Various [Nirguna, Chaitanya, Varnashrama, Krishna, Vishnu]

[Guest guest]

Haribol!

 

Since I received a very large digest, I am going to

try to reply to points regardless of authorship. If

you recognise an answer to your point then feel fre to

reply to me about it either privately or through the

list.

 

>> Srila Prabhupada quotes it in Caitanya-caritamrta

<<

 

Thank you!

 

>> It's also similar to another idea among some

schools, that the Personality of Godhead is "saguna"

rather than "nirguna." In fact, Bhagavan is *only*

nirguna--and not saguna (cf. Bhagavata 10.88.5, also

cited in Cc., and see 11.25.25 too). <<

 

Yes, I have also come across that problem when

preaching againt Advaita/impersonalism. For Gaudiya

Vaishnavas (and I hope Vaishnavas in general) it is

pretty obvious from Srimad Bhagavatam that Bhagavan is

nirguna only, as you have said, and not saguna. I

suppose that this idea is sometimes based on the

concept of drawing a "difference" between Krishna and

His Deity. In that sense, Krishna as He really Is is

nirguna (formless), while the Deity is saguna

(formful).

Of course, the definition of formlessness/formfullness

is also important because it defines Krishna as having

no MATERIAL form. This is bewildering to Advaitins as

they think that nirguna implies utter formlessness,

which is rather silly.

 

>> While we are on the point, I have met Vaishnavas

who do believe that birth is a prerequisite for varna.

I cannot say if they are in fact representing their

leaders properly, but it certainly falls upon us to

argue the point authoritatively. It's going to be an

uphill battle, because those Vaishnavas also know

their shaastra. <<

 

So can you please provide some of these Shastric

examples that supposedly backup the "birth" system of

Varnashrama, so that we may discuss?

 

>> For example, if some rare soul has developed such

prema bhakti that he has transcended the need for

material sense gratification, then why should he get

married and beget children, when by doing so there is

only a chance for falling down? My understanding may

not be correct, so anyone feel free to correct me. <<

 

If such a rare soul has indeed developed his spiritual

advancement to the level of prema-bhakti, then this

would make him sadhana-siddha? In such a case, such a

sadhana-siddha devotee would then live the rest of his

life practising pure devotional service PERFECTLY

according to all religious principles. Part of his

"dharma" may be to get married and have children to

set an example to all other devotees. Since he is a

sadhana-siddha and is carrying out the process

perfectly, he will not be subject to maya and will

thus not fall down.

A good example of this is Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura.

This is not to say that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was

a sadhana-siddha devotee, I personally regard him as

nitya-siddha. But we can see that Srila Bhaktivinoda

Thakura fulfilled his duties perfectly, marriage,

having many children, and also fulfilling the

responsibilities of being a Magistrate in Puri. And on

top of all of this, he was also a prominent Acharya!

Also remember that Srila Prabhupada spent some time in

the grihasta-asrama and we may take it on lieu that he

performed his duties perfectly.

Again we can remember the statement of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura that he himself was

prepared to have sex even a hundred times to beget

Krsna-conscious children. Whether he may have actually

done so is not the point, but marriage and children

and other so-called "falldown practices" should not

pose a problem for a pure devotee.

 

>> saadhana-bhaktas who practice varnaashrama with the

goal of serving Krishna vs those who are not

Vaishnavas and practice varnaashrama with the goal of

obtaining sense gratification. If you practice

varnaashrama with the aim to please Krishna, there

will be some sense gratification there. But this

still, is far superior than practicing varnaashrama

mechanically with the aim of getting that sense

gratification. <<

 

How do we get sense gratification if we perform

varnashrama-dharma to please Krishna? Isn't that

invalid on the basis of hrsikena hrisikesa-sevanam

bhaktir ucyate? One may say that this is not

varnashrama but this is about the cultivation of

devotional service. But isn't the point of varnashrama

meant to please Vishnu according to the

"varnasramacaravata" verse? Same difference, but

according to the "hrsikenam" verse only two side

effects are noted according to Srila Prabhupada, and

these are being freed from all material designations

and having your senses become purified. I have never

heard it said that one can perform varnashrama to

please Krishna and yet get sense gratification too?

Please explain.

