Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9> wrote:

 

> >> 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

 

I would also like to know the answer to this.

 

> 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?"

 

Our opponents will simply say that this is an inappropriate

comparison. Kalki is explicitly mentioned in some sources that are

mainstream, so that when He is not so explicitly mentioned elsewhere,

the reference to Him is understood. Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu, they will

argue, is not explicitly named in ANY mainstream text. The mainstream

texts only give indirect references which are subject to

interpretation, while the only explicit references are in pramaanas

that only our sampradaaya accepts.

 

> 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

 

This is based on varNam coming from varNayati which I believe means

to pronounce or speak. If memory serves, however, this is not the

first definition that is likely to come to mind. Varnam usually

means "color," and thus most Vaishnavas will interpret 'kR^iShNa-

varNam" as "having the color of Krishna."

 

However, I have also read that such an interpretation is consistent

with Gaudiiya standards of interpretation. I don't recall where I

read this -- I'm thinking possibly Tattva-Sandarbha. Mahaaprabhu is

internally "kR^iShNa-varnam" (the color of Krishna) but externally He

is "tviShaa akR^iShNam" (not the luster of Krishna). In other words,

He is Krishna, but in a form that is not the familiar blue-colored

form, but rather the golden colored form.

 

> 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?

 

As far as I know, the only Puraanic verses mentioning "Sachi-maata"

are those that come from the excerpt of the Vaayu Puraana, which I

must say again, is not to be found in the printed editions of the

same. "Gaura" just means "golden" and by itself does not obviously

indicate Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu.

 

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?

 

Which source would that be, chapter and verse?

 

> 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."

 

But this is also not a very specific or obvious reference. Keep in

mind that this Upanishad has already been commented upon and studied

by the schools of Shankara, Raamaanuja, Madhva, Nimbaarka, and

Vishnuswaami. Why didn't any of them or their followers recognize

this an oblique reference to a Kali-Yuga avataara, what to speak of

Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu?

 

The verse merely says "Mahaaprabhu," which literally means "Great

Master." This epithet can be used to describe any form of the Supreme

Personality of Godhead. It could also be used to describe any great

personality. I recall Sri Vishvesha Tiirtha of Maadhva Math using the

phrase "Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu" -- he most certainly does not say that

because he believes Chaitanya to be God!

 

> [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.]

 

I have an academic translation of Patrick Olivelle lying around, if

you really want to know how he translated this verse... I don't have

any from a Vaishnava translator.

 

> Please see the reference to Svetasvatara Upanishad

> above. I am interested to see the answer of your

> friend.

 

Believe me, he won't be put into any difficulty by the Svetaashvatara

Upanishad quoted above. I strongly recommend against using this by

itself as proof, and I would even go so far as to recommend against

using it at all, unless you can show how our translation is superior

to those given by other schools.

 

> 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.

 

They will conceed this point, but they will point out that any text

that is "discovered" in recent times cannot be assumed to be a bona

fide text based on convenience. What objective evidence can we

provide, demonstrating that Chaitanya Upanishad is a bona fide

Upanishad? It is NOT one of the 108 principal Upanishads mentioned in

the Muktika Upanishad (the list is quoted in a CC purport somewhere).

There are no known references to this Upanishad in mainstream texts.

No one in any sampradaaya outside of ours will vouch for the

authenticity of this Upanishad.

 

Of course, we could argue that Vedas depend on nothing and noone for

their authority, which is true. But whether or not the Upanishad is

in fact Veda (as opposed to being written by someone in recent

times), is the question that is going to be raised. Our detractors

will point out the existence of obviously spurious texts like

the "Allah Upanishad" as proof that not all that glitters is gold.

 

> 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?

 

Not a very good example. Because Brahma-Samhitaa, as we know it, is

also not readily accepted by Sri Vaishnavas. Actually, there is a

Pancharaatric text by the same name which ought to be theoretically

acceptable to them, but the subject matter of this text has nothing

to do with our Brahma-samhitaa, and from the descriptions I have

heard, these are most certainly not the same text.

 

Again, you could respond to such arguments by questioning why Sri

Vaishnavas accept some texts that only they seem to use (like this

Ahirbudhnya Samhitaa). And why do Maadhvas rely so heavly on Brahma-

tarka, which aside from being obscure, is not even extant. One could

argue that OUR major philosphical proofs come from mainstream sources

like the Bhaagavatam, and only on less critical issues like

Mahaaprabhu's divinity must we invoke less well known texts. After

all, when we get attracted to Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, Mahaaprabhu's

divinity is not usually the first thing we are asked to hear and

accept. One could thus be attracted first to the philosophy and later

come to accept Mahaaprabhu's divinity, which is as it should be.

 

> 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?

 

No. It just means that you can't verify its existence or authenticity

if pressed to do so.

 

On the other hand, it should be pointed out that aachaaryas of every

sampradaaya seem to be in the habit of quoting pramaanas left and

right that are not readily available nor extant. Perhaps those

pramaanas were extant in their respective times but not afterword...

or perhaps those aachaaryas had some other basis for believing them

to be authentic and acceptable to their opponents.

 

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.

 

Which verse are you talking about? If you are referring to the four

sampradaayas verse, then it was actually the other way around. The

Raamanandis used this verse as a basis for questioning the Gaudiiyas'

authenticity, since only four sampradaayas were named and no where

was a Chaitanya sampradaaya mentioned. Baladeva argued that our

sampradaaya was technically descended from Madhva and thus not

invalid according to the four sampradaayas verse. Then the

Raamanandis asked Baladeva to either accept Madhva's commentary or

produce one of his own. The idea was that you have to have a Brahma-

suutra commmentary as a prerequisite to being considered bona fide.

It was then that Baladeva came up with the Govinda-bhaashya, and it

was with this work that he silenced the Raamanandi opponents -- not

with obscure Puraanic references.

 

> 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?

 

We have at least one devotee here from a Raamanandi family, and

perhaps he could comment more on the relationship between the

Raamanandi tradition and the Tenkalai/Vadakalai traditions descending

from Raamaanuja.

 

But I should point out that my other Sri Vaishnava friends were not

even familiar with the Raamanandis when I brought them up. So I doubt

if our opponent will be moved by news of this defeat.

 

Incidentally, there are several different accounts of this story

recorded in Stuart Elkman's translation of the Tattva-Sandarbha, in

the introductory chapter on Baladeva. Several of the accounts hold

that the opponents were not both Raamanandis in the first place.

There could be issues of historical accuracy brought up, if we are to

cite this debate as any kind of historical precedent.

 

regards,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

> > what other meaning can there be for "gaura" and

> > Puranic verses that explictly state the name of

> > Sachi-mata?

> As far as I know, the only Puraanic verses mentioning "Sachi-maata"

> are those that come from the excerpt of the Vaayu Puraana, which I

> must say again, is not to be found in the printed editions of the

> same.

For what it's worth, the Gopala-sahasra-nama-stotram includes the

names "mahaprabhu" (132) and "Sacipati" (56). However, it's again a question

of interpretation. I haven't heard any acaryas comment on these two names

in this stotra; outside of Vrndavana, the Gopala-sahasra-nama isn't very

widely known, and it's tantrika (Sammohana-tantra). I'm also not sure of

its age, though I think I remember seeing it listed in a collection of

medieval manuscripts. I haven't looked for variants in the different version

of this stotra that appears in the Narada-pancaratra, but both these names

might be there, too.

 

MDd