sarva dharmaan parityajya maamekam sharanam vrajaa....

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/17/01 4:48:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

krishna writes:

 

>

> Both Sri Vaishnavas and Tattvavadis have made it clear that they disagree

> with our Gaudiya Vaishnava understanding of BG 18.64: "Just give up all

> dharmas and surrender unto me," etc. Basically, they try to argue that

> Krishna would not have spoken of all these other dharmas (like varnaashrama

> dharma) if He ultimately intended for the devotee to give them up. Gerald,

I

> think you have also been very sympathetic to their position.

 

Haribol

 

Welcome back from india.

 

Nancy Nayar has an article in the upcoming JVS on 18.66 in the Ramanuja,

Madhva, and SP understandings. I am sympathetic in the sense that I agree

that their interpretation is one correct one as is ours and that the two are

compatible, as is a third one by VCT to go to Vraja-dhama

(ragatmika-bhakti).

 

As an aside, according to BNK Sharma's Vedanta book, an aparoksa-jnani is

getting liberated regardless of what good or bad acts he performs. So

Maadhvas also acknowledge such an advanced stage in which vad doesn't change

the fact that their getting liberated.

 

>

> I have tried to argue that the dharmas being referred to (like varnaashrama

> dharma) involve the regulated indulgence in sense gratification, and are

> thus intended for people at particular stage of advancement in spiritual

> life - admittedly most of us. It is therefore sensible that one who is more

> advanced might give them up. Srila Prabhupada also comments that one should

> give up religious endeavours that do not advance one's

> Krishna-consciousness.

 

Ok. So what is that particular stage whereby one can abandon vad?

 

All 20,000 sons were

> brahmachaaris before they got liberation, and they had not succeeded in

> carrying out their father's order.

 

> obviously meant to realize from context that Daksha is only half correct.

> Naarada had actually raised the sons to the proper status of renunciation

in

> full knowledge - j~naana-vairagya,

 

ok, so what were the sons daily routines once they left? i suppose it was

brahmacari asrama duty. Thus even they probably did not give up vad activity,

just that its not their mode of advancement anymore. They just do it as an

expression of their devotional service. Similarly, the (jivan-)Mukta-Sudra

and Mukta-brahmana are getting liberated whether they do their varna duty or

not. The dvaita aparoksajnani stage and our jivanmukta stage overlap in some

sense.

 

GS

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

Both Sri Vaishnavas and Tattvavadis have made it clear that they disagree

with our Gaudiya Vaishnava understanding of BG 18.64: "Just give up all

dharmas and surrender unto me," etc. Basically, they try to argue that

Krishna would not have spoken of all these other dharmas (like varnaashrama

dharma) if He ultimately intended for the devotee to give them up. Gerald, I

think you have also been very sympathetic to their position.

 

I have tried to argue that the dharmas being referred to (like varnaashrama

dharma) involve the regulated indulgence in sense gratification, and are

thus intended for people at particular stage of advancement in spiritual

life - admittedly most of us. It is therefore sensible that one who is more

advanced might give them up. Srila Prabhupada also comments that one should

give up religious endeavours that do not advance one's

Krishna-consciousness.

 

Today I was reading Bhaagavatam 6th Canto, and I found solid support for

Srila Prabhupada's understanding. I refer to the chapter "Naarada Muni

cursed by Prajaapati Daksha." Basically, Daksha Prajaapati begot 10,000

sons, the Haryasvas, and another 10,000 sons, the Salyaashvas for the

purpose of begetting progeny and thus populating the earth. Daksha clearly

had the support of the Lord for this endeavour, because in the previous

chapter he had performed great austerities, the fruit of which was that he

saw Naaraayana face to face and was given by Him a wife by which to beget

sons. So we can honestly say here that Daksha's activity was dovetailed in

Krishna-consciousness, as any grihastha should be.

 

Nevertheless, Naarada saw the austerities the Haryashvas were performing and

delivered them. The Bhaagavatam states that they abandoned the attempt to

beget progeny and went to the path "from which there is no return," i.e. -

pure devotional service. Daksha lamented at this, and begot another 10,000

sons - the Salyaashvas. But when they were also sent for performing

austerities, Naarada delivered them as well. All 20,000 sons were

brahmachaaris before they got liberation, and they had not succeeded in

carrying out their father's order.

 

Daksha became angry with Naarada over this. He accused Naarada of raising a

false sense of renunciation within his sons. He claimed that one had to

suffer from material life in order to eventually become free of it. We are

obviously meant to realize from context that Daksha is only half correct.

Naarada had actually raised the sons to the proper status of renunciation in

full knowledge - j~naana-vairagya, without which no attempt to surrender

will succeed. And there is no reason why one should go through the four

stages of life, even in regulated Krishna-conscious activities if one has

already got the jnaana-vairagya. So the sons of Daksha who surrendered to

the Lord were actually right in doing so, and when Srila Prabhupada comments

that one should ultimately surrender to the Lord, giving up all dharmas that

serve as an obstacle to this, he is absolutely correct. It's in the

Bhaagavatam, and our Sri Vaishnava/Tattvavadi friends cannot realistically

expect us to just ignore the history.

 

- K

[Guest guest]

> Nancy Nayar has an article in the upcoming JVS on 18.66 in the Ramanuja,

> Madhva, and SP understandings. I am sympathetic in the sense that I agree

> that their interpretation is one correct one as is ours and that the two

are

> compatible, as is a third one by VCT to go to Vraja-dhama

> (ragatmika-bhakti).

 

However, neither the Sri Vaishnavas nor the Tattvavadis are as generous

towards Prabhupada as you are to them. They have both made it clear that

they consider Srila Prabhupada's understanding to be incorrect. And frankly,

if that is going to be the nature of the challenge, then I am not going to

settle for proving that Prabhupada's commentary is merely one among many

correct ones.

 

If achintya bedha abedha tattva is the last word on Vedaanta, then I have to

believe that our understanding of any given verse is equal to or superior to

those given by previous sampradaayas. I don't try to start fights over

issues like these, but since our opponents did start it, it's up to us to

finish it.

 

> As an aside, according to BNK Sharma's Vedanta book, an aparoksa-jnani is

 

What is an aparoksa-jnani?

 

> getting liberated regardless of what good or bad acts he performs. So

 

pramaana?

 

> > I have tried to argue that the dharmas being referred to (like

varnaashrama

> > dharma) involve the regulated indulgence in sense gratification, and

are

> > thus intended for people at particular stage of advancement in

spiritual

> > life - admittedly most of us. It is therefore sensible that one who is

more

> > advanced might give them up. Srila Prabhupada also comments that one

should

> > give up religious endeavours that do not advance one's

> > Krishna-consciousness.

