Guest guest Posted May 6, 2002 Report Share Posted May 6, 2002 >I'm sure they must talk about it but >they won't describe it to great lenghts >and for sure i know this type of >liberation is not emphasized at all in >the prashan-traya and bhagavata. This type of argument is very common among devotees. They will say, "No where in the Vedas is it taught XYZ," but the reality is they have never read the Vedas so their statements are meaningless. This is just an observation worth noting. When we discuss with people of other traditions we should be careful not to employ this technique, as they will identify it within a second and call our bluff. Now from a logical perspective, if we can accept that the Vedas deal extensively with pravritti-marga, how to entangle oneself in material existence eternally through karma-kanda, then why is it difficult to accept that the Vedas may speak something about impersonal realization or sayujya-mukti. >I agree that Vedas speak not only >of the Devotional service. But before >saying that Jnaana Khanda of Vedas >don't cause transcendental love of >God you must identify what part of >Vedas are you refering to as Jnaana >Khanda. The three divisions of the Vedas, which up till a few days ago were universally accepted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and which have been explained clearly by Srila Prabhupada, refered to sections of the Vedas that dealt with particular fields of knowledge. They did not refer to particular books. Where ever karma is dealt with in a text, that section is karma-kanda, where ever jnana is dealt with in a text, that section is jnana-kanda, and where ever bhakti is dealt with in a text, that section is upasana-kanda. The jnana-kanda is primarily found in the Upanishads, for it is the Upanishads that deal with transcendence and the method to attain it (nivritti marga) which are pre-requisites for the jnana-kanda. >I would like to repeat that >there is nothing like impersonal >speculative knowledge taught anywhere >in the prashan-traya or bhagavata. I would suggest you read the first few verses of the 12th chapter of Gita, and Srila Prabhupada's purports to them. The fact that Arjuna even asks Krishna "who is the higher transcendentalist, the bhakta or the jnani?" should be enough to logically conclude jnana-marga (and sayujya-mukti) are taught in the Vedas. In the Gita itself the path of jnana-yoga is explained, but stated to be inferior to bhakti. Gita 12.3-5 directly explain the process of jnana-yoga. How can we claim there is no mention of jnana-yoga in the Gita? The Gita teaches three subjects, namely karma-yoga, jnana-yoga and bhakti-yoga, ultimately establishing bhakti yoga as the highest. Gaudiya Vaishnavas have given a technical definition to the terms karma, jnana and bhakti. When we say jnana, we are not simply refering to knowledge (such as defined by Krishna in Gita 13.3). We are refering to a particular path of self-realization adopted for a particular purpose (i.e. due to a cause or desired aim). Perhaps, though we are all using the same words, in our minds we are all speaking of different things, and as a result there is confusion. To be clear, "jnana" does not refer to atma-vidya, nor divya-jnana, etc. It refers to the path of impersonal realization of the absolute, which results in sayujya-mukti. For this reason it is called as "poison" by Vaishnava acharyas. The following purport by Srila Prabhupada, to the first verse of the 12th chapter is relevant: arjuna uvaca evam satata-yukta ye bhaktas tvam paryupasate ye capy aksaram avyaktam tesam ke yoga-vittamah "Arjuna inquired: Which is considered to be more perfect, those who are properly engaged in Your devotional service, or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?" Purport: "Krsna has now explained about the personal, the impersonal and the universal and has described all kinds of devotees and yogis. Generally, the transcendentalists can be divided into two classes. One is the impersonalist, and the other is the personalist. The personalist devotee engages himself with all energy in the service of the Supreme Lord. The impersonalist engages himself not directly in the service of Krsna but in meditation on the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested." "We find in this chapter that of the different processes for realization of the Absolute Truth, bhakti-yoga, devotional service, is the highest. If one at all desires to have the association of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then he must take to devotional service." "Those who worship the Supreme Lord directly by devotional service are called personalists. Those who engage themselves in meditation on the impersonal Brahman are called impersonalists. Arjuna is here questioning which position is better. There are different ways to realize the Absolute Truth, but Krsna indicates in this chapter that