Guest guest Posted January 24, 2002 Report Share Posted January 24, 2002 Hare Krishna. I have two doubts to ask. 1) There is a quotation given in the bookmark section starting as"Shrii Shataananda said:" ..can someone tell me which scripture is this from and is it available in the market or in fact any other scripture giving direct quote about Mahaprabhu and where such scripture can be bought/ found? I know a Sri Vaishnava who alleges all quotations about Lord Chaitanya are fictitious and none can be sighted.So I will be grateful if someone can help me sight it so that I can finish this problme once and for all.. He targets those who are coming new to ISKCON and preaches such things as " Lord Chaitanya is utmost a siantly person & No more", " There is no such thing as SPG, there is only one Lord Narayana and Krishna is not the supreme" and a lot more. I'm able to counter most of such allegations on the basis of Sandarbhas, Govinda Bhashya, Srimad Bhagavatham etc..but one crucial point is, he says there is not one quotation about Lord Chaitanya , that can be sighted, infact, he says there is no quotation at all in any Scripture about him. Hence I request the devotees to help me as it can save my time in searching for the scriptures.An early reply will be very much appreciated. 2) Can we say on the basis of the quote" Dehi-deha vibhedoyam nengate Isvare Kvacit" that the Srira-Sariri concept of Srivaishnavas cannot be applied to the Lord as his sarira is non-different from him ? Thanks R.Narasimhan Auctions Great stuff seeking new owners! Bid now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2002 Report Share Posted January 25, 2002 "It might be a good idea to question himabout this "dharma-glani" directly.As you know, the scriptural evidence supporting Lord Caitanya'sDivinity is not the least bit weak. Every Vaishnava sampradaya interpretsthe sruti, and smrti, according to the insights of its acaryas--and that'squite proper, since Krsna advises this Himself. The Gaudiya sampradaya isno different in this respect, though I can add that names like Rupa Gosvamiare highly respected even in the mundane sphere--among the educated. Ifyour friend cannot believe the scriptural teachings of bonafide acaryas,he certainly has that right; but again, the real question seems to be whatimpels him to come and challenge others with his doubts, at the Hare Krsnatemple." One clarification here. He doesn't come to the temple & preach. He preaches at his home. I suppose he got introduced to KC through ISKCON. Then he went back to his Sri Vaishnava roots & is now preaching such things. It is so that , beacuse of his erudition in Vedanta , a lot of guys visit him. But I have observed that, whoever visits him gets confused about the GV, unless their convictions are strong. He conducts special classes at his home discussing topics such as " Lakshmi's position", " who is Rdha Rani", " Is Krishna the Supreme personality of GodheadCan Chanting alone cannot deliver the Living entities" etc .To me it appears his motive is to "convert" Iskcon people to SV. Nothing wrong but then making blatant statements about Lord Chaitanya etc are really disturbing. But the core issue nevertheless is that, Lord Chaitanya's divinity cannot be proved on the basis of scriptures. Well we know of a number of verses in SB about the Lord. But then he calls them to be inetrpolations and no direct meanings.For ex: He says the verse" Krishna varnam..." refers to Sri Satagopa or Nammazhwar and not Lord Chaitanya. Accepted , because that is how their acharyas have translated it. But then is there no verse which directly points to Lord Chaitanya, to put an end to such allegations? For ex: Kalki Avatara is predicted by his father's name & place of appearance. I fully believe all the quotations about Mahaprabhu, but then when it comes to discussion with such people these are the replies: 1) Brahma Samhita is not a bonafide scripture at all as it is not listed anywhere in the Vedas as a samhita. 2)Lord Chaitanya is not Krishna or his incarnation. He is utmost a saint because there is no direct quotation which we can physically verify. Quotations from pricipal upanishads are our translations. Even Adi sankara has translated them but then there is no reference to Lord Chaitanya. Chaitanya Upanishad does not exist at all. All the other quotations are our own. Not in the sastras. 3) Krishna is not the supreme Personality of Godhead- This can easily be defeated on the basis of SB- Krsihna's Tu Bhagavan Svayam- so no problems on this. 4)Bhakthi is inferior to prapatti & bhakthi is very difficult- this too can be easily defeated on the basis of the Sandarbhas. 