>

> Ok. So what is that particular stage whereby one can abandon vad?

 

I believe I already gave a salient example in the Bhaagavatam (6th Canto)

itself. The sons of Daksha Prajaapati got jnaana-vairagya and surrendered to

the Lord. This was in spite of their father's clear instruction that they

beget children.

 

Another example is found in Bhaagavatam, 4th Canto, in the chapter "Satii

Quits Her Body." Answering her father's criticism of Lord Shiva's

(apparently) unclean appearance and habits, she says:

 

na vedavaadaananuvartate matiH sva eva loke ramato mahaamuneH |

yathaa gatirdevamanuShyayoH pR^ithak sva eva dharme na para.m kShipetsthitaH

|| bhaa 4.4.19 ||

 

na - not; veda-vaadaan - rules and regulation of the Vedas; anuvartate -

follow; matiH - the mind; sve - in his own; eva - certainly; loke - in the

self; ramataH - enjoying; mahaa-muneH - of elevated transcendentalists;

yathaa - as; gatiH - the way; deva-manuShyayoH - of the men and the

demigods; pR^ithak - separately; sve - in your own; eva - alone; dharme -

occupational duty; na - not; param - another; kShipet - should criticize;

sthitaH - being situated.

 

It is better to execute one's own occupational duty than to criticize

others'. Elevated transcendentalists may sometimes forego the rules and

regulations of the Vedas, since they do not need to follow them, just as the

demigods travel in space whereas ordinary men travel on the surface of the

earth (bhaagavata puraaNa 4.4.19).

 

Note that although Satii is speaking in the context of Lord Shiva, she is

also speaking in the plural sense, indicating that this is a general

principle. Such people are "mahaa-munis." And those who are at that stage

can certainly forego varnaashrama dharma which is also "veda-vaadaan." Note

that I am not saying that such people can behave in a grossly sinful manner,

since being at this stage of advancement presupposes that one is not

attached to the body and its so-called material pleasures.

 

> All 20,000 sons were

> > brahmachaaris before they got liberation, and they had not succeeded in

> > carrying out their father's order.

>

> > obviously meant to realize from context that Daksha is only half

correct.

> > Naarada had actually raised the sons to the proper status of

renunciation

> in

> > full knowledge - j~naana-vairagya,

>

> ok, so what were the sons daily routines once they left? i suppose it was

 

^^^^^^^

> brahmacari asrama duty. Thus even they probably did not give up vad

activity,

 

^^^^^^^

You are missing the point. The point is that they *did* give up varnaashrama

dharma. Their dharma was to beget progeny for Daksha, who in turn was doing

this as a service to the Lord. The Bhaagavatam makes it very clear that they

ended up *not* doing this. That is why Daksha lamented -- twice. You can't

say you are following varnaashrama dharma if you are whimsically skipping

one stage of life in favor of another. There is no evidence to suppose that

they later engaged in "brahmachaari ashrama" duty. Brahmachaari ashrama, as

well as all of the other ashramas, is only meaningful in the context of the

conditioned living entity dovetailing sense gratification in the service of

the Lord. Brahmachaari ashrama is for spiritual education in preparation for

grihastha aashrama. Grihastha aashrama is for supporting society and

begetting Krishna-conscious children. The sons of Daksha were obviously

beyondall of that. The Bhaagavatam 6.5.21 says that the Haryashvas attained

"panthaanam anivartanam" (the path by which one does not return to the

material world). The Bhaagavatam 6.5.33 makes it clear that the Savalaashvas

attained the same path, which is parasyaanupatha.m (the pathway of the

Supreme Lord).

 

It's also important to note that the Haryashvas and Savalaashvas did not

surrender on their own. It was Naarada Muni, both times, who delivered them.

This is important from two points. First, it shows that one obviously needs

the mercy of a pure devotee to be released from the cycle of birth and

death. Secondly, it sets a proper example in that a pure devotee spiritual

master gave the permission to the saadakas to abandon the duties of their

ashrama.

 

> just that its not their mode of advancement anymore. They just do it as an

> expression of their devotional service. Similarly, the (jivan-)Mukta-Sudra

> and Mukta-brahmana are getting liberated whether they do their varna duty

or

> not. The dvaita aparoksajnani stage and our jivanmukta stage overlap in

some

> sense.

>

> GS

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/18/01 12:23:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,

krishna writes:

 

>

> However, neither the Sri Vaishnavas nor the Tattvavadis are as generous

> towards Prabhupada as you are to them. They have both made it clear that

> they consider Srila Prabhupada's understanding to be incorrect. And

frankly,

> if that is going to be the nature of the challenge, then I am not going to

> settle for proving that Prabhupada's commentary is merely one among many

> correct ones.

 

Well thats what we do with BG 1.10. Bhaktivinoda Thakur has it both ways even

though they would insist only one is right. "As It Is" means "in Vaishnava

parampara" so SP's is just one among many correct ones. Still I see your

point, we should be able to show that 18.66 can be naturally interpreted in

a way to give up dharma.

 

>

> If achintya bedha abedha tattva is the last word on Vedaanta, then I have

to

> believe that our understanding of any given verse is equal to or superior

to

> those given by previous sampradaayas. I don't try to start fights over

> issues like these, but since our opponents did start it, it's up to us to

> finish it.

 

Yes, somehow we should identify that stage of advancement when vad is of

negligible significance and show that 18.66 or its context is indicating that

stage.

 

 

>

> > As an aside, according to BNK Sharma's Vedanta book, an aparoksa-jnani is

>

> What is an aparoksa-jnani?

 

One feature of an aparoksha jnani is that he has stopped creating karma. He

is burning off residual karma. It may be many lives before he burns it all

off. The very last one is what most likely corresponds with our jivan-mukta

stage in which one finally gets liberation.

 

 

>

> > getting liberated regardless of what good or bad acts he performs. So

>

> pramaana?

 

Will have to get back to you on that.

 

>

> > Ok. So what is that particular stage whereby one can abandon vad?

 

> And those who are at that stage

> can certainly forego varnaashrama dharma which is also "veda-vaadaan."

 

Ok. But in a general sense, what is that particular stage? Is it in asakta,

bhava, prema? Where is evidence that Arjuna or those persons in the SB

examples were on that stage?

 

GS

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 Mrgerald wrote:

> As an aside, according to BNK Sharma's Vedanta book, an aparoksa-jnani is

> getting liberated regardless of what good or bad acts he performs.

There's really no question of an aparokshajnani "getting"

liberated. An aparoksha-jnani *is* liberated, and isn't inclined to sin.

 

 

 

> Ok. So what is that particular stage whereby one can abandon vad?