 

>> Every Vaishnava sampradaya interprets the sruti,

and smrti, according to the insights of its

acaryas--and that's quite proper, since Krsna advises

this Himself. <<

 

Where does Krishna advise that each sampradaya

interpret the Vedic literatures according to the

insights of their respective Acharyas? Are you

speaking of the aprakata-lila of Mahaprabhu as

contained in the Navadvipa-Dhama Mahatmya?

 

>> The Gaudiya sampradaya is no different in this

respect, though I can add that names like Rupa

Gosvami are highly respected even in the mundane

sphere--among the educated. <<

 

REALLY ?! Wow. I was under the impression that the

Gaudiyas were probably a "forgotten philosophy" at

least until the time of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and

more importantly Srila Prabhupada. So respected

academicians are respectful of Srila Rupa Goswami? All

glories to them!

 

>> But the core issue nevertheless is that, Lord

Chaitanya's divinity cannot be proved on the basis of

scriptures. <<

 

Just a side comment here. Let us remember that

Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya was also doubtful of

Mahaprabhu's divinity, and he also received the same

"Bhagavatam verse" treatment from Gopinatha Acharya.

 

>> 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. <<

 

Your Sri Vaishnava friend's argument against the

"Krishnavarnam" shloka may be invalid. Mahaprabhu's

name may not be directly mentioned, but just as the

symptoms and characteristics of the various previous

incarnations are mentioned in the scriptures,

similarly the symptoms of the appearance of Lord

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are described. For example, Kalki

may be named in the "24 Avatar" list, but later on in

the second Canto when the Avatars are again described,

Kalki's name is NOT mentioned (2.7.38). But because

the verse mentions the symptoms of moral degradation

and the end of Kali Yuga, who else can it be referring

to even if Kalki is not named? Who else could be the

"supreme chastiser?"

Krishna-varnam indicates that He belongs to the

category of Krishna. Krishna varnam also means one who

constantly repeats and sings the name of Krishna. The

main business of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was the

chanting of the holy name of Krishna. Thus the words

Krishna varnam and Krishna Chaitanya are equivalent.

Srila Krishna das Kaviraj Goswami has elucidated the

two meanings of the words Krishna varnam by stating:

 

krishna ei dui varna sadayanra mukhe

athava krmake h'nho varne nija sukhe

 

"Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu always sings the two

syllables Krish & na [Krishna ei dui varna sada yanra

mukhe], or He always relishes great transcendental

pleasure while describing Lord Krishna [athava krmake

tinho varne nija-sukhe]."

 

Well the sites I provided show clear evidence, else

what other meaning can there be for "gaura" and

Puranic verses that explictly state the name of

Sachi-mata? And especially that very exciting verse

that states that the Avatar will take place in the

1000 year period between 4000 and 5000 years of Kali

Yuga?

The general problem with this "direct name" argument

is that it may very well be a valid one. Most Vedic

arguments are based on the Sruti. The Vedas/Vedanta,

the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita are the three

(Prasthana-Thraya) evidences used for making a valid

argument.

There may be problems with accepting the Caitanya

Upanishad as authentic due to it's rarity, but there

should not be any problem whatsoever with the

Svetasvatara Upanishad which is extant and which names

Mahaprabhu by name:

 

mahan prabhur vai purusah

sattvasyaisa pravartakah

sunirmalam imam praptim

isano jyotir avyayah

 

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is Mahaprabhu, who

disseminates transcendental enlightenment. Just to be

in touch with Him is to be in contact with the

indestructible brahmajyoti."

 

[speaking of which, I have got the translation of most

of the Upanishads as done by the Advaitin politician

S. Radhakrishnan who gives a completely bewildering

meaning to this verse. It would be interesting to see

how your Sri Vaishnava friend (and Sri Vaishnavas in

general) interprets this verse.]

 

>> Quotations from pricipal upanishads are our

translations. Even Adi sankara has translated them but

then there is no reference to Lord Chaitanya. <<

 

Please see the reference to Svetasvatara Upanishad

above. I am interested to see the answer of your

friend.

 

>> Chaitanya Upanishad does not exist at all. <<

 

Well, it does now. Hehe. )

But seriously, we know that through history various

shastras are inexplicably lost, such as through the

Muslim invasions through India in which many holy

books were destroyed. Just because it sounds

relatively "new" does not mean that it never existed.

