PPV outline and thoughts

[Guest guest]

Haribol

 

Here is a basic outline of the paper with some thoughts.

Gerald S

 

Intro. On Gaudiya parampara

1A. Acintya bheda bheda is consistent with an idea of eternal distinctions

among souls, matter, and God.

1B. Visesa

2 see "on pramanas" which i previously posted

3.1 Gaudiya Vaisnavism, like Tattvavada, accepts the oneness of all forms of

the Lord. The differences are apparent and due only to visesa.

"Though it is admitted that the forms are identical in terms of `tattva'

(essence), they differ in `rasa' or more complete manifestation of the

capabilities. All

these concepts are not only totally against Tattvavada, but are

classified as major sins." (PPV) This has to be seen in the context of

visesa or it is certainly a major sin to see internal differences in God.

The identity of Krishna as the mula-roopa is not rejected by Madhva in his

Bhagavata-tatparya (summarize VDG's explanation).

3.1ii the iskcon position has been misunderstood

 

 

3.2 Amsa

The word "fragmental part" is a translation of the word amsa. Srila

Prabhupada's use of words has to be seen with consistently with his own

usage. He clearly rejects a literal meaning of the word "part" since God

cannot be taken apart into pieces, although he has translated in that way.

 

3.3A Gaudiya Vaishnavism accepts that the qualities of the soul are

eternally intrinsic

and that they experience bliss or bhakti according to that intrinsic

gradation. Thus a taratamya of the souls according to their mood and

intensity of bhakti is accepted. (Any Brahma-sutra interpretation of

gradation of liberated bliss is not neccessarily inconsistent with Gaudiya

thought, although Baladeva may not have given it specifically--look up

vR^iddhihrAsabhAktvamantarbhAvAt.h ubhayasAmaJNjasyAdevam.h'). The assertion

that ISKCON can't give liberation is based on an incorrect premise that it

doesn't recognize an intrinsic gradation of souls according to their bhakti.

It is true that we don't specifically reject their understanding of taratamya.

 

3.3B Srila Prabhupada's description of the "fall" is not a chronological

occurrence and is obviously misconstrued by Maadhvas.

 

3.4A 5th purusartha

The word mukti and jnana in Gaudiya discussion sometimes refers to impersonal

liberation and not personal liberation, which can cause confusion regarding

our position. (look up gitabhasya 2.28)

3.4B even hatred for God brings liberation (evidence?)

 

3.5A Four sampradayas. (To what extent do we accept that the four sampradayas

are valid?)

3.5B Sridhara Swami's views are accepted insofar as they are consistent with

Vaishanavism. (Tattvasandarbha)

 

4.1A "krishnavarna verse" and avatara in Kali-yuga

 

4.1B Madhva bio.

 

4.1C Vishnusahasranama.

It is innaccurate to say the names of VSN only refer to a single form in

Tattvavada. Sri Prabhanjanacharya, a prominent Dvaita scholar, notes in his

Kannada translation of Mahabharata tatparyanirnaya that they can be

understood to refer to 1000 distinct forms (He says this as a note to

Madhva's statement that there are 1000 forms beginning with "Visva"). Sri

Sugunendra Tirtha also confirmed this understanding (to me personally).

Therefore it is clear that according to Tattvavadis a single name in VSN can

refer to different forms. The only point of dispute is Lord Caitanya's

divinity, not the nature of individual names in VSN to refer to different

forms.

 

4.1D Regarding Lord Chaitanya's debate with the Tattvavadi, a dvaita scholar

Govindacharya admits that record keeping has been poor at Udupi, but admits

there is an oral legend of a Bengali saint visiting the area around that

time.

 

4.1E Karma, Jnana and Bhakthi in the scheme of the Sadhanas". (How has the

Tattvavadi misrepresented Madhva, or how is Madhva wrong)

 

4.1F 5th purusartha

 

4.2 There is no evidence that the the Brahmavaivarta quotes on Srimati

Radharani are bogus according to Madhva. The categorization of gopis as

apsaras is not a rejection of other categories of gopis. In fact, Radharani

is Niladevi, according to the Madhva scholar Govindacharya. (Would be nice

to quote specific references and to show that we accept that some gopis are

apsaras, does Ujwala nilamani say this?) Therefore Madhva's statement on the

apsara gopis is clearly not a rejection of other types of gopis. Furthermore,

there are Vedanta schools which accept these descriptions of Radharani like

Nimbarka.