I think Krishna indicates this in his 11th canto VAD conversations

with Uddhava. Another smrti reference is Madhavendra Puri's opinion:

 

"O my prayers three times a day, all glory to you. O bathing, I

offer my obeisances unto you. O demigods! O forefathers! Please excuse me

for my inability to offer you my respects. Now wherever I sit, I can

remember the great descendant of the Yadu dynasty [Krsna], the enemy of

Kamsa, and thereby I can free myself from all sinful bondage. I think this

is sufficient for me."

 

Of course, Shrisha Rao didn't appreciate this sentiment one bit,

when I quoted it to him in very much the same context. What he's possibly

unaware of is that this verse occurs in more than a few South Indian

anthologies as well, cited anonymously or attributed to someone else.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/01 12:00:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mpt writes:

 

>

>

> > "As It Is" means "in Vaishnava

> > parampara"

> Who said this?

>

 

There is an SP conversation in which he says it.

GS

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 Mrgerald wrote:

> Well thats what we do with BG 1.10. Bhaktivinoda Thakur has it both ways even

> though they would insist only one is right.

Acintyabedhabedha often obviates "either/or" questions.

 

 

 

> "As It Is" means "in Vaishnava

> parampara"

Who said this?

 

 

 

> Yes, somehow we should identify that stage of advancement when vad is of

> negligible significance and show that 18.66 or its context is indicating that

> stage.

This is the kind of thing our (Gosvami and later) books would do,

too. Unfortunately, I can't think of a reference offhand, and don't have time

top look into it. But I'm sure there's a reference somewhere.

 

 

 

> One feature of an aparoksha jnani is that he has stopped creating karma. He

> is burning off residual karma. It may be many lives before he burns it all

> off. The very last one is what most likely corresponds with our jivan-mukta

> stage in which one finally gets liberation.

Strictly speaking, "aparoksha-jnana" means "immediate awareness,"

in the philosophical sense of the first term. I suppose we can all have

an immediate intuition at times, but by usage the term seems reserved for

those who have attained such perpetual awareness.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/01 1:13:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,

krishna writes:

 

>

> That is hardly a reasonable comparison. BG 1.10 isn't even a

philosophically

> crucial verse.

 

The point is that the same verse can say apparently opposing things in our

Gaudiya tradition. The verses in 10th canto instructing the gopis to go home

can be construed as meaning to stay in the forest. VCT, i think, takes

"dharma" to mean any duty in Vaikuntha on down and urges us to get to Goloka.

This is not exactly SP's presentation.

 

 

>

> "As It Is" means "in Vaishnava

> > parampara"

>

> Where did you get this idea? No, "As It Is" means "as it is." As in, this

is

> what Lord Krishna was saying.

 

I can't give the SP reference. But I walked away from that passage

undestanding that "As It Is" doesn't neccessarily mean "only the

interpretation that SP presented".

 

 

>

> so SP's is just one among many correct ones. Still I see your

>

> No. All BG commentaries cannot be correct. ..The Maadhvas incorrectly

state that it means that

> the Lord is the source of Lakshmii-devi. That the Lord is the source of

> Lakshmii is certainly correct, but it is incorrect to attribute this

meaning

> to verse 14.27.

 

Why not? How is the Brahman=Laksmi understanding incorrect?

 

 

> I do not know. But my inability to classify the stage according to the

> nine-level classification of advancment in bhakti-yoga is hardly grounds

for

> dismissing the concept. That is what our aachaaryas are for, anyway.

 

The reason I got into this whole thing re: 18.66, is its potential for abuse

by feminists. So it would be good to be able to explain the level being

referred to.

 

 

>

> Where is evidence that Arjuna or those persons in the SB

> > examples were on that stage?

>

> Other than the fact that the Lord was directly addressing him? After Lord

> Krishna returned to his abode, the Bhaagavatam relates that the Paandavas

> gave up their kingdom and their wife, and retired to the wilderness to

> surrender to Krishna. I would say that the fact that they went back to

> Godhead is proof enough.

 

If the verse is to give us a truth that we can apply in all circumstances,

then we need to see what Arjuna's qualification is apart from those peculiar

facts.

 

GS

[Guest guest]

> Well thats what we do with BG 1.10. Bhaktivinoda Thakur has it both ways

even

> though they would insist only one is right.

 

That is hardly a reasonable comparison. BG 1.10 isn't even a philosophically

crucial verse.

 

"As It Is" means "in Vaishnava

> parampara"

 

Where did you get this idea? No, "As It Is" means "as it is." As in, this is

what Lord Krishna was saying.

 

so SP's is just one among many correct ones. Still I see your

 

No. All BG commentaries cannot be correct. Don't confuse a "correct idea"

with "the correct understanding of a given verse." One can comment on a

verse incorrectly and still say correct things about it. For example,

"brahmano hi pratiShThaaham" (BG 14.27) refers to the Lord being the source

of the Brahman effulgence. The Maadhvas incorrectly state that it means that

the Lord is the source of Lakshmii-devi. That the Lord is the source of

Lakshmii is certainly correct, but it is incorrect to attribute this meaning

to verse 14.27.

 

> point, we should be able to show that 18.66 can be naturally interpreted

in

> a way to give up dharma.

 

Basically, just take the Sanskrit verse as it is. "sarva dharmaan

parityajya..." How can it mean anything else?

 

> Ok. But in a general sense, what is that particular stage? Is it in

asakta,

> bhava, prema?

 

I do not know. But my inability to classify the stage according to the

nine-level classification of advancment in bhakti-yoga is hardly grounds for

dismissing the concept. That is what our aachaaryas are for, anyway.

 

Where is evidence that Arjuna or those persons in the SB

> examples were on that stage?

 

Other than the fact that the Lord was directly addressing him? After Lord

Krishna returned to his abode, the Bhaagavatam relates that the Paandavas

gave up their kingdom and their wife, and retired to the wilderness to

surrender to Krishna. I would say that the fact that they went back to

Godhead is proof enough.

 

-K

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, S. HariKrishna wrote:

> so SP's is just one among many correct ones.

>

> No. All BG commentaries cannot be correct.

I think we had a similar conversation about Pustimargi commentator

Giridharilal Gosvami. While all vaishnava notions which are substantiated

by guru/sadhu/sastra may be regarded as authoritative, it doesn't make

them all correct.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 Mrgerald wrote:

> In a message dated 3/19/01 12:00:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> mpt writes:

> >

> > > "As It Is" means "in Vaishnava

> > > parampara"

> > Who said this?

>

> There is an SP conversation in which he says it.

>

Syad etat, but I wouldn't make it into such a general conclusion

on that basis alone.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

> The point is that the same verse can say apparently opposing things in our

> Gaudiya tradition. The verses in 10th canto instructing the gopis to go

home

> can be construed as meaning to stay in the forest.