bhakti-yoga, or devotional service to Him, is highest of all. It is the most direct, and it is the easiest means for association with the Godhead." "In the Second Chapter the Lord explains that a living entity is not the material body but is a spiritual spark, a part of the Absolute Truth. In the Seventh Chapter He speaks of the living entity as part and parcel of the supreme whole and recommends that he transfer his attention fully to the whole. In the Eighth Chapter it is stated that whoever thinks of Krsna at the moment of death is at once transferred to the spiritual sky, Krsna's abode. And at the end of the Sixth Chapter the Lord says that out of all the yogis, he who thinks of Krsna within himself is considered to be the most perfect. So throughout the Gita personal devotion to Krsna is recommended as the highest form of spiritual realization. Yet there are those who are still attracted to Krsna's impersonal brahmajyoti effulgence, which is the all-pervasive aspect of the Absolute Truth and which is unmanifest and beyond the reach of the senses. Arjuna would like to know which of these two types of transcendentalists is more perfect in knowledge. In other words, he is clarifying his own position because he is attached to the personal form of Krsna. He is not attached to the impersonal Brahman. He wants to know whether his position is secure. The impersonal manifestation, either in this material world or in the spiritual world of the Supreme Lord, is a problem for meditation. Actually one cannot perfectly conceive of the impersonal feature of the Absolute Truth. Therefore Arjuna wants to say, "What is the use of such a waste of time?" Arjuna experienced in the Eleventh Chapter that to be attached to the personal form of Krsna is best because he could thus understand all other forms at the same time and there was no disturbance to his love for Krsna. This important question asked of Krsna by Arjuna will clarify the distinction between the impersonal and personal conceptions of the Absolute Truth." Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2002 Report Share Posted May 6, 2002 font-family:Arial">Hare Krishna! Jaya Prabhupada! font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is no such thing as karma-kaanda, jnaana-kaanda, etc. Nor do I think it is being postulated that jnaana-kaanda is exactly the same as bhakti-yoga. Rather, I think the issue is one of clarification of what these things mean and what their relationships are to each other. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">achintya, "J.N. Das" <jndas> wrote: font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">> To be honest, I think some would be very surprised at font-family:Arial">> what is actually taught in the shastras. The shastras font-family:Arial">> provide information on sadhanas for all levels of font-family:Arial">> people aiming at all destinations. It is not that font-family:Arial">> everywhere it is taught to chant Hare Krishna, or to font-family:Arial">> worship Krishna. To argue that it is so only reveals font-family:Arial">> our own lack of knowledge on the subject and will font-family:Arial">> bring us criticism from those who have studied broader font-family:Arial">> traditions. We should be careful not to provide others font-family:Arial">> an opportunity to dismiss our philosophy on the font-family:Arial">> grounds of our own mistakes. Sri Krishna is the object font-family:Arial">> of all the Vedas, but how He is the object of the font-family:Arial">> Vedas must be understood. font-family:Arial"> Jahnava-Nitai's point here is well taken, and I urge everyone to pay attention to it. We definitely do NOT want to overstep our bounds when we discuss scriptures with which we are not intimately familiar. We run the risk of making obvious mistakes that will be picked up and refuted by members of other Vedaanta schools, and this will in turn reflect badly on the devotional scholarship of our own aachaaryas. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">On the other hand, it is precisely BECAUSE of this point that I brought up the whole jnaana issue, because compared to other Vaishnavas, it appears that we have a more negative attitude towards "jnaana." We need to clarify such terms lest we find ourselves being criticized by other Vaishnavas for not properly understanding shruti. I don't object to calling a spade a spade, but we have to know the scriptural basis of what we are talking about. