANING of Krishna's words in the Bhagavad-gita matta-parataram

nanyat. "there is no HIGHER truth than ME". He is here referring to

his Krishna rupa two handed form. So, there are certainly

gradations.

 

I am sorry, but I don't see why you think they are rejecting the

direct meaning of Krishna's words. Yes, they agree that there is no

higher truth than Krishna. But the million dollar question is - why

should this mean that Krishna's own other forms are inferior to Him?

Why should one form of Krishna be pitted against another form? The

only valid comparison of Krishna seems to be with other chetanas

(jivas). When He says there is nothing higher than Him, it means He

is the Supreme Lord. All other living entities are subordinate. It

does not mean that the Supreme Lord's own other forms are inferior

to His Krishna form.

 

If you still think it does, then what about statements like "ekam

eva advitIyam brahma" from Upanishads which say that Brahman is one

with no equal. Would you interpret this to mean that Brahman is

highest, and so other forms of Brahman are inferior to Brahman

(whatever that means)? Why make this distinction between Krishna,

Narayana, Brahman, etc, which all refer to the same Supreme Lord?

 

What do you think is the direct meaning of "tat tvam asi" and "aham

brahmAsmi"? Can't the Mayavadis accuse you of not following the

direct meanings of these phrases?

 

What is direct meaning for you may not be direct meaning for someone

else. Who decides what is the direct meaning? Many Sanskrit words

have multiple meanings, and different commentators have often chosen

different meanings for the same word.

 

> The Lord said, "Krsna has a specific characteristic; He

attracts everyone's heart by the mellow of His personal conjugal

love. By following in the footsteps of the inhabitants of the

planet known as Vrajaloka, or Goloka Vrndavana, one can attain the

shelter of the lotus feet of Sri Krsna.

>

> However, these Vrajavasi's do not know that Lord Krsna is the

Supreme Personality of Godhead. Rather, they know Krsna as the son

of the king of Vrajabhumi, and consider that there cannot be any

relationship with the Lord in the rasa of opulence.

 

This seems to be incorrect. Even the gopis knew that Krishna was

identical to Rama (who killed Vali and disfigured Shurpanakha) and

Vamana who bound Bali Maharaja (see SB 10.47.17). Even Uddhava's

message to the gopis from Krishna (see SB 10.47.28-33) carries

knowledge of His supremacy, of His being the antaryAmI of all.

 

The same holds for others like Nanda Maharaja and Yashoda (see SB

10.46.30, 10.46.42-43).

 

Regards,

Anant