 

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I only recall reading about

that in the Krishna book, but if memory serves, the Lord had deliberately

given that instruction knowing very well that the gopikas would refute it.

It is like in Dwaaraka-liila when the Lord tells Rukmini that actually she

should have married some other king instead of Himself, as He was only a

cowherd boy. Rukmini responds by affirming the Lord's position as the ruler

of everyone.

 

Besides which, we can't assume that every verse is going to have multiple

correct meanings merely because other Vaishnavas give alternate meanings. In

the case of "sarva dharmaan parityajya..." the different understandings are

irreconciably in conflict with each other.

 

VCT, i think, takes

> "dharma" to mean any duty in Vaikuntha on down and urges us to get to

Goloka.

> This is not exactly SP's presentation.

 

Mukunda Datta and I were going over his commentary, and while we weren't

exactly using a fine-toothed comb, I don't recall VCT saying anything about

giving up Vaikuntha.

 

> > "As It Is" means "in Vaishnava

> > > parampara"

> >

> > Where did you get this idea? No, "As It Is" means "as it is." As in,

this

> is

> > what Lord Krishna was saying.

>

> I can't give the SP reference. But I walked away from that passage

> undestanding that "As It Is" doesn't neccessarily mean "only the

> interpretation that SP presented".

 

Obviously Srila Prabhupada incorporated arguments given by previous

aachaaryas. This is to be expected since some aspects of Mahaaprabhu's

achintya bedha abedha tattva are to be found in the other sampradaayas.

 

Realize also that when Srila Prabhupada says "Vaishnava," he very often

means "Gaudiya Vaishnava." I'm sure if you read his writings carefully, you

will easily come up with a half a dozen such cases.

 

> > No. All BG commentaries cannot be correct. ..The Maadhvas incorrectly

> state that it means that

> > the Lord is the source of Lakshmii-devi. That the Lord is the source of

> > Lakshmii is certainly correct, but it is incorrect to attribute this

> meaning

> > to verse 14.27.

>

> Why not? How is the Brahman=Laksmi understanding incorrect?

 

It is not that equating one with the other is incorrect, but rather that

this is not the intent of what Lord Krishna was saying here. There is no

evidence that the Lord had intended to refer to Lakshmi, neither in that

verse nor in the context. So that interpretation advanced by Maadhvas is

philosophically correct, but not the correct understanding of that verse.

 

> The reason I got into this whole thing re: 18.66, is its potential for

abuse

> by feminists. So it would be good to be able to explain the level being

> referred to.

 

Almost anything can be abused; we can't change the truth because of this. As

far as the feminists are concerned, you can quote those 6th canto verses

regarding the sons of Daksha Prajaapati getting jnaana-vairagya. Do these

feminists have jnaana-vairagya, thus justifying their abandoning the

grihastha aashrama? I don't think so. Can these feminists be described as

"mahaa-munis" as per Sati in 4th canto? Unlikely.

 

> > Other than the fact that the Lord was directly addressing him? After

Lord

> > Krishna returned to his abode, the Bhaagavatam relates that the

Paandavas

> > gave up their kingdom and their wife, and retired to the wilderness to

> > surrender to Krishna. I would say that the fact that they went back to

> > Godhead is proof enough.

>

> If the verse is to give us a truth that we can apply in all circumstances,

> then we need to see what Arjuna's qualification is apart from those

peculiar

> facts.

 

The verse cannot be applied in *all* circumstances, only in those at which

one is ready to surrender. He must have gotten the jnaana-vairagya by that

point. But maybe I misunderstood you.

 

- Krishna

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, S. HariKrishna wrote:

> > The reason I got into this whole thing re: 18.66, is its potential for

> abuse

> > by feminists. So it would be good to be able to explain the level being

> > referred to.

>

> Almost anything can be abused; we can't change the truth because of this. As

> far as the feminists are concerned, you can quote those 6th canto verses

> regarding the sons of Daksha Prajaapati getting jnaana-vairagya. Do these

> feminists have jnaana-vairagya, thus justifying their abandoning the

> grihastha aashrama? I don't think so. Can these feminists be described as

> "mahaa-munis" as per Sati in 4th canto? Unlikely.

 

Good points.

There's an older article written by Klaus Klostermaier (now serving

in ISKCON's Oxford Institute) in JVS ("Vaisnavism and Politics: the New Dharma

of

Braj?" 1.1, Fall 1992), in which he discusses the inroads which fairly radical

political and socio-religious organizations like the RSS and others have made

into orthodox Vaishnava circles, even in Vrindaban. I get the impression that

Dr. Klostermaier isn't entirely opposed to these groups (take a look at the BJP

and RSS websites), which seem to have a fair amount of support, even here in

the states. The quasi-militant characteristics shown by the GHQ folks might be

seen as an ISKCON analog.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/01 12:49:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

mpt writes:

 

> > so SP's is just one among many correct ones.

> >

> > No. All BG commentaries cannot be correct.

> I think we had a similar conversation about Pustimargi commentator

> Giridharilal Gosvami. While all vaishnava notions which are substantiated

> by guru/sadhu/sastra may be regarded as authoritative, it doesn't make

> them all correct.

 

 

The case of Giridhar Lal is different than this Laksmi-Brahman issue because,

he is is not offering a different yet consistent interpretation but an

inconsistent contradictory one (i.e. wrong).

 

GS

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/01 3:00:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

 

>

> > The point is that the same verse can say apparently opposing things in

> our

> > Gaudiya tradition. The verses in 10th canto instructing the gopis to go

> home

> > can be construed as meaning to stay in the forest.

>

> I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I only recall reading about

> that in the Krishna book, but if memory serves, the Lord had deliberately

> given that instruction knowing very well that the gopikas would refute it.

> It is like in Dwaaraka-liila when the Lord tells Rukmini that actually she

> should have married some other king instead of Himself, as He was only a

> cowherd boy. Rukmini responds by affirming the Lord's position as the ruler

> of everyone.

 

In the Dvaraka lila, the primary strightforward meaning of the verses is

Krishna's joking or sarcastic tone. However in the panca-adhyaya section, the

instruction to stay in the forest is a *different* interpretation of the

given verses also in a serious tone. Those are real instructions on a higher

level to the gopis in their spiritual forms. The obvious meaning to go home

is meant for their material forms. Similarly, I am suggesting that Gita

verses can also have different yet not inconsistent interpretations.

 

>

> Besides which, we can't assume that every verse is going to have multiple

> correct meanings merely because other Vaishnavas give alternate meanings.

In

> the case of "sarva dharmaan parityajya..." the different understandings are

> irreconciably in conflict with each other.