5)Krishna & his body are different-For this only I raised the quote"Dehi-deha vibhedoyam nengate Isvare Kvachit" This is from Kurma Purana as quoted by Srila Prabhupada for 9th chapter Last sloka purport & by Baladeva in His Govinda Bhasya- this too easily establishes the non-difference between Krishna & his body. These were only a few of the points raised against the GV sampradaya. The main problem is, I have found a lot of devotees have approached him for his erudition & then ended in utter confusion.Hence I thought this can be settled once & for all. Though I'm no match to his erudition, nyaya or vedantic knowledge, on the strength of the sastras all such allegations can easily be vanquished. Hnece my request- If anyone has actually seen themselves any quotation about mahaprabhu, please tell me which book, & where available & which verse/ page. It will be of immense use to me & probably strengthen the faith of a number of devotees. Yours R.NarasimhanI'm very Thankful for having such adiscussion group. There was a time when I did not know where to discuss specifically about the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya.All glories to Achintya Group!! Auctions Great stuff seeking new owners! Bid now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2002 Report Share Posted January 25, 2002 On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, ranganathan narasimhan wrote: > > Dear Prabhus, > > Hare Krishna. I have two doubts to ask. > > 1) There is a quotation given in the bookmark section starting > as"Shrii Shataananda said:" ..can someone tell me which scripture is > this from and is it available in the market or in fact any other > scripture giving direct quote about Mahaprabhu and where such > scripture can be bought/ found? I know a Sri Vaishnava who alleges all > quotations about Lord Chaitanya are fictitious and none can be > sighted.So I will be grateful if someone can help me sight it so that > I can finish this problme once and for all.. > > He targets those who are coming new to ISKCON > and preaches such things as " Lord Chaitanya is utmost a siantly > person & No more", " There is no such thing as SPG, there is only one > Lord Narayana and Krishna is not the supreme" and a lot more. I'm able > to counter most of such allegations on the basis of Sandarbhas, > Govinda Bhashya, Srimad Bhagavatham etc..but one crucial point is, he > says there is not one quotation about Lord Chaitanya , that can be > sighted, infact, he says there is no quotation at all in any Scripture > about him. > > Hence I request the devotees to help me as it can save my time > in searching for the scriptures.An early reply will be very much > appreciated. > Namaste. HH Swami Bhakti Vijnana Giri has written an excellent article "The Divinity of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu" with plenty of scriptural quotes to substantiate this claim. In case you haven't looked at it already, please visit: http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/index.html In addition, Shri Chaitanyopanishad can be found on: http://www.indiadivine.com/chaitanya-upanishad-y.htm Jnanesha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2002 Report Share Posted January 25, 2002 achintya, ranganathan narasimhan <simhan74> wrote: > 1) There is a quotation given in the bookmark section starting as"Shrii Shataananda said:" ..can someone tell me which scripture is this from and is it available in the market or in fact any other scripture giving direct quote about Mahaprabhu and where such scripture can be bought/ found? I know a Sri Vaishnava who alleges all quotations about Lord Chaitanya are fictitious and none can be sighted.So I will be grateful if someone can help me sight it so that I can finish this problme once and for all.. > The quotes you are referring to are from an excerpt of the Vaayu Puraana, found in a book entitled _Lord Caitanya's Incarnation Predicted in Scripture_ published by Kusakratha dasa. I apologize that I did not label those quotes. Vaayu Puraana is considered one of the 18 major puraanas by Sri Vaishnavas. This is just according to a book called _Vishishtaadvaita_ written by A.S. Raghavan. However, I am of the understanding that this particular excerpt (in which Mahaaprabhu's incarnation is predicted) is not to be found in any critical edition of the Puraana. Once, when I pointed this out on the previously existing Gaudiya- siddhanta list, H.H. Tripurari Swami told me that he met a Sri Vaishnava sannyasi who did allege that those particular quotes were bona fide and could be found in some manuscript of the Vaayu Puraana. However, he never told me who that Sri