Remember that even Lord Chaitanya found the manuscript

of the Brahma Samhita in a LOCKED SAFE of the

Adi-kesava temple, so who knows how many more

"forgotten" shastras are locked in ancient temples

even today?

Apart from that, there are certain verse from Padma

Purana (such as the one about four authorised

sampradays in Kali age) that do not exist in the

versions of Padma Purana that we have today. Does this

mean that they never existed? Sripada Baladeva

Vidyabhusana used this verse and many more to silence

the objections of the Ramanandi Vaishnavas against the

Gaudiyas, and their silence implies his correctness.

By the way, Ramanandi Vaishnavism is a sub-sect of Sri

Vaishnavism, so I hear. What does your friend have to

say about this I would like to know? Also, does your

friend know about the defeat of the Ramanandis by

Sripada Baladeva Vidyabhusana? And what is his take on

it?

 

>> 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!! <<

 

JAI !! Jai Achintya! Jai Krishna Susarla Prabhu for

creating it!

 

>> 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.

<<

 

How would it be contradictory to state that Krishna is

supreme among the Visnu-tattva? That has been my

understanding throughout my readings of Srila

Prabhupada's books. There may be two ways of

understanding this; through tattva (truth) and through

lila (play). I think what Krishna Susarla Prabhu is

trying to say is that Krishna is superior to Vishnu

and visnu-tattva in lila definitely, but not in tattva

as Krishna is nondifferent from Vishnu. But while

researching this point for my reply, I seem to have

come across the understanding that Krishna is superior

in tattva too.

Consider the twenty-first chapter of Nectar of

Devotion (I have got 1985 edition), in which the

qualities of Krishna have been described and grouped

into 64 categories. Srila Prabhupada says:

 

"Besides these sixty transcendental qualities, Krsna

has four more, which are not manifest even in the

Narayana form of Godhead, what to speak of the

demigods or living entities. They are as follows. (61)

He is the performer of wonderful varieties of pastimes

(especially His childhood pastimes). (62) He is

surrounded by devotees endowed with wonderful love of

Godhead. (63) He can attract all living entities all

over the universes by playing on His flute. (64) He

has a wonderful excellence of beauty which cannot be

rivaled anywhere in the creation." (page 157)

 

Let us not forget that this Bhakti-rasamrta Sindhu is

a scripture that is used even by Advaitins at their

convenience so there should be no problems in

accepting this text as a bona fide scripture. Apart

from the above quote, Srila Prabhupada has stated

Krishna's superiority over Vishnu in many other places

including Srimad Bhagavatam especially on the subject

of these 64 qualities. I believe that jivas share 50

of them and that demigods like Brahma and Siva share

upto 55. Narayana (Vishnu) shares upto 60 but it is

only Krishna who possesses the total 64 qualities in

fullness.

This is made clearer in the Krsna book (which is also

the commentary on the Tenth Canto of SB) in Chap 14;

"Prayers offered by Lord Brahma to Lord Krsna" (1996

edition): "Lord Brahma wanted to prove that Krsna is

the original Narayana, that He is the source of

Narayana, and that Narayana is not an exhibition of

the external energy, maya, but is an expansion of

spiritual energy ... So the expansions of Narayana,

from Krsna to Garbhodakasayi Visnu, from

Garbhodakasayi Visnu to Ksirodakasayi Visnu, and

from Ksirodakasayi Visnu to everyone's heart - are

actually Krsna's expansions, manifestations of His

spiritual energy." (page 154)

On the same page; "Lord Brahma reconfirmed his

statement establishing Krsna as the original Narayana.

He said that the gigantic universal body is still

resting on the water known as Garbhodaka. He spoke as

follows: "This gigantic body of the universe is

another manifestation of Your energy. On account of

His resting on the water, this universal form is also

Narayana, and we are all within the womb of this

Narayana form. I see Your different Narayana forms

everywhere. I can see You on the water, I can feel You

within my heart, and I can also see You before me now.

You are the original Narayana."

And on page 155; "Does this not mean that You are the

Supreme Lord Narayana, the origin of everything, that

everything emanates from You and again enters into

You, leaving You the same as before?"