>

> VCT, i think, takes

> > "dharma" to mean any duty in Vaikuntha on down and urges us to get to

> Goloka.

> > This is not exactly SP's presentation.

>

> Mukunda Datta and I were going over his commentary, and while we weren't

> exactly using a fine-toothed comb, I don't recall VCT saying anything about

> giving up Vaikuntha.

 

Well "sarva dharma" and "mam ekam saranam vraja" are in opposition.

 

 

> > Why not? How is the Brahman=Laksmi understanding incorrect?

>

> It is not that equating one with the other is incorrect, but rather that

> this is not the intent of what Lord Krishna was saying here.

 

Speculation.

 

There is no

> evidence that the Lord had intended to refer to Lakshmi, neither in that

> verse nor in the context.

 

The Madhvas give the argument that Brahman used across all chapters means the

same thing: Laksmi who controls prakrti. And thats not so far-fetched. They

give references of how one of Laksmi's names is "avyakta". This also occurs

in a list in Laksmi tantra. So i dont see how the Lord did not intend this

interpretation.

 

> > The reason I got into this whole thing re: 18.66, is its potential for

> abuse

> > by feminists. So it would be good to be able to explain the level being

> > referred to.

>

> Almost anything can be abused; we can't change the truth because of this.

As

> far as the feminists are concerned, you can quote those 6th canto verses

> regarding the sons of Daksha Prajaapati getting jnaana-vairagya. Do these

> feminists have jnaana-vairagya, thus justifying their abandoning the

> grihastha aashrama? I don't think so. Can these feminists be described as

> "mahaa-munis" as per Sati in 4th canto? Unlikely.

 

True. But it would be nice to see the spiritual status of Arjuna from the

Gita itself (rather than from later in Mahabharata) when understanding how

18.66 applies to him.

 

GS

 

> >

> > If the verse is to give us a truth that we can apply in all

circumstances,

> > then we need to see what Arjuna's qualification is apart from those

> peculiar

> > facts.

>

> The verse cannot be applied in *all* circumstances, only in those at which

> one is ready to surrender. He must have gotten the jnaana-vairagya by that

> point. But maybe I misunderstood you.

[Guest guest]

> The case of Giridhar Lal is different than this Laksmi-Brahman issue

because,

> he is is not offering a different yet consistent interpretation but an

> inconsistent contradictory one (i.e. wrong).

 

How does an interpretation being consistent make it correct? I wouldn't

expect inconsistency from any of the great aachaaryas, but I don't expect

that all of their commentaries will be correct on every point.

 

- Krishna

[Guest guest]

> In the Dvaraka lila, the primary strightforward meaning of the verses is

> Krishna's joking or sarcastic tone. However in the panca-adhyaya section,

the

> instruction to stay in the forest is a *different* interpretation of the

> given verses also in a serious tone. Those are real instructions on a

higher

> level to the gopis in their spiritual forms. The obvious meaning to go

home

> is meant for their material forms.

 

I was not aware that the gopikas, who are expansions of hladini-shakti, had

material forms. Perhaps you can elaborate on this.

 

Similarly, I am suggesting that Gita

> verses can also have different yet not inconsistent interpretations.

 

The Tattvavaadi and Sri Vaishnava understanding of "sarva dharmaan...." is

not only different but contradictory to that given by Srila Prabhupada. Only

one or the other can logically be correct.

 

> > VCT, i think, takes

> > > "dharma" to mean any duty in Vaikuntha on down and urges us to get to

> > Goloka.

> > > This is not exactly SP's presentation.

> >

> > Mukunda Datta and I were going over his commentary, and while we

weren't

> > exactly using a fine-toothed comb, I don't recall VCT saying anything

about

> > giving up Vaikuntha.

>

> Well "sarva dharma" and "mam ekam saranam vraja" are in opposition.

 

I don't follow... are you defending the "giving up Vaikuntha" interpretation

or saying that the verse itself is internally inconsistent?

 

> > > Why not? How is the Brahman=Laksmi understanding incorrect?

> >

> > It is not that equating one with the other is incorrect, but rather

that

> > this is not the intent of what Lord Krishna was saying here.

>

> Speculation.

 

Is it now? Take out your Bhagavad-giitaa and take a look. In verse 14.21,

Arjuna asks Krishna about the nature of a person who has transcended the

three modes of material nature. Krishna answers in verses 14.22-25,

describing such a person who is equal to all material happiness and

distress, peaceful, not wanting for anything, and goes on to say that such a

person has given up all material endeavours -- sarvaarambhaparityaagii.

Then, to illustrate how a person gets to that level, he says in verse 14.26

that a person who engages in bhakti-yoga gets to the brahma-bhuuya stage, or

in otherwords the level of Brahman.

 

Then Krishna says in verse 14.27 that He is the source of Brahman.

 

Now I ask you, which is the obvious interpretation that comes to mind first

regarding the meaning of "Brahman" in these last few verses? Is Krishna

talking about an aspect of Himself, the attainment of which puts the devotee

above the three modes and in the position to render devotional service in

the liberated state? Or is He talking about the attainment of one of His

pure devotees?

 

The Harivamsha verses I provided equate the Lord's brahmajyoti to Brahman.

And Shriimad Bhaagavatam speaks of the threefold nomenclature of the Lord,

which includes Brahman. Are there similar proofs that Lakshmii can be called

as Brahman?

 

> There is no

> > evidence that the Lord had intended to refer to Lakshmi, neither in

that

> > verse nor in the context.

>

> The Madhvas give the argument that Brahman used across all chapters means

the

> same thing: Laksmi who controls prakrti. And thats not so far-fetched.

They

> give references of how one of Laksmi's names is "avyakta". This also

occurs

> in a list in Laksmi tantra. So i dont see how the Lord did not intend

this

> interpretation.

 

First of all, I doubt if the Maadhvas are going to 'fess up to using

Lakshmii-tantra as supporting evidence. Secondly, Brahman meaning Lakshmii

is an atypical usage at best. Practically all Vaishnava Vedaantists define

Brahman as Vishnu/Krishna. How can "Brahman" even be taken to mean Lakshmii?

 

> > far as the feminists are concerned, you can quote those 6th canto

verses

> > regarding the sons of Daksha Prajaapati getting jnaana-vairagya. Do

these

> > feminists have jnaana-vairagya, thus justifying their abandoning the

> > grihastha aashrama? I don't think so. Can these feminists be described

as

> > "mahaa-munis" as per Sati in 4th canto? Unlikely.

>

> True. But it would be nice to see the spiritual status of Arjuna from the

> Gita itself (rather than from later in Mahabharata) when understanding how

> 18.66 applies to him.