Vaishnava was, and what manuscript or recension you are referring to. So unless you want to contact him directly, that leaves us in square one. > He targets those who are coming new to ISKCON and preaches such things as " Lord Chaitanya is utmost a siantly person & No more", " There is no such thing as SPG, there is only one Lord Narayana and Krishna is not the supreme" and a lot more. > We also say that Krishna is one, and while we do say that Krishna is supreme, we do not say that Krishna is supreme amongst the Vishnu- tattvas, as this would be contradictory. Krishna is one, but He has many other forms - they are all identical to Him even though manifesting fewer qualities. Even in that respect, they do have the ability to manifest all the qualities if desired. Vishnu is NOT less than Krishna. > I'm able to counter most of such allegations on the basis of Sandarbhas, Govinda Bhashya, Srimad Bhagavatham etc..but one crucial point is, he says there is not one quotation about Lord Chaitanya , that can be sighted, infact, he says there is no quotation at all in any Scripture about him. > I think you mean "cited." You may already know of the references provided in the GV verse list in the book mark section. These are the most mainstream references I am aware of (and then some) substantiating Lord Chaitanya's divinity. My impression is that it would be much more difficult to prove this with more mainstream texts and extant recensions, especially if one is going to quibble about the sources. We could, all of us, make it a point to track down some of these scriptures when we go to India and obtain manuscripts. That might be a good way of demonstrating the validity of the sources. yours, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2002 Report Share Posted January 25, 2002 achintya, ranganathan narasimhan <simhan74> wrote: > your friend cannot believe the scriptural teachings of bonafide acaryas, > he certainly has that right; but again, the real question seems to be what > impels him to come and challenge others with his doubts, at the Hare Krsna > temple." He might just be trying to spread his own sampradaaya's teachings, which, if he is a purist, will necessarily require to him to refute all that is contradictory. In any case, if his motivation is something else, I doubt if he will admit to it, and it probably isn't going to do us much good to speculate on the same. When all is said and done, though, all Vaishnavas have to realize that they are on the same side, when they consider the kinds of "religions" and "philosophies" that flourish like weeds in Kali Yuga and which are contrary to the principles of devotional service. If your friend cannot acknowledge this, then he probably does not have much respect for our sampradaaya to begin with, and a scripturally-based discussion with him might not be very fruitful. On the other hand, if he is prepared to accept pramaanas objectively, or at least admit when he cannot answer a specific point, it might be useful to see where he is coming from. > One clarification here. He doesn't come to the temple & preach. He preaches at his home. I suppose he got introduced to KC through ISKCON. Then he went back to his Sri Vaishnava roots & is now preaching such things. It is so that , beacuse of his erudition in Vedanta , a lot of guys visit him. But I have observed that, whoever visits him gets confused about the GV, unless their convictions are strong. > A lot of Vaishnavas do that - get interested in their Vaishnavism through Srila Prabhupada, and then go back to their roots and preach their own tradition. There is nothing wrong with that, really. Some of them may even admit to the Gaudiiya/ISKCON inspiration. But the fact that some of them can be quite erudite requires us to meet them on the same level. We can't be sentimental and quote Srila Prabhupada's accomplishments as proof of his authority -- those things are not what are disputed anyway, if our opponents are bona fide Vaishnava gentlemen. And I see no reason why we can't become authorities if we simply familiarize ourself with Srila Prabhupada's translations - Bhaagavatam, CC, Bhagavad-Giitaa, Ishopanishad, etc. That, I think, is the best way to glorify Srila Prabhupada - by living according to his directions and preaching the way he did. > He conducts special classes at his home discussing topics such as " Lakshmi's position", " who is Rdha Rani", " Is Krishna the Supreme personality of GodheadCan Chanting alone cannot deliver the Living entities" etc .To me it appears his motive is to "convert" Iskcon people to SV. > Feel free to discuss his objections here. Better yet, invite your friend to join