 

4.3 The error has been made in Kusakrata's introduction to the translation

of the work and is not a Gaudiya or ISKCON assertion.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

> 3.3B Srila Prabhupada's description of the "fall" is not a

chronological

> occurrence and is obviously misconstrued by Maadhvas.

 

Here I think the main point is in regards to the anaadi karma suutra.

I would simply point out that Baladeva interprets it in the same way

that everyone else does, and leave it at that.

 

> 3.4A 5th purusartha

> The word mukti and jnana in Gaudiya discussion sometimes refers to

impersonal

> liberation and not personal liberation, which can cause confusion

regarding

> our position. (look up gitabhasya 2.28)

 

However, it should be pointed out that even personal liberation is

not desired by the bhakta so much as pure devotional service. This is

explicitly described in the first part of Nectar of Devotion.

Therein, Srila Prabhupada writes that the idea is that a devotee is

so busily engaged in devotional service that when offered svaruupa,

samipya, saayujya, etc he simply rejects them.

 

> 3.4B even hatred for God brings liberation (evidence?)

 

Multiple pieces of evidence exist in the Bhaagavatam for this.

 

> 3.5A Four sampradayas. (To what extent do we accept that the four

sampradayas

> are valid?)

 

You could point out here that our authenticity as a sampradaaya was

challenged on the basis of the four sampradaayas concept. Obviously,

it must have been a well known tradition in North India in the 17th

century. Otherwise, it makes little sense that the shloka would be

used against us.

 

> 4.1D Regarding Lord Chaitanya's debate with the Tattvavadi, a

dvaita scholar

> Govindacharya admits that record keeping has been poor at Udupi,

but admits

> there is an oral legend of a Bengali saint visiting the area around

that

> time.

 

It would be good if B. Govindacharya put something in writing to this

effect. At the very least, it would be nice if he gave permission for

us to quote him on this point. Or else he could refer us to other

sources on this subject.

 

 

yours,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

>>This has to be seen in the context of

>>visesa or it is certainly a major sin to see internal differences in

>>God.

 

>How is it sinful or discriminating against Bhagavan if while one

>recognizes that He manifests all of His qualities or some of His

>qualities, one is still appreciative of all of His forms? That is the

>context in which the Gaudiya Vaisnava perceives the gradation of

>manifestation of His qualities in various forms.

 

Visesa is implicit in this recognition, therefore there is no sin in this.

 

>>1A. Acintya bheda bheda is consistent with an idea of eternal

>>distinctions among souls, matter, and God.

 

VDG>I am eager to learn about the above.

 

MDd and I discussed this (at HKS's wedding): achintya-bheda-abheda is usually

used to refer to relation of God to the souls--they are never identical.

However, it also refers to the relationship of matter to the souls and matter

to God. Implicitly it refers to the eternal distinctions among souls and

among material particles as well. All these entities God, souls, and matter

are "one" in the sense of being indistinguishable at the time of

annihilation. Then during the creation all the distinctions become a little

more obvious. Baladeva cites a Sruti text in Prameya ratnavali 3.4:

 

Atma vA idamityAdau vanalInavihan^gavat | sattvaM vishvasyamantavyamityuktaM

vedavedibhiH The text of the Sruti "Atman alone was in the beginning"--Ait

1.1 (does not mean that nothing else than Atman existed, but the souls and

prakrti also existed merged in pralaya) just as birds (vihan^ga) exist in a

forest (vana), when the dark night is over it (and we say there is nothing in

this forest but the forest alone). Therefore this world must be understood to

be a reality and not a falshood. For this is the opnion of those who know the

Vedas.

 

So Baladeva is identifying these birds as the various souls and material

particles--all of which are mutually distinct from each other and from the

forest (the Lord). Therefore the idea of achintya-bheda-abheda is compatible

with eternal mutual distinctions between the Lord and the souls and material

particles on point of fact, despite the disparate use of terminology.

 

VDG, what does the commentary to 3.4 say?

 

GS