 

Well, the fact that he surrendered to Lord Krishna at the very beginning (BG

2.7) certainly speaks volumes: shiShyas te 'haM shaadhi maa.m tvaa.m

prapannam. How many initiated devotees (ISKCON or otherwise), even sincere

ones, really even live up to this level of spiritual attainment? Srila

Prabhupada writes in his commentary on one of these verses (maybe BG 2.5)

that Arjuna's willingness to do without the kingdom showed that he was quite

fit for liberation. So these verses certainly say much about Arjuna's

spiritual status. Enough at least, to prevent our nirapeksha friends in

ISKCON's Western hemisphere from misusing his example to justify giving up

their own dharmas.

 

- Krishna

[Guest guest]

In the recent JVS on Bhagavad-gita, Nancy Nayar didn't compare Madhva,

Ramanuja, and Srila Prabhupada's 18.66 as she originally wanted to do.

Instead Balaji Hebbar (madhva) compared Madhva and Ramanuja's explanation of

the verse concluding that Ramanuja's idea of a prapatti shortcut for all is

incorrect and is near-mayavadi.

 

 

In a message dated 4/4/01 9:18:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

 

>

> The more I think about it, the more I think I see where you are coming from

> with this. After all, Lakshmi is personified pleasure potency of the Lord,

> and thus in that sense nondifferent from Him. So why not Lakshmi as opposed

> to brahmajyoti? Is Lakshmi any more or less nondifferent from the Lord than

> the brahmajyoti?

 

Good question. According to this "Vaishnava philosophy according to Baladeva",

Baladeva's Siddhantaratna 1.41 discusses the concept of "visesa" in reference

to the Lord and His potency of Laksmi. Maadhvas, i dont think, would agree

with this apparently extended use of the term. I am sure that Brahman can be

viewed as a "visesa" of Bhagavan according to our philosophy (have to check

sandarbhas). So in our view, Brahman, Bhagavan, and Laksmi are all

ontologically the same entity.

 

 

>

> The crucial point, however, is that the Maadhva concept of Lakshmi is more

> different from the Lord than the scriptural concept of the brahmajyoti.

> Maadhvas may say that Lakshmi controls the prakriti (or maybe not, I really

> don't know), but they definitely do not say that she is nondifferent from

> Vishnu. They say rather that she is an eternally liberated jiiva.

 

BNK Sharma is clear that She is not a jiva, the term nityamukta refers to

both Laksmi and Vishnu according to a (Gaupavana) sruti citation by Madhva. I

remember Srisha and Manish argued about this, the former arguing that She is

more than a jiva. Still they all say She is less than Vishnu, and therefore

very different from brahmajyoti.

 

So that

> being the case, it makes little sense to suggest that the Brahman of verses

> 14.26 and 14.27 is just as likely to refer to Lakshmi. After all, in 14.26

> the Lord says that by engaging in bhakti-yoga to Him, one comes to Brahman.

 

Well according to the Madhvas, by practicing bhakti-yoga, one ascends the

arciradi path and one meets all the successive devatas on the taratamya

scale. At the top is Laksmi who, I suppose, leads one to the Lord. Meditation

on Her is essential.

 

BNK quote:

 

The TD (a dvaita vedanta commentary-GS) makes a point here that it follows

from this that the Sruti may be understood as comprehending Sritattva

(Laksmi-GS) under the paratattva (Vishnu-GS) itself: (Skt passage)....The

Sutra-kara (Vyasa-GS) has deliberately chosen this special context to remove

such a misconception (that Laksmi need not be worshipped-GS) by giving the

prominent position that belongs by right to Sri ...to drive home the point

that she must be meditated upon by all adhikarins in the closest and most

intimate association with the Supreme Being... .

 

So achieving meditation on Her is a natural result of devotional practice.

 

> This Brahman has to be something that is nondifferent from the Lord.

 

Yes, so in our view at least, Laksmi fits.

GS

 

What

> other Brahman is achieved by bhakti-yoga? Nothing else that is spoken of in

> scripture, I'm sure.

>

> regards,

>

> K

[Guest guest]

> There is no

> > evidence that the Lord had intended to refer to Lakshmi, neither in

that

> > verse nor in the context.

>

> The Madhvas give the argument that Brahman used across all chapters means

the

> same thing: Laksmi who controls prakrti. And thats not so far-fetched.

They

> give references of how one of Laksmi's names is "avyakta". This also

occurs

> in a list in Laksmi tantra. So i dont see how the Lord did not intend

this

> interpretation.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think I see where you are coming from

with this. After all, Lakshmi is personified pleasure potency of the Lord,

and thus in that sense nondifferent from Him. So why not Lakshmi as opposed

to brahmajyoti? Is Lakshmi any more or less nondifferent from the Lord than

the brahmajyoti?

 

The crucial point, however, is that the Maadhva concept of Lakshmi is more

different from the Lord than the scriptural concept of the brahmajyoti.

Maadhvas may say that Lakshmi controls the prakriti (or maybe not, I really

don't know), but they definitely do not say that she is nondifferent from

Vishnu. They say rather that she is an eternally liberated jiiva. So that

being the case, it makes little sense to suggest that the Brahman of verses

14.26 and 14.27 is just as likely to refer to Lakshmi. After all, in 14.26

the Lord says that by engaging in bhakti-yoga to Him, one comes to Brahman.

This Brahman has to be something that is nondifferent from the Lord. What

other Brahman is achieved by bhakti-yoga? Nothing else that is spoken of in

scripture, I'm sure.

 

regards,

 

K

[Guest guest]

> The Tattvavaadi and Sri Vaishnava understanding of "sarva

>dharmaan...." is not only different but contradictory to that

>given by Srila Prabhupada. Only one or the other can logically

>be correct.

 

Actually, I think it is very easily possible for both to be

simultaneously correct. To take a line from Mukunda Datta prabhu, it

is an inconceivable truth. :-)

 

The fact that the Lord speaks a single verse, that offers many

correct differing meanings to different audiences is not amazing at

all. According to the gradation (both material and spiritual), the

instruction will be manifested. Each verse of the Gita can be read

for a minimum of four meanings, corresponding to dharma, artha, kama,

and moksha. I have heard certain verses explained according to these

methods by sadhus, but unfortunately I do not know where one can find

a similar explanation of each and every verse. A couple verses which

I have heard these explanations for that I can immediately recall are

5.29 (bhoktaram...) and 18.47 (sreyan sva dharmo vigunah...). If one

takes the meaning corresponding to dharma, there is a lower, though

correct, instruction. If one takes the meaning corresponding to

moksha, there is a higher, and still correct, understanding.

 

The fact that there are multiple correct meanings, apparently

contradicting each other, is not such a big deal. This is what a lot

of scholars get stuck on. They can not harmonize the instructions of

different schools.