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">"Jnaana" appears to have several definitions within our own literature. From _Bhagavad-Gita As It Is_ glossary, we find the following: font-family:Arial"> j~naana - transcendental knowledge j~naana-yoga - the path of spiritual realization through a speculative philosophical search for truth font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Note that these definitions seem to contradict each other. It also seems to imply that there is a jnaana-yoga that refers to a path of cultivating transcendental knowledge (or else, why is jnaana defined like this?), and that there is another jnaana that refers to "speculative philosophical search for truth." font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Here is yet another take on jnaana: font-family:Arial"> bahuunaa.m janmanaamante j~naanavaanmaa.m prapadyante | vaasudevaH sarvamiti sa mahaatmaa sudurlabhaH || giitaa 7.19 || font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.19) font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Clear, this "jnaana" is neither impersonal nor poison, as it leads to surrender to Lord Krishna. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">From the above evidence, we can conclude that there are at least two definitions of jnaana. One refers to cultivation of knowledge of the soul, the Supersoul, matter, the similarities/differences between them, etc, or in other words, “transcendental knowledge.” The other definition of jnaana refers to the maayaavaadi one. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">The confusion I think, is that maayavaadis tend to use the term "jnaana yoga" inappropriately to begin with. They are interested in the jnaana-kaanda of the Upanishads, but they misinterpret it to think that it involves realization of some absolute oneness. Hence, we use the terms "jnaana" and "jnaana-kaanda" in the maayaavaadi sense when we criticize it. But the real jnaana is still something else entirely. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">The basic objection is to the following statement: font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">"Jnana-kanda involves realizing the Absolute truth in impersonal feature for the purpose of becoming one. The Upanishads explain this path." font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Although I am no scholar of the Upanishads, I don't think I have read anything to suggest a path in which "becoming one" with God is taught. I would be interested in seeing evidence substantiating this path. On the other hand, I am aware of pramaanas that clearly speak to the contrary, such as: font-family:Arial"> nityo nityaanaa.m chetanash chetanaanaam.... (kaTha upaniShad 2.2.13) font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">... which speaks of one eternal Supreme Lord among many other eternal, conscious living entities. font-family:Arial"> sa.myuktametat kSharamkShara.m cha vyaktaavyakta.m bharate vishvamiishaH | aniishashchaatmaa badhyate bhoktR^ibhaavaaj j~naatvaa deva.m muchyate sarvapaashaiH || shve up 1.8 || font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">The Lord is the Support of this universe which consists of a combination of the mutable and the immutable and also the manifest and the unmanifest. As long as the soul is unaware of God he is enslaved to worldly enjoyments because of his bondage. But when he gets realization of Him he becomes free from all fetters. (shvetaashvataropaniShat 1.8) font-family:Arial"> yasya deve paraa bhaktiryathaa deve tathaa gurau | tasyaite kathitaa hyarthaaH prakaashante mahaatmanaH prakaashante mahaatmanaH || shve up 6.23 || font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Only in a man who has the deepest love for God, and who shows the same love toward his teacher as toward God, do these points declared by the Noble One shine forth. (shveetaashvataropaniShat 6.23) font-family:Arial"> tam tvaupaniShada.m puruSha.m pR^ichchhaami || bR^ihad up. 9.21 || font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">I ask thee about that Person who is taught in the Upanishads. (bR^ihadaaranyaka upaniShad 9.21) font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Obviously, these are not representative, and I hope you don't think I'm insulting your intelligence by pointing them out. The point is, that these verses clearly have a devotional and dualist flavor to them. There was actually another pramaana I was looking for, also I believe from font-family:Arial">Shvetaashvatara U. which condemns that saadhaka who cannot recognize the difference between the jiiva and Paramaatma. I wish I could locate it, but alas I'm having trouble doing so. All I wanted to show here is that the Upanishads are not obviously monistic nor impersonalist in their outlook. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Even more important is the evidence from Govinda-bhaashya. We have a tendency to say that the Vedaanta-suutra is Shrii Vyaasa's exposition on the impersonal feature of the Godhead. But this is not borne out by Baladeva's commentary. For example: font-family:Arial"> janmaadyasya yataH || vs 1.1.2 || font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">He, from whom proceeds the creation, preservation, and reconstruction of the universe, is Brahman. (vedaanta-suutra 1.1.2) font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">This occurs in a context which specifically refutes the idea that Brahman is anything else, i.e, the brahmin font-family:Arial">varna, Lord Brahmaa, the Vedas, any big thing, or the jiiva. In his commentary, Baladeva writes: font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">"Therefore the word Brahman applies only to God, as it denotes the possession of unlimited and unsurpassed attributes, and is valid only with regard to God," font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">This is clearly not a description of the impersonal brahmajyoti. This is made all the more clear in suutra 1.1.4 which states that Vishnu is the subject matter of all the Vedas. Baladeva's commentary on this suutra leaves no doubt that Brahman is described in all the Vedas, and that this Brahman is Krishna. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">There are other places in the commentary in which the innumerable, transcendental attributes of Brahman are described. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Where in the Upanishads is a path of “oneness” suggested, even one that is according to our understanding of sayujya mukti? Note that I am asking this because I am certain other Vaishnavas will eventually. We need to know that this is in fact the case, instead of just saying that it is so. We have to see pramaanas from the Upanishads, because merely quoting our aachaaryas will not convince them. In other words, we should be able to prove that our aachaaryas know what they are talking about. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">> Srila Narottama Das Thakur is quite clear in stating font-family:Arial">> the "jnana-kanda" and "karma-kanda" divisions of the font-family:Arial">> Vedas are like poison to the bhaktas, font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Can you provide the exact reference, please, with translation? I’m interested to know if he specifically referred to the Vedas. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial"> and Krishna font-family:Arial">> instructs Arjuna to not be bewildered by the flowery font-family:Arial">> words of the karma-kanda section of the Vedas. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">But in that situation, Krishna is clearly criticizing the karmis who become attracted to the “flowery words” of the Vedas, and believe that there is nothing more than that. Krishna’s criticism is directed towards the karmis, but not the karma-kaanda. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Perhaps what we *should* be saying, or in other words what our aachaaryas intend when they say it, is that karma-kaanda and jnaana-kaanda are stepping stones towards developing bhakti, but become misleading when the devotee gets fixated on them, without advancing towards bhakti. Such people are prone to misinterpreting the jnaana-kaanda towards impersonalist conclusions. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">> If one wants to argue that the jnana-kanda somehow font-family:Arial">> actually refers to pure devotional service (on the font-family:Arial">> grounds that the Vedas only speak about bhakti and font-family:Arial">> nothing else), then one must carry the same argument font-family:Arial">> to the karma-kanda section of the Vedas as well. This font-family:Arial">> is absolutely not true. The Vedas provide all font-family:Arial">> knowledge for all classes of people, thus they are font-family:Arial">> known as a desire treee. For those who want to enjoy font-family:Arial">> in the material world, the Vedas provide them font-family:Arial">> knowledge by which they may eternally remain in font-family:Arial">> ignorance. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">But even karma and jnaana according to the Vedas have ultimately the purpose of bringing one to the platform of devotional service. I am not arguing that they are pure devotional service, but only that they are some kind of indirect devotional service. Evidence: font-family:Arial"> ye'pyanyadevataabhaktaa yajante shraddhayaanvitaaH | te'pi maameva kaunteya yajantyavidhipuurvakam || giitaa 9.23 || font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kuntii, but they do so in a wrong way. (bhagavad-giitaa 9.23) font-family:Arial"> tasmaad o.m ityudaahR^itya yaj~nadaanatapaHkriyaaH | pravartante vidhaanoktaaH satata.m brahmavaadinaam || giitaa 17.24 || font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Therefore, transcendentalists undertaking performances of sacrifice, charity and penance in accordance with scriptural regulations begin always with 'om,' to attain the Supreme. (bhagavad-giitaa 17.24) font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">We should also keep in mind Srila Baladeva Vidyabhuushana’s commentary on the Vedaanta: font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">“As regards the objection that the Vedas teach the attainment of phenomenal things, like getting rain, procuring a son, or acquiring Heaven, we answer thus: These are taught in the Vedas, as incitement to the acquirement of divine wisdom by baby souls; and to produce a faith in mankind. For when one sees that the Vedic mantras have the efficacy of producing rain, etc., then he gets faith in them and has an inclination to study them, and thus comes ultimately to discriminate the real and the transitory, the permanent and the illusory things of the universe, and thus gets love of Brahman and disgust with the phenomenal. Therefore, all the Vedas teach Brahman. Moreover, sacrifices, etc., taught in the Vedas produce phenomenal results, etc., only then when the kaama or strong will force is joined with the mantras. Those very sacrifices lead towards the purification of mind and illumination of the soul, when performed without such a desire for phenomenon. Thus Karmakaanda itself by teaching the worship of various devataas, becomes part of Brahmajnaana and is really the worship of Brahman, when the element of desire is excluded. Such a worship purifies the heart and gives a taste for Brahman enquiry and does not produce any other phenomenal desire.” (govinda-bhaaShya 1.1.4) font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">> Further, the desire to merge into the impersonal font-family:Arial">> effulgence of Godhead is not Mayavada (the concept font-family:Arial">> that Brahman becomes covered by illusion). Jnani's are font-family:Arial">> not mayavadi's, they are spiritualists who are font-family:Arial">> attracted to the impersonal feature of the absolute font-family:Arial">> and who aim to become one with it. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">In other words, you are referring to what Atma-Tattva dasa calls “brahmavaadis.” font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Still, we need to show that there is evidence of the brahmavaadi point of view in the Upanishads. It is clear to me from the Giitaa verses you quoted, i.e. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">> Bhagavad Gita 12:3-5 details this subject. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">… but other Vaishnavas differ with our interpretation of these verses. Maadhvas say that the “avyakta” referred to there is Lakshmi, while Sri Vaishnavas say it is the jiiva. So in the end, we have to go back to the Upanishads. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">> The following statement by Srila Prabhupada clearly font-family:Arial">> explains the faults of jnana-yoga: font-family:Arial">> font-family:Arial">> "A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and font-family:Arial">> if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may font-family:Arial">> accomplish the realization of the eternal and font-family:Arial">> knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the font-family:Arial">> blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some font-family:Arial">> devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in font-family:Arial">> the process of jnana-yoga, may come to the point of font-family:Arial">> bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long font-family:Arial">> practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of font-family:Arial">> trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore font-family:Arial">> an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the font-family:Arial">> unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the font-family:Arial">> time of realization. Every living soul is partially font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">And this is very clear. But we still need to show that the idea of jiiva merging into the Brahman effulgence is actually given in the Upanishads. Either that, or we will be challenged to substantiate our opinions and fall short. font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial">Yours, font-family:Arial"> font-family:Arial;mso-no-proof:yes">H. Krishna Susarla 12.0pt">www.achintya.org 12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes"> 12.0pt"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2002 Report Share Posted May 6, 2002 > This type of argument is very common among devotees. > They will say, "No where in the Vedas is it taught > XYZ," but the reality is they have never read the > Vedas so their statements are meaningless. This is > just an observation worth noting. When we discuss with > people of other traditions we should be careful not to > employ this technique, as they will identify it within > a second and call our bluff. That is true. What he should have said is: "I have never seen anything in the Upanishads which teach the path of becoming one with Brahman, and I cannot accept that they do until I see the evidence." In that case, I think the very