Authenticity of SLJ

[Guest guest]

Dear Mukunda,

 

I don't have that bibliodata. I can only say that I

have seen the book. But I can guarantee that the SLJ

is the principal source of information about

Bhaktivinoda's life. If the book is shown to be

genuine, will that make you rethink the passages that

go against your expected thinking? I assume you are

speaking of the Bipin Bihari connection?

 

> gosvamis in particular--or rather, those hoping to

> become caste

> gosvamis--do this sort of thing all the time.

 

> but it's also very well documented.

 

Yes, if you have some kind of ready documentation. I

wonder if you have included the Chaitanya Upanishad,

Navadvipa Satakam and Prema Vivarta on that list?

 

I am currently in hot water for claiming that

Bhaktivinoda is the author of these works. But I do so

precisely to counter the kind of attitude that claims

one side is without blemish while the other is evil

incarnate (rhetorical flourish).

 

Anyway, Mukunda, I am approaching my limits here. I am

not ready to expand my involvement any further in this

discussion, certainly not where it involves the

legitimacy of Iskcon or outside Vaishnava groups.

krishneti yasya giri tam manasAdriyeta.

 

My statements about the humanity of the guru are a

deliberate contrast to the emphasis on the guru's

divinity. The sastras makes such an emphasis on the

latter because the former is so obvious. The guru's

compassion, etc., are human qualities. Krishna appears

human but we are told he is divine. We are told not to

be confused by his humanity, but his humanity is the a

priori. It is Krishna as human that we love, not

Krishna as Brahman, Paramatman or Visvarupa, for

instance.

 

The reminders of the guru's divinity are there to keep

us fixed on essentials and not peripherals (though

Babhru makes this point today, it is also one that I

have been making for a long, long time). So we should

similarly focus on the essentials in all these

matters.

 

In some cases, the guru's statements may be incidental

or peripheral. And recognizing that is, I am afraid,

the beginning of intelligence. I should say, the new

beginning of a more refined intelligence.

 

B. R. Sridhar Maharaj speaks of Hegelian dialectics

and the need for constant revelation in one of his

books. His argument (I paraphrase very liberally and

hopefully do not misrepresent) is that God is infinite

and even the acharyas are only swimming in the ocean

of His unlimited attributes. The constant need for new

syntheses requires new revelation. Of course, I find

this very interesting. I don't know how he personally

reconciled the role of the intellect in this

revelation, but I personally hold that the intellect

and will are to be surrendered as much as the body and

mind. The surrender of the intellect does not mean

parroting the words of the previous acharyas, however

great, but in seeing the applicability of their

essential insights (as opposed to the incidental or

peripheral) in accordance with new data and

circumstances.

 

One of the great mistakes of most sectarian

organizations is that they take incidental truths to

be as important as essentials, and often defend them

with a descent into the modes of passion and

ignorance. This is the material disease in religious

form. No organization is entirely free from the deeds

and doctrines of its kanishtha adhikaris.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagat

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.