 

If there can be four meanings according to the purusharthas, there

may be many other meanings according to spiritual gradation (perhaps

rasa) as well. If a Gaudiya acharya can say "sharanam vraja" refers

to going to take shelter of Vrindavana, then I see nothing wrong with

other acharyas understanding certain verses according to their

siddhanta.

 

This may be one of the meanings when Krishna says "ye yatha mam

prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham".

[Guest guest]

> The fact that there are multiple correct meanings, apparently

> contradicting each other, is not such a big deal. This is what a lot

> of scholars get stuck on. They can not harmonize the instructions of

> different schools.

 

Hare Krishna. Let me just clarify my point of view on this. I am not one to

suggest that every single mantra and every single shloka in the Vedas and

Puraanas has exactly one and only one meaning. Obviously, there are examples

where more than one meaning is possible, some being more correct or perhaps

"deeper" than others. An obvious example of this is "kR^iShNa varnam

tviShaakR^iShNa.m..." from the Bhaagavatam 11th Canto. Other sampradaayas

interpret this as meaning that in Kali-yuga, Vaishnavas worship Lord Krishna

(who is of the luster of Krishna, or blackish) with samkiirtana, which is

equal to so many sacrifices. Even Srila Prabhupada quotes this verse in this

sense. But the deeper meaning, which Srila Prabhupada also uses, is that in

Kali Yuga, people worship Lord Chaitanya (who is krishna-varnam because of

His always chanting the name of Krishna and tvishaakrishnam because He does

not have the luster of Krishna) by the process of samkiirtana. Both are

logically correct and scripturally correct interpretations. And neither

interpretation contradicts the other.

 

On the other hand, this is a far cry from suggesting that all of the

interpretations offered by each bona fide sampradaaya on every given mantra

and/or shloka is correct. Sometimes different meanings contradict each

other. Sometimes the context clearly supports one interpretation over

another. In such circumstances, it is hardly convincing to suggest that both

interpretations are equally correct. There are numerous examples one can

give in this regard:

 

1) OBL Kapoor in his _Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya_ points out

that Madhva regards the gopikas as "apsaraa striiH" -- incarnations of

various heavenly damsels who worshipped the Lord with the object of

satisfying their lust. I'm guessing that this comment is in his

Bhaagavata-tatparya-nirNaya, but I'm not certain. In any case, this

viewpoint is clearly rejected by our aachaaryas, who regard the gopikas as

the topmost devotees of Lord Krishna. Perhaps there *might* be some gopikas

who worshipped the Lord in that way (and I don't know, because I don't know

what shaastric pramaana there is to suggest that), but the principal gopikas

are most certainly not even jiivas.

 

2) Sri Vaishnavas do not accept the viewpoint of Maadhvas and Gaudiiyas

which says that the Lord is nondifferent from His name, form, qualities, and

pastimes. I was very surprised to find this out. While SV's do say that the

Lord has eternal spiritual form, qualities, etc, they nevertheless say that

the Lord is ultimately different from these, and that His taking a form is

only to please His devotees. They even go so far as to say that realization

of this formless feature is a higher realization! Needless to say, this is

simply not an acceptable viewpoint:

 

manasaivedamaaptavya.m neha naanaasti ki.mchana |

mR^ityo sa mR^ityu.m gachchhati ya iha naaneva pashyati || KU 2.4.11 ||

 

Even through the purified mind this knowledge is to be obtained, that there

is no difference whatsoever here (in the attributes of the Lord). From death

to death he goes, who beholds this here with difference (kaTha upaniShad

2.4.11).

 

yathodaka.m durge vR^iShTa.m parvateShu vidhaavati |

eva.m dharmaanpR^ithak pashya.mstaanevaanuvidhaavati || KU 2.4.14 ||

 

As water falling on an inaccessible mountain top runs down, thus seeing the

qualities of the Lord as separate from the Lord a man runs down to Darkness

(kaTha upaniShad 2.4.14).

 

and

 

nirdoShapuurNaguNavigraha

aatmatantronishchetanaatmakasshariiraguNaishchahiinaH |

aanandamaatrakarapaadamukhodaraadiH sarvatra cha svagatabhedavivarjitaatmaa

|| naarada pancharaatra ||

 

The Lord is an entity having perfect and faultless qualities. He is the

Aatman or the Self and free from all the attributes of the body consisting

of insentient matter. He too has a body - hands, feet, face, stomach, etc.,

but all of pure bliss (not of matter). That Aatman is everywhere and always

devoid of internal differences also (naarada pancharaatra, quoted in govinda

bhaaShya 3.2.31).

 

I don't doubt that the SV's have their interpretations of the above verses,

but the point is that only one or the other viewpoint can be correct. Either

the Lord has internal differences or He does not. Both cannot be acceptable.

 

3) Maadhvas do not accept Krishna as "svayam bhagavaan." They interpret SB

1.3.28 as meaning that Vishnu is different from the Manus, Demigods, etc,

rather than meaning that Krishna is the original person and the other

Vishnu-tattvas are His amshas. If I'm not mistaken, they consider Vishnu to

be what we would call "svayam bhagavaan" and Krishna to be an expansion of

Vishnu. Obviously, only one or the other of these views can be correct.

Sure, we can say that Krishna comes from Vishnu in the sense that Krishna

takes avataara in the material world through His Kshiirodaakashaayi Vishnu

expansion; but the point here is that this is no reconciliation since

Maadhvas do not accept that this K-Vishnu is Himself an expansion of another

form.

 

This list of irreconciable differences goes on and on.

 

We don't fault other aachaaryas for giving different commentaries on the

scriptures. We know from Navadviipa-Mahaatmya and Bhavishya Puraana that

Lord Chaitanya instructed those aachaaryas in His avyakta-liila to reveal a

certain amount of the truth at various times and places. This is why we can

respect, even worship, those aachaaryas and their followers in spite of our

philosphical differences.

 

yours,

 

Krishna Susarla

 

p.s. Are you by any chance Jahnava-Nitai das, disciple of Jayapataka Swami?

I don't believe I've seen your introduction on the list yet. If it is indeed

you, welcome to our list! It's been a long time since we have last

associated with each other over e-mail. You might not remember me; I used to

be in Houston and I am a friend of Vijay Pai.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/17/01 8:39:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

 

> Perhaps there *might* be some gopikas

> who worshipped the Lord in that way (and I don't know, because I don't know

> what shaastric pramaana there is to suggest that), but the principal

gopikas

> are most certainly not even jiivas.

 

 

There is a whole hierarchy of gopis discussed in Ujjvalanilamani, so I would

guess, that our viewpoint could be clarified there.