 

Of course, if we want to get detailed then we can

discuss the exact corresponding verses from Srimad

Bhagavatam and see if they tally. Also, the clearest

proofs yet (at least within the Gaudiya school) are

contained in Caitanya Caritamrta, and condensed within

the Teachings of Lord Chaitanya (to Sanatana Goswami

(1981 edition)).

 

"Although Visnu is equal to Krsna, Krsna is the

original source. Visnu is a part, and Krsna is the

whole. This is the version given by Vedic literatures.

In Brahma-samhita the example is given of an original

candle which lights a second candl. Although both

candles are of equal power, one is accepted as the

original, and the other is said to be kindled from the

original. The Visnu expansion is like the second

candle. He is as powerful as Krsna, but the original

Visnu is Krsna. Brahma and Lord Siva are obedient

servants of the Supreme Lord, and the Supreme Lord as

Visnu is an expansion of Krsna." (pages 87-88)

 

"When He [Krsna] stands in a three-curved way, He

attracts all living entities, including the demigods.

Indeed, He even attracts the Narayana form which

presides in each and every Vaikuntha planet." (page

103)

 

"Since He [Krsna] is the origin of all incarnations,

including the form of Narayana, the goddess of

fortune, who is a constant companion of Narayana,

gives up Narayana's association and engages herself in

penance in order to gain the association of Krsna.

Such is the greatness of the superexcellent beauty of

Krsna, the everlasting mine of all beauty. It is from

that beauty that all beautiful things emanate." (page

106)

 

Again if we want to go into details, we can look up

the necessary references in the text of Caitanya

Caritamrta. But who could forget these:

 

"Lowest of all is located Devi-dhama [mundane world],

next above it is Mahesa-dhama [abode of Mahesa]; above

Mahesa-dhama is placed Hari-dhama [abode of Hari] and

above them all is located Krsna's own realm named

Goloka. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, who has

allotted their respective authorities to the rulers of

those graded realms." [brahma-Samhita 5.43]

 

"Brahma and other lords of the mundane worlds,

appearing from the pores of hair of Maha-Visnu, remain

alive as long as the duration of one exhalation of the

latter [Maha-Visnu]. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda

of whose subjective personality Maha-Visnu is the

portion of portion." [brahma-Samhita 5.48]

 

The simple way of describing the situation is that

Visnu is a guna-avatara and Krsna is the svayam-rupa.

There are many more references in Srila Prabhupada's

books in which he proves the superiority of Krsna over

Visnu based on Shastra. From the quotes I have

provided it seems certain that Krsna is superior in

lila as well as tattva too. Unless someone has an

objection?

 

>> Not necessarily; the "varnasramaacaravata" verse

alone occurs nearly 100 times throughout Srila

Prabhupada's books and lectures. If practicing

varnasrama is as important to Krsna consciousness as

I've tried to demonstrate by quoting Srila Prabhupada,

then it would seem wholly germane to this list. <<

 

Let us also not forget that it was one of Srila

Prabhupada's final wishes that varnashrama be

established in ISKCON.

 

>> But then again, where is the scriptural evidence

that Raamaanuja is an incarnation of Aadi-Sesha? <<

 

My understanding that Sripada Ramanujacharya was an

incarnation of Lakshmana, the brother of Lord Rama.

Although some sampradayas say that the three brothers

of Rama were the incarnations of Ananta-Sesa, Sankhu

and Chakra, I read somewhere in Bhagavatam that Srila

Prabhupada admits this possibility and then goes on to

say that in other yugas that the total four brothers

are avatars of Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and

Aniruddha.

 

So it seems that as well as having different Varahas

in different kalpas, we have different sons of

Dasharatha too !

 

>> 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. <<

 

What is chatri-nyaayam? And does it show Krishna is

inferior to Narayana according to the Sri Vaishnava

point of view?

 

>> Many objections like the ones I raised are

simple, on-the-fly rebuttals. I can think of more,

given the time. <<

 

Please do. I am interested to hear.

 

In service of Gaura-Nitai,

 

Sanjay

 

=====

"Radha-Krishna prana mora jugala-kisora, jivane marane gati aro nahi mora."

 

"The divine couple, Sri Radha and Krsna, are my life and soul. In life or death

I have no other refuge but Them."

 

-- Srila Narottama Dasa Thakura

 

 

 

Great stuff seeking new owners in Auctions!

http://auctions.