Sat-sandarbhas, etc.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, sumeet1981 wrote:

> Why isn't the SatSandarbha and Govinda Bhashya distributed within the

> Gaudiya community ?

 

I've seen several (ISKCON and non-ISKCON) editions of the

Tattva-sandarbha, though in my personal opinion, all of them have

shortcomings. There is at least one English of the GB; it isn't an

ISKCON publication. If we're concerned with things original here,

the fact that our early acaryas didn't even see a need for this commentary

should also be taken seriously.

 

 

 

> Hence I humbly request the fellow devotees to please answer me. It is

> a fact that these two books are the most important ones in our

> sampradya so why not are they circulated amongst the devotees ? Why

 

Ever since Srila Prabhupada said that four books (Bhagavad-gita,

Srimad-bhagavatam, Caitanya-caritamrta, and Nectar of Devotion) were

sufficient to produce Krsna consciousness, it has been an ISKCON

tradition to emphasize these most. This has changed somewhat once Srila

Prabhupada was physically absent, but that's perhaps another matter.

Still, the fact remains, that the essential content of the sandarbhas and GB

is distributed throughout Srila Prabhupada's purports, so they in that sense

really are available. I think it's a strong argument to say that Srila

Prabhupada wrote his books this way intentionally, for several reasons.

 

 

 

> Please don't misunderstand me, i don't mean to say that books by

> Srila Prabhupada or any other acaryas are bad or should be overlooked

> but my point is that the books which are the original and most

> extensive presentation of our philosophy, which are written by the

> thinkers/philosophers of our schools who actually earned the Gaudiya

> Vaishnavism a status of being a recognized Vedanta school, why are

> those books not circulated in the devotee community ?

 

Unfortunately, if someone disagrees with this notion, s/he similarly

looks to be minimizing the value of these works, which isn't very appealing.

Nonetheless, as I hinted above, Srimad-bhagavatam is considered to be Vyasa's

own commentary on the Brahma-sutras; the GB was written largely to appease

the sentiments of other Vaisnavas and scholars a few centuries back. Thus,

it doesn't have the centrality in the Gaudiya-sampradaya that similar

commentaries have in other sampradayas. As for the Sandarbhas, I think some

may have already been published by ISKCON translator Kusakratha Prabhu. But

again, their essence is not absent in Srila Prabhupada's books. Krama

sandarbha is in effect Jiva Gosvami's commentary on the Bhagavatam. Srila

Prabhupada quotes his works regularly.

 

They're difficult, high philosophy too--not a casual project at all.

We have to learn such literature directly from qualified gurus. Penguin

paperbacks just don't transmit this transcendental knowledge--what to

speak of factual, realized wisdom. Once, a Sanskritist disciple asked Srila

Prabhupada's permission to translate the six sandarbhas, but his Divine grace

told him that while the disciple couldn't even catch a garden snake, he still

had ambitions to catch a king cobra. I think that must be given careful

consideration too.

 

 

 

> In my opinion they should be commented upon by recent authorized

> acaryas and circulated.

 

Of course, this invites another, related problem--having to decide

for the entire international society just which "authorized acaryas" are

suited for this task.

 

Eventually, someone should certainly translate these authoritative

works; Srila Prabhupada may have even intended to do so personally. But I

question the assumption that these are the *most important* literatures of

our sampradaya mainly because the abovementioned four books can fulfil

the needs of the adhikara (qualification/prerogative) of most people who

are interested in practicing Krsna consciousness. Srila Prabhupada often

said that Krsna consciousnes (and ISKCON) is mainly based on Bhagavad-gita

and Srimad-Bhagavatam. These aren't easy to assimilate either. Let's actually

*realize* what spirit is to begin with, how we are that spirit, and what

practical ramifications must follow from such recognizance; this is called

sambandha-jnana. Most of us haven't assimilated it yet, which is why we

have problems. However, this isn't accomplished theoretically.

 

Srila Prabhupada commented beautifully on such a prerequisite need

as follows:

"Being engaged in Krsna consciousness, one can immediately

understand one's spiritual identity, and then one can understand the

Supreme Lord by means of devotional service. When one is well situated in

devotional service, one comes to the transcendental position, qualified to

feel the presence of the Lord in the sphere of one's activity. This particular

position is called liberation in the Supreme."

This seems to emphasize a much more practical approach, over yoga or jnana.

 

In that sense, translating these books would seem largely an academic

venture--and thus one which would probably require the standard scholarly

training as well as the essential devotional qualifications. That's important

too. There are competent scholars in ISKCON, but I too don't know of any

plan to translate or comment on these in the future.

 

I'm sorry if this seems to raise more questions than answers, but

I hope it's helpful. Hare Krsna.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

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

> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, sumeet1981 wrote:

> > Why isn't the SatSandarbha and Govinda Bhashya distributed

within the

> > Gaudiya community ?

>

> I've seen several (ISKCON and non-ISKCON) editions of the

> Tattva-sandarbha, though in my personal opinion, all of them have

> shortcomings.

 

I would be interested in knowing your opinion of the Satyanarayana

translation... did you find it to be inaccurate in its

representation of our siddhaanta? I didn't think so, but I'm always

interested to hear what others think, especially before I go

recommending this book to anyone. Specific examples would be

appreciated.

 

There is at least one English of the GB; it isn't an

> ISKCON publication.

 

You may be referring to the one by Srisa Chandra Vasu, which is

published by Munshiram Manoharlal Ltd. The commentator, although

sympathetic to Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, is clearly a secular academic,

and occasionally inserts footnotes in which his bias is clearly

noted. For example, he argues that one entire section in the GB

discussing varna and adhikaara is interpolation, although he offers

no substantial evidence.

 

If we're concerned with things original here,

> the fact that our early acaryas didn't even see a need for this

commentary

> should also be taken seriously.

 

Indeed it should. I think this is only an issue because the

Bhaagavatam's authority is not immediately obvious to everyone.

Although Madhva acknowledged it to be the commentary on the Vedaanta-

suutra, his followers don't seem to treat it as such. Most other

Vaishnavas don't seem to respect it as grantha-raaja, and I have

noted that they point out our reliance on it as a short-coming.

Tattva-Sandarbha gives very good arguments as to why the Bhaagavatam

must be given this kind of emphasis, although as you have noted,

those same arguments are also given throughout SRila Prabhupada's

purports. Still, having them all in one place was useful for me.

 

I don't really understand why some Vaishnavas regard the Bhaagavatam

as a dependent authority because it is smriti, when those same

Vaishnavas will accept the Vedaanta-suutra, which is also smriti,

with no hesitation. It seems to me that the Vedaanta is easier to

(mis)interpret because of its terse nature, while the Bhaagavatam is

more explicit.

 

Having the TS translated might clarify issues for devotees involved

in preaching to a more intellectual audience. The same could be said

for the GB, which would be useful for those who are staunchly

adherent to the Vedaanta.

 

yours,

 

- K