 

GS

[Guest guest]

> p.s. Are you by any chance Jahnava-Nitai das, disciple of Jayapataka

>Swami? I don't believe I've seen your introduction on the list yet. If it

>is indeed you, welcome to our list! It's been a long time since we have

>last associated with each other over e-mail. You might not remember me;

>I used to be in Houston and I am a friend of Vijay Pai.

 

I'm the same one, and of course I remember the "gang of 'fro", or was it

"gang of four"? :-) It has been many years. I am in Mysore now. I have a

small preaching center here.

 

 

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 4/17/01 8:39:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> krishna writes:

>

> > Perhaps there *might* be some gopikas

> > who worshipped the Lord in that way (and I don't know, because I

don't know

> > what shaastric pramaana there is to suggest that), but the

principal

>> gopikas are most certainly not even jiivas.

>

>

> There is a whole hierarchy of gopis discussed in Ujjvalanilamani, so I

would

> guess, that our viewpoint could be clarified there.

>

 

Another point to consider is that in practically every descent the

Lord's associates go through a series of births before manifesting their

original identity. This was the case for the Pandavas, for Narada, for

Bhakta Prahlada, and at least for some of the Gopis. Sometimes they

manifest the symptoms of a conditioned soul, sometimes they actually

allow themselves to be conditioned to partake in the Lord's lila of

delivering them through bhakti. Thus it becomes impossible to

definitively state that two conceptions of the gopis are necessarily

contradictory.

 

I would suggest that many logical contradictions can be harmonized

simultaneously. Generally, it is not just a case of A or B, but A & B.

Even in differing conceptions in philosophy (which appear to contradict

each other), the philosophical points are not as impossible to reconcile

as it appears at first glance. Some would even go as far as to say Sri

Chaitanya's appearance was to harmonize the apparent differing

conceptions of the sampradayas.

 

Of course each point would need to be dealt with individually, and the

proper interpretation of the acharya's statements must be taken into

consideration. My personal opinion is that there is a great divergence

between the teachings of Madhva and Ramanuja, and what his followers say

he taught. But that's just a personal opinion.

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

achintya, "J.N. Das" <jndas> wrote:

> >

> > There is a whole hierarchy of gopis discussed in Ujjvalanilamani,

so I

> would

> > guess, that our viewpoint could be clarified there.

 

A clarificiation -- is Ujjvalanilamani the composition of Rupa

Gosvami? I don't remember off hand.

 

> Another point to consider is that in practically every descent the

> Lord's associates go through a series of births before manifesting

their

> original identity. This was the case for the Pandavas, for Narada,

for

> Bhakta Prahlada, and at least for some of the Gopis. Sometimes they

 

If memory serves, it was also the case for Devakii and Vasudeva, who

were said to have been the parents of other avataaras of the Lord,

Vaamana being one of them if I am not mistaken (but correct me if I'm

wrong -- I'm not near my copy of the Bhaagavatam at the moment).

 

But as far as the gopikas are concerned, my impression was that there

were at least two classes of them. One class consists of jiivas who

are saadhana-siddhas. This class most likely includes the sages at

Dandakaranya forest who begged of Lord Raama the boon to become His

wives. This is from Padma Puraana, and Srila Prabhupada quotes it in

Nectar of Devotion. The other class consists of Raadha, Lalita, etc

who are all supposed to be expansions of Krishna's pleasure potency.

These are not jiivas, so I don't see why they would go through any

prior births before having to appear as gopikas in Vrindaavan. And no

matter what, they most certainly are not former apsaraas who came to

worship Lord Krishna with the object of satisfying their lust! Our

aachaaryas are very clear on this point, that the attraction of the

gopikas to Lord Krishna has not even a tinge of mundane desire.

 

> manifest the symptoms of a conditioned soul, sometimes they actually

> allow themselves to be conditioned to partake in the Lord's lila of

> delivering them through bhakti. Thus it becomes impossible to

> definitively state that two conceptions of the gopis are necessarily

> contradictory.

 

I would still argue that in regards to the "apsaraaH striiH" concept,

there is still a contradiction. Madhva's view on the motivations of

the gopikas is as different from Mahaaprabhu's view as night and day.

 

> I would suggest that many logical contradictions can be harmonized

> simultaneously. Generally, it is not just a case of A or B, but A &

B.

> Even in differing conceptions in philosophy (which appear to

contradict

> each other), the philosophical points are not as impossible to

reconcile

> as it appears at first glance. Some would even go as far as to say

Sri

> Chaitanya's appearance was to harmonize the apparent differing

> conceptions of the sampradayas.

 

Were it the case that the views of other sampradaayas were open-ended

(i.e. - allowing for different interpretations) and not closed to

potentially contradictory viewpoints, then I think we might have a

case. But in many instances, and I know Madhva is a perfect example,

a lot of trouble has been taken to refute all other contradictory

points of view. I don't see how it is possible to reconcile with

someone else's viewpoint when their viewpoint has included criticism

of other viewpoints. We should be careful about this.

 

I would also point out that while we might supposedly accept other

opinions as somehow correct, other Vedaantists are not going to be so

charitable towards us, in my experience. I would also argue that it

really is not our place to interpret (or reinterpret) the teachings

of other aachaaryas to suit us -- followers of those traditions are

likely to see us as outsiders with little qualification to dabble in

texts that they have more familiarity with. And one could argue that

we still have a lot to learn about achintya bedha abedha -- so who

are we to think that we have the inside scoop on Dvaita, or

Vishishtaadvaita, etc?

 

Also, the attempt to use "achintyatva" as a reconciliation between

disparate views is not likely to be very convincing. The "achintya"

in achintya bedha abedha really refers to the inconceivable,

simultaneous oneness and difference between the Lord and His

potencies. It's not the same thing as saying that all the different

Vedaanta schools are inconceivably one and different on matters of

philosophy. Were it otherwise, then one could argue that even Advaita

must be somehow inconceivably acceptable, in spite of the obvious

differences. In such a situation, we would be unable to really prove

anything, because we are unable to refute what is contradictory.

 

What that leaves us with, is the reponsibility to simply argue our

point on the merits of shaastra. Let others reinterpret their views

in light of ours, but we have to prove that ours are the most

correct.

 

> Of course each point would need to be dealt with individually, and

the

> proper interpretation of the acharya's statements must be taken into

> consideration. My personal opinion is that there is a great

divergence

> between the teachings of Madhva and Ramanuja, and what his

followers say

> he taught. But that's just a personal opinion.

 

It may be, but even within our sampradaaya there are numerous

devotees with "colorful" histories, to say the least. We would do

better to leave off from this line of argument, and stick to the

scriptures.

 

regards,

 

Krishna