Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack

[Guest guest]

Prabhus,

 

On one level I genuinely appreciate the information that is being shared in

this debate. On another level, I wonder if there is actually a question in

anyone's mind about the basic legitimacy of Prabhupada's spirituality. The

fact of the matter is that many of the worlds religions rely on the less than

perfect system of oral traditions and oral histories to trace their roots and

subsequent lineage(s). In this regard, if we are putting so much emphasis on

the observable materially manifested histories of our spiritual connections,

then we spiritualists may do well to borrow a favorite mantra of the material

scientists: "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." Many misguided

assumptions have been made on the false premise that a lack us of some kind of

"evidence" is a proof that something either did or did not take place.

 

>>> Do you see any evidence here that Naarada gave diiksha to Vyaasa? Do you see

such evidence anywhere? Do you see any evidence anywhere that Brahmaa gave

diiksha to Naarada? The answer in all cases is no. <<<

 

<<<It is known (from Brahma Samhita for example) that Brahma received mantra

from Sri Krishna. Brahma created via the medium of his contemplation on the

mantra, and Narada was manifest from his contemplation. - Madhava Prabhu>>>

 

The essential point is that Brahma created via the medium of his authentic

connection. The natural question arises therefore, what then did Prabhupada

create with if not also an authentic connection? Is it a material fabrication?

I would suggest that if this is an issue then it be stated explicitly. If not,

then what is the ultimate point? If we accept that Prabhupada's spirituality is

a self-evident proof of a bonafide connection, then whether we find the perfect

history to match our sensabilities or not is not the deciding factor.

 

ys, Santiparayana dasa

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Eric Bott" <botte001@h...> wrote:

> Prabhus,

>

> On one level I genuinely appreciate the information that is

being shared in this debate. On another level, I wonder if there is

actually a question in anyone's mind about the basic legitimacy of

Prabhupada's spirituality. The fact of the matter is that many of

the worlds religions rely on the less than perfect system of oral

traditions and oral histories to trace their roots and subsequent

lineage(s). In this regard, if we are putting so much emphasis on

the observable materially manifested histories of our spiritual

connections, then we spiritualists may do well to borrow a favorite

mantra of the material scientists: "Lack of evidence is not evidence

of lack." Many misguided assumptions have been made on the false

premise that a lack us of some kind of "evidence" is a proof that

something either did or did not take place.

>

 

Exactly. Critics object to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's paramparaa because

they cannot empirically verify some of the links in it. By the same

logic, we have to reject the entire Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiiya

paramparaa, since we can't empirically verify the initiation of

Madhva by Vyaasa, or of Lakshmiipati by Vyaasatiirtha, etc. The only

sources we have that such initiations ever took place is the

biographies of their followers. If we reject them because of "bias,"

then we have no source of objective information and must reject it

all.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received initiation and instruction from Srila

Gaurakishora dasa babaji. This is recorded in _Ray of Vishnu_ by Rupa

Vilasa dasa. If we reject this account and accuse him of "bias," then

let us similarly reject Sri Madhva Vijaya and other accounts.

Obviously, we can't do that, because the whole paramparaa would fail

to satisfy the "objective" criteria.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada did what was

never before done in Gaudiiya Vaishnava history, or even in general

Vaishnava or Hindu history. Even Maadhva leaders will happily claim

the Gaudiiyas as being of their paramparaa. Shrii Vishvesha Tiirtha

even gave a speech in which he explicitly stated this - I can find it

if anyone is interested.

 

The critics try to claim that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta introduced a "new

theology," or that he was preaching for "his time and circumstance."

But however they sugarcoat it, what they are really saying is that

the Gaudiiya Saarasvata paramparaa is not really orthodox Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism. Apparently, doing bhajan in a solitary place, rejecting

varnaashrama, and ignoring other Vedic injunctions is classical

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, as far as they are concerned. But I don't

believe that for a moment.

 

The critics want us to acknowledge that Bhaktisiddhanta introduced

a "new form" of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, with his reliance on

varnaashrama customs, his widespread preaching, his initiation of

Westerners with sacred thread, etc. We are supposed to admit to this

and then feel it is no big deal. I refuse. Instead, let the critics

acknowledge that their gurus, who refuse Vedic injunctions (i.e.

varnaashrama dharma) and refuse Lord Chaitanya's directive to preach

far and wide, are the ones who introduced a new form of Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism. Of course, they will refuse to do that, but at the same

time they expect Bhaktisiddhanta's followers to do it and remain

undisturbed.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Eric Bott wrote:

> On one level I genuinely appreciate the information that is being

shared in this debate. On another level, I wonder if there is actually a

question in anyone's mind about the basic legitimacy of Prabhupada's

spirituality.>

 

This is an excellent observation; the topics most or all of us

actually need to be discussing are in today's Gita verse (i.e., 14.19).

The fairly obscure topic of subsectarian succession and related debates

is practically a non-issue, except that every so often some unscrupulous

person (usually a disgruntled ex-ISKCON member) plants doubts in others'

minds by needlessly bringing it up. Here on Achintya we were discussing

Bhaktivinoda Thakura's biography when someone saw an opportunity to post

caste/babaji propaganda, ostensibly on the plea that some babaji guru

was possibly being slighted; I don't read every single post here, but I

don't recall anyone else first mentioning any babajis' names. My point

is that such rabble-rousing is unethical, or even crass--and it is often

deliberate. Especially since it is also consistent with the generally

dubious character of its usual perpetrators, however, it further tends to

make the babajis look even worse than they already do.

 

 

 

 

> The fact of the matter is that many of the worlds religions rely on the

> less than perfect system of oral traditions and oral histories to trace

> their roots and subsequent lineage(s).

 

However, I question this for two reasons: 1) the oral tradition is

not necessarily imperfect, even if it usually is, and it is certainly not

imperfect when it is sabda-pramana coming from Krsna; 2) the alternatives

of mental speculation or sense perception (which includes empiricism) are

necessarily imperfect, so it isn't like we really have any viable

alternative anyway.

 

 

 

 

> In this regard, if we are putting

> so much emphasis on the observable materially manifested histories of

> our spiritual connections, then we spiritualists may do well to borrow a

> favorite mantra of the material scientists: "Lack of evidence is not

> evidence of lack." Many misguided assumptions have been made on the

> false premise that a lack us of some kind of "evidence" is a proof that

> something either did or did not take place.

 

Right. It's like "proving" that a platypus doesn't lay eggs by

displaying a photograph of a platypus not laying an egg.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

shraddha = some evidence + some faith..... when we'll became a little more

pure we will understand something more of the reliability of Prabhupada and

Bhaktisiddhanta...... and of our spiritual master

 

wheter we are completely sure or not about the Gaudya Vaishnava message

there is absolutely the need of clean our minds to discover if it is truth

or a fake

 

obviously i am not against discussing these subjects.... this is our life,

together with the chanting of Hare krishna (also for who is saying that the

parampara' is interrupted!!)!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

MSN Extra Storage! Hotmail all'ennesima potenza. Provalo!

http://www.msn.it/msnservizi/es/

[Guest guest]

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

 

Here on Achintya we were discussing

> Bhaktivinoda Thakura's biography when someone saw an opportunity to

post

> caste/babaji propaganda, ostensibly on the plea that some babaji

guru

> was possibly being slighted; I don't read every single post here,

but I

> don't recall anyone else first mentioning any babajis' names.

 

Actually, in all fairness, this is partly my