Achintya and we will discuss his doubts here. If he really believes in what he is preaching, then he should have no fears about subjecting them to polite scrutiny in a moderated forum such as this. > Nothing wrong but then making blatant statements about Lord Chaitanya etc are really disturbing. But the core issue nevertheless is that, Lord Chaitanya's divinity cannot be proved on the basis of scriptures. Well we know of a number of verses in SB about the Lord. But then he calls them to be inetrpolations and no direct meanings.For ex: He says the verse" Krishna varnam..." refers to Sri Satagopa or Nammazhwar and not Lord Chaitanya. Accepted , because that is how their acharyas have translated it. But then is there no > Wait a minute! How can he say that the verse does not refer to Lord Chaitanya, but then go on to say that it refers to Namaazhwar?! If the argument is that it does not refer to Mahaaprabhu because His name is not explicitly mentioned therein, then the same argument can be made against the Namaazhwar interpretation! I don't see "Satagopan" or "Nammazhwar" anywhere in the Sanskrit! This is the first time I have ever heard it said that Sri Vaishnavas even interpret it that way. If that is in fact the case, then the SV's are at least admitting that the verse predicts the appearance of some avataara in Kali Yuga. What specifically makes them think that the verse refers to Nammazhwar and not Chaitanya? They need to give a convincing argument. > verse which directly points to Lord Chaitanya, to put an end to such allegations? For ex: Kalki Avatara is predicted by his father's name & place of appearance. > As I mentioned previously, I'm not sure how to "convince" him, if he is going to call into question the sources that explicitly name Mahaaprabhu. But then again, where is the scriptural evidence that Raamaanuja is an incarnation of Aadi-Sesha? Where is the scriptural evidence that the Alvars are incarnations of the great devotees of Vishnu? Can the Sri Vaishnavas demonstrate these points using mainstream sources that everyone knows? > I fully believe all the quotations about Mahaprabhu, but then when it comes to discussion with such people these are the replies: > Even if you didn't, it wouldn't bother me. That's why we have this forum - to challenge, discuss, and hopefully learn. > 1) Brahma Samhita is not a bonafide scripture at all as it is not listed anywhere in the Vedas as a samhita. > To say that it is not listed anywhere in the Vedas implies familiarity with all of the Vedas. That would be difficult in this day and age, given that less 5% of the Vedas are extant today. If he wishes to question Brahma-Samhitaa's validity, then ask him to objectively demonstrate how Divya Prabandham, the so called "Tamil Veda" is a bona fide scripture. Not only that, but where in the Vedas does it say that the Pancharaatras are bona fide scriptures? Where in the Vedas does it say that Ahirbudhnya Samhitaa is a bona fide scripture? I don't personally dispute them, but I am well within my rights to do so, if he disputes the authority of Chaintaya Upanishad, Vaayu Puraana, and others. I'm sure your friend would agree that he shouldn't hold our sampradaaya's sources of evidence to higher standards than his own sampradaaya's. > 2)Lord Chaitanya is not Krishna or his incarnation. He is utmost a saint because there is no direct quotation which we can physically verify. Quotations from pricipal upanishads are our translations. Even Adi sankara has translated them but then there is no reference to Lord Chaitanya. Chaitanya Upanishad does not exist at all. All the other quotations are our own. Not in the sastras. > You can let anyone see if they can translate Chaitanya Upanishad, or Vaayu Puraana excerpt given in the verse list. They will come to the same conclusion, because those verses are quite explicit. If your friend is going to argue with us about the validity of Vaayu Puraana and Chaitanya Upanishad, then ask him again about the validity of Divya Prabandham or Ahirbudhnya Samhitaa. > 3) Krishna is not the supreme Personality of Godhead- This can easily be defeated on the basis of SB- Krsihna's Tu Bhagavan Svayam- so no problems on this. > Sri Vaishnavas use "chatri-nyaayam" to show that Krishna is not being described as svayam bhagavaan in the sense of Original Supreme Personality in SB 1.3.28, but rather as svayam bhagavaan like Naaraayana unlike the demigods. Needless to say, you were probably on the bhakti list when those arguments were given, and I still don't find their logic very convincing. > 4)Bhakthi is inferior to prapatti & bhakthi is very difficult- this too can be easily defeated on the