evam parampara-praptam (was Chaitanya)

[Guest guest]

> > >> 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?

 

I meant this indirectly.

It's implicit in His many, many instructions that one learn from a

bonafide guru or acarya (e.g., Gita 4.34), both of whom by definition belong

to a recognized sampradaya. Guru sadhu sastra vakya, cittete koriya aikya;

Narottamadasa Thakura advises us to internalize the words of our sastras,

acaryas, and gurus; this is what "parampara-prapta" means. Krsna also

says one should know the acarya to be Himself (Bhagavata, 11.17.27); this

has to be taken in the sense that the acaryas' authority is equal to that of

Krsna--provided they are bonafide. Their theological conclusions are called

siddhanta, which is "nirnita" (settled and fixed), within a given sampradaya.

At the very least as a matter of etiquette, a disciple will accept them in

toto (sarvam etad rtam manye), or there isn't much practical value to the

notion of hearing submissively--what to speak of surrendering. This leaves

little room for interpreting sastra independently (cf. Caitanya-caritamrta,

Madhya-lila, 6.137). Thus it has always been a tradition that anyone who

differs from the acaryas will be expected to write his own Vedanta-sutra

commentary, logically and comprehensively interpreting Vyasa's sutras on the

basis of the srutis. However, even though that effectively starts a new

sampradaya, such persons invariably still aligned themselves with one of

the four pre-established parampara lines that are authorized.

 

The Vayu Purana, as quoted in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

Thakura's Gaudiya-kantha-hara (1.23), defines an acarya as follows:

 

acinoti yah sastrartham

acare sthapayaty api |

svayam acarate yasmad

acaryas tena kirtitah ||

 

He who assimilates the real purport of sastra, whose character

establishes and therefore exemplifies it as well, is thus glorified as

the acarya.

 

Mahabharata (Vana-parvan 313.117) also gives the following hint:

 

tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinna

nasau munir yasya matam na bhinnam |

dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam

mahajano yena gatah sa panthah ||

 

Argument is unfounded; the scriptures are various.

He who doesn't have an opinion isn't a thinker.

The truth of dharma is kept within the heart;

the path is that by which a mahajana has gone.

 

This is more or less a literal translation. However, as an example of the

principle I've explained above, compare Srila Prabhupada's translation

(from Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 17.186):

 

"Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion

does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by

studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right

path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of

religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated

self-realized person. Consequently, as the sastras confirm, one should

accept whatever progressive path the mahajanas advocate."

 

Srila Prabhupada's books regularly demonstrate how one thus

receives siddhanta through the sastric interpretations of the

sampradaya-acarya.

 

MDd