reasonable response would be to provide the shaastric pramaanas so that we can see for sure and be done with it. After all, we can't accept that the Upanishads teach sayujya mukti unless we can prove it to others. We could just believe that they do because Srila Prabhupada says so, but how would that make Srila Prabhupada look if another Vaishnava were to call OUR bluff? > Now from a logical perspective, if we can accept that > the Vedas deal extensively with pravritti-marga, how > to entangle oneself in material existence eternally > through karma-kanda, then why is it difficult to > accept that the Vedas may speak something about > impersonal realization or sayujya-mukti. It won't be difficult to accept at all, if we can see explicit evidence for the same. > The three divisions of the Vedas, which up till a few > days ago were universally accepted by Gaudiya > Vaishnavas, and which have been explained clearly by No one is disputing the three divisions of the Vedas. The objection is only in regards to what each division is teaching and how they are to be regarded. It's a very strong statement to regard any part of the Vedas as "poison." We have to know what we are talking about, or other Vedaantists will see such claims as presumptuous. So far the only "jnaana" I have seen in the Upanishads is in regards to the properties of Brahman, the jiiva, the material nature, etc. I have yet to see anything teaching oneness philosophy, even in the brahmavaadi sense. Not that I am an Upanishad expert, mind you. I just need to see the evidence. Most of what I know from the Upanishads comes from reading the Govinda-bhaashya. I see very little there that is clearly in reference to the impersonal brahmajyoti or sayujya mukti. In fact, I am surprised as to just how "personalist" the Vedaanta-suutra is. > establishing bhakti yoga as the highest. Gaudiya > Vaishnavas have given a technical definition to the > terms karma, jnana and bhakti. When we say jnana, we > are not simply refering to knowledge (such as defined > by Krishna in Gita 13.3). We are refering to a > particular path of self-realization adopted for a > particular purpose (i.e. due to a cause or desired > aim). Precisely. These are GAUDIIYA definitions. Others may not accept those definitions, which again suggests that we must be careful when he use those words. At the very least, we have to qualify strong statements with an explanation of the Gaudiiya definitions. Perhaps, though we are all using the same words, > in our minds we are all speaking of different things, > and as a result there is confusion. To be clear, > "jnana" does not refer to atma-vidya, nor divya-jnana, > etc. It refers to the path of impersonal realization > of the absolute, which results in sayujya-mukti. For > this reason it is called as "poison" by Vaishnava > acharyas. That is fine, as long as we can SHOW that such a "jnaana" exists. We have not done so yet. > The following purport by Srila Prabhupada, to the > first verse of the 12th chapter is relevant: > > arjuna uvaca > evam satata-yukta ye > bhaktas tvam paryupasate > ye capy aksaram avyaktam > tesam ke yoga-vittamah > > "Arjuna inquired: Which is considered to be more > perfect, those who are properly engaged in Your > devotional service, or those who worship the > impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?" But keep in mind that "impersonal Brahman" is NOWHERE in the Sanskrit in that verse. Sure, it is a reasonable interpretation, and one that I happen to accept as correct. Furthermore, it is only implied, but NOT explicitly stated, that the worshippers of the "avyakta" are those that are destined towards sayujya mukti. Again, we can accept it as such, but what evidence exists in the Upanishads to substantiate that such a path exists? Again, this is why we need explicit evidence from the Upanishads. Otherwise, all we can argue is what Srila Prabhupada has taught, but we won't be able to prove it objectively. Yours, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2002 Report Share Posted May 6, 2002 "The confusion I think, is that maayavaadis tend to use the term "jnaana yoga" inappropriately to begin with. They are interested in the jnaana-kaanda of the Upanishads, but they misinterpret it to think that it involves realization of some absolute oneness. Hence, we use the terms "jnaana" and "jnaana-kaanda" in the maayaavaadi sense when we criticize it. But the real jnaana is still something else entirely." Yes, I think this is the way to resolve the Gaudiya condemnation of "jnana-khanda of the Vedas". Even in Lord Chaitanya's time, Mayavadi influence was felt and even today, I would guess, more people affiliate themselves with Shankara than with a particular Vaishnava acharya. Therefore, it seems reasonable to use "jnana" in the commonly understood sense and then criticize it. ys Gerald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.