basis of the Sandarbhas. > Sri Vaishnavas define "bhakti-yoga" and sharanaagti differently. What they call "sharanaagati" is more like our concept of "bhakti-yoga." What they call "bhakti-yoga" I think refers to the process of meditation on the Supersoul that is described in Upanishads. > 5)Krishna & his body are different-For this only I raised the quote"Dehi-deha vibhedoyam nengate Isvare Kvachit" This is from Kurma Purana as quoted by Srila Prabhupada for 9th chapter Last sloka purport & by Baladeva in His Govinda Bhasya- this too easily establishes the non-difference between Krishna & his body. > This is a whole issue of its own -- why don't we start a separate thread to discuss the nondifference of the Lord and His form, name, qualities, etc? It is such an important point, but it is not so easy to understand. > These were only a few of the points raised against the GV sampradaya. The main problem is, I have found a lot of devotees have approached him for his erudition & then ended in utter confusion.Hence I thought this can be settled once & for all. Though I'm no match to his erudition, nyaya or vedantic knowledge, on the strength of the sastras all such allegations can easily be vanquished. > Don't sell yourself short. Many objections like the ones I raised are simple, on-the-fly rebuttals. I can think of more, given the time. But these might suffice. Jahnava-Nitai das also is somewhat familiar with the South Indian traditions; perhaps he might offer more rebuttals to give to your Sri Vaishnava friend, or instead offer a Sri Vaishnava perspective on how SV's might respond to us. > I'm very Thankful for having such adiscussion group. There was a time when I did not know where to discuss specifically about the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya.All glories to Achintya Group!! > Thank you! I'm glad this forum is useful for something. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! yours, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 achintya, ranganathan narasimhan <simhan74> wrote: > Hnece my request- If anyone has actually seen themselves any quotation about mahaprabhu, please tell me which book, & where available & which verse/ page. It will be of immense use to me & probably strengthen the faith of a number of devotees. > I don't remember if I mentioned this here or only in a private correspondence with Sri Ranganathan. Basically, I said that the Bhavishya Puraana contains at least two chapters describing Mahaaprabhu's unmanifest pastimes in instructing Madhva and Raamaanuja. I gave these quotes and chapter numbers in an earlier posting (feel free to search the archives - I don't recall the exact posting but I think it was in October of 2001). Technically, Bhavishya Puraana is "mainstream," as it is one of the 18 major Puraanas and is accepted as such in every listing that I have seen. However, it is viewed by many as "controversial" supposedly because it is more interpolated than other Puraanas. I say supposedly, because my suspicion is that many of the accusations of interpolation are made by those who are looking for an excuse to reject some inconvenient evidence found therein. If you really want to substantiate Mahaaprabhu's appearance and His divinity, I suggest three things: 1) Get a translation of the above mentioned chapters. Somebody should be commisioned to do at least a rough and tough translation, making certain there are no errors in the text that disagree with our philosophy. There shouldn't be, if the texts are bona fide 2) Look for other recensions of the Bhavishya Puraana besides that published by Nag, just to verify that the Chaitanya chapters are there also. This will make our opponents less able to get away with the accusation that the chapters are interpolated. 3) Look for instances where other aachaaryas have quoted Bhavishya Puraana in their writings - this is to substantiate that Bhavishya Puraana is considered authoritative to them. When all is said and done, your opponents will still find some excuse to disagree. Let them. I wouldn't take Bhavishya Puraana and attack them on the basis of this evidence. The best thing is to let them challenge first, and then point out the Bhavishya Puraana evidence (after all three things above are done). Then, when they object to it, you simply point out how arbitrary is their standard of evidence, and anyway how scholarly is that to accept only what is convenient and reject the rest? It would be especially useful to point out to them that their own gurus have quoted from Bhavishya, making it even more unscholarly for them to reject it. yours, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.