Adhunika Vada

[Guest guest]

I don't believe that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was preaching

"Adhunika-vAda", nor do I think this is Shukavak's

position. He was interacting with modernity and felt

that Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition had adequate

resources confront it.

 

As he got older, Bhaktivinoda became more concerned

with other issues, like preaching the Janmasthan and

engaging in pure bhajan. These two movements in his

mirror the general 19th century Bengal movement from

the Brahmo Samaj to the Ramakrishna Mission, from

self-examination to exuberant confidence.

 

This does not mean, however, that self-examination is

not a continued necessity. It seems to me that

Bhaktivinoda only touched the surface of the great

challenges that modernity has made of religion,

challenges that need to be answered in the language of

modernity and not of tradition alone. The old wine

needs to be put in new bottles, again.

 

Read this statement, for instance, from Bhaktivinoda

Thakur's Amnaya-sutra:

 

Knowledge is like the sun, while all scriptures are

only its rays. No single scripture could possibly

contain all knowledge. The personal realizations

(svataH siddha-jnAna) of the jivas are the basis of

all scripture. These realizations should be recognized

as the gifts of God Himself. The perceptive Rishis

obtained this self-evident knowledge directly from the

Supreme Brahman and wrote it down for the benefit of

other jivas. A fractional portion of this knowledge

has taken form as the Veda." (page 150)

 

"A conditioned soul is advised to study the Veda with

the help of all these explanations. But even with the

help of these explanations, he should still examine

them in the light of his own self-evident knowledge

(or personal realizations), because the authors of

these explanatory literatures and commentaries are not

always clear in their meaning. In some cases,

commentators have even confessed to having doubts

about their own understanding. Therefore the Katha

Upanishad says:

 

avidyAyAm antare vartamAnAH

svayaM dhIrAH paNDitaM manyamAnAH |

dandramyamAnAH pariyanti mUDhAH

andhenaiva nIyamAnA yathAndhAH ||

 

Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves

wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and

thither, like blind led by the blind. (Katha Up. 2.5)

 

Therefore, it is necessary to cultivate knowledge in

the light of one's own personal realizations. This is

the rule governing scriptural study. Since knowledge

born of personal realization is the root of all the

scriptures, how can we expect to gain benefit by

ignoring it and depending exclusively on the

scriptures, which are the branches growing out of it?"

(pp. 151-152)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

At 07:30 AM 12/4/02 -0800, you wrote:

I don't believe that

Bhaktivinoda Thakur was preaching

"Adhunika-vAda", nor do I think this is Shukavak's

position. He was interacting with modernity and felt

that Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition had adequate

resources confront it.

As he got older, Bhaktivinoda became more concerned

with other issues, like preaching the Janmasthan and

engaging in pure bhajan. These two movements in his

mirror the general 19th century Bengal movement from

the Brahmo Samaj to the Ramakrishna Mission, from

self-examination to exuberant confidence.

This does not mean, however, that self-examination is

not a continued necessity. It seems to me that

Bhaktivinoda only touched the surface of the great

challenges that modernity has made of religion,

challenges that need to be answered in the language of

modernity and not of tradition alone. The old wine

needs to be put in new bottles, again.

I meant to make a similar point. It's true, as Mukunda points out, that

the adhunika-vada is mentioned in earlier texts of Bhaktivinoda's, but

not in later texts. And he wasn't preaching rationalism, or his

adhunika-vada (which admits some merit in reason) as the (or even a)

preferred epistemology. Rather, it's a way of sorting through what's

essential in a scripture and what's incidental (though I'd never stake my

life or reputation on that choice of words--it's certainly not his) in

order to present the essential teachings of Mahaprabhu and the Bhagavatam

to modern people, influenced by European rationalism.

And it's not the point of Shukavak's book, either. It's a fact that his

project is scholarly, rather than devotional;he makes it very clear from

the outset that his book does not present the hagiographic account

devotees may be accustomed to or comfortable with. The point of the book

is that Bhaktivinoda's life was a terribly rich tapestry. And, although

I'm not always comfortable with things Shukavak writes, I find the book

enhanced my faith in Bhaktivinoda and the revolution he brought to

Mahaprabhu's movement, especially as carried on by Bhaktisiddhanta and

Srila Prabhupada. I approached the book with caution, having met Shukavak

20 years ago, and aware of the changes in his relationship with ISKCON,

but I was swept away by this dynamic personality who reached out beyond

Bharat and made Krishna consciousness available to mlecchas. Even now, I

would caution that A Hindu Encounter with Modernity is not a book

for everyone.

Over time, as Jagat points out, Bhaktivinoda focused other things, and

his writing became progressively traditional in many ways (though no less

revolutionary--consider how many orthodox vaishnavas felt about his

preaching before he was initiated and how they must have felt about his

writing in English and sending his book abroad), as did his practice.

As far as SLJ, I've read it with interest, but nothing in it has

challenged my faith in my guru-varga.

Just some thoughts. I'll be quiet and sit down now.

Babhru