eligibility for rasa-katha

[Guest guest]

As there have been no responses to this apparent contradiction, I'll proffer

one myself.

 

At the outset it should be accepted that apparent contradictions in the

words of sastra or acaryas do not indicate inconsistency, foolishness, or

diplomacy, as they might in the words of conditioned souls.

 

bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, karanapatava

arsa-vijna-vakye nahi dosa ei saba

 

Mistakes, illusions, cheating and defective perception do not occur in the

sayings of the authoritative sages.

Cc Adi 2.86

 

Srila Prabhupada was an expert preacher, empowered by Krishna to give

knowledge of Krishna to the people of the world. Srila Prabhupada took great

pains to systematically present the philosophy of Krishna consciousness, and

knew his subject so well that he was able to convince many intelligent and

highly educated people of its veracity. So to understand apparent

inconsistencies in his writings, we have to consider the context of the

differing texts and their relevance within the whole system of knowledge

that he gave.

 

The quote from the intro to Krishna book states that even grossly

materialistic people can become interested in Krishna katha by mistaking it

for the lusty affairs to which they are inclined. If from this point they

start to hear about Krishna from realized souls, they can begin to progress

and they will gradually be elevated to the spiritual platform. Srila

Prabhupada mentions that even by such initial hearing, "they will relish

transcendental pleasure, although it appears to be materialistic." Such

transcendental pleasure is understood to be just beginning glimpses of such

bliss, for such persons are yet to be properly elevated to the spiritual

platform. Yet even such a beginning is their invaluable entry to genuine

spiritual life. It is understood that the expert preachers who present

Krishna consciousness to such conditioned souls will gradually guide them to

understand the difference between spiritual love and mundane lust. As for

instance did Sripad Ramanujacarya in attracting the attention of Devadasa

(?) from the eyes of his beloved to the eyes of the Lord.

 

It is significant that this statement is made in the intro to Krishna book,

which was, apart for being for devotees to relish, meant for mass

distribution to mostly grossly materialistic people.

 

The other quote is from a section of Sri Caitanya Caritamrta in the section

of Raya Ramananda Samvad, which is the topmost theological discussion ever

recorded. This is meant especially for devotees who have progressed at least

somewhat in their studies of the Krishna science, and who are beyond the

stage of initial curious attraction. Herein is a warning not to go very

deeply into this subject unless one is properly qualified by having become

freed from lusty desires.

 

It is also significant that the quote from Krishna book intro discusses

hearing about Krsna's pastimes with the gopis, whereas in the quote from the

Cc purport, warning is made not to hear radha-krsna-lila (the intimate

details of Krishna's dealings with Srimati Radharani) unless one is

liberated. This suggests that hearing about gopi-lila in a general way from

liberated souls will give impetus to relish the position of Krishna as the

supreme enjoyer, but that still one is warned not to enter the specifics of

hearing radha-krsna-lila without first obtaining proper qualification to do

so.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

> So to understand apparent inconsistencies in his writings, we have to

> consider the context of the differing texts and their relevance within

> the whole system of knowledge that he gave.

 

It also helps to consider the qualifications of the intended

audience, as you suggested with respect to the quotes from Krsna book and

Caitanya-caritamrta.

 

As per Srimad Bhagavatam, 11.19.17, traditional precedents can

also clarify apparent inconsistencies.

 

 

 

 

> It is also significant that the quote from Krishna book intro discusses

> hearing about Krsna's pastimes with the gopis, whereas in the quote from the

> Cc purport, warning is made not to hear radha-krsna-lila (the intimate

> details of Krishna's dealings with Srimati Radharani) unless one is

> liberated. This suggests that hearing about gopi-lila in a general way from

> liberated souls will give impetus to relish the position of Krishna as the

> supreme enjoyer,

 

Perhaps you mean that the gopis can (or should) be understood more

generically, in terms of tattva, rather than rasa?

 

Many instances where the gopis are glorified throughout Prabhupada's

books or elsewhere (e.g., the gopala-mantra and the verse "ramya kacid

upasana vraja-vadhu vargena ya kalpita") can also be interpreted more

specifically in terms of rasa, yet not necessarily in madhurya-rasa. I

couldn't do that, but Srila Prabhupada seems to do so in various places

(e.g., his purports to Bhagavata 10.8.31 and 10.8.45).

 

 

 

> but that still one is warned not to enter the specifics of

> hearing radha-krsna-lila without first obtaining proper qualification to do

> so.

Significantly, it is also said that Lord Caitanya favored hearing

the narrations of Dhruva Maharaja and Bhakta Prahlada (Caitanya-bhagavata,

Antya-khanda, 10.33-34), manifesting symptoms of ecstasy and requesting

Gadadhara Pandita to repeat these stories hundreds of times.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, "M. Tandy" <mpt@u...> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

> > So to understand apparent inconsistencies in his writings, we

have to

> > consider the context of the differing texts and their relevance

within

> > the whole system of knowledge that he gave.

>

> It also helps to consider the qualifications of the intended

> audience, as you suggested with respect to the quotes from Krsna

book and

> Caitanya-caritamrta.

 

Another thing to consider is what Srila Prabhupada was working

against, namely 200 years of biased, Eurocentric, Indological

scholarship propagated by people who were not qualified to study

these things, but nevertheless did so anyway.

 

For example, shrutis (including Upanishads) are not supposed to be

studied by anyone who is not twice-born. There is explict pramaana in

Vedaanta-suutra to this effect. Yet Srila Prabhupada translated the

Isopanishad and directed his disciples to distribute it on the

streets. Isn't this a breech of Vedic regulations? I would argue no,

because mundane scholars had already "translated" many Upanishads

which had become freely available to many spritual seekers, qualified

or otherwise. Srila Prabhupada did nothing but to try and set the

record straight as to what the Upanishads were.

 

Similarly, much unqualified and frankly incompetent scholarship has

been devoted to the subject of rasa-katha, specifically maadhurya

rasa. At my alma mater, there is a sociology class offered on human

mating attitudes, especially in religious literature, and the example

of Raadha and Krishna is brought up as an example of the

supposedly "liberal" attitude of Hindus on the subject. When this

kind of outrageous misinterpretation occurs among Western scholars,

does it not justify a proper exposition of the subject matter that

can be picked up and read by these same scholars? Most of us know to

read the first nine cantos of the Bhaagavatam before reading the

tenth. But most people who have ever dabbled in Hinduism don't have

the discipline to read that much... and Krishna book was also freely

distributed on the streets. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable

given the misconceptions among the public that needed to be cut away.

And Krishna-book volume 1, which does discuss these things in some

detail, does a very good job of that.

 

So I personally don't see a contradiction in principles here, at

least for this very reason.

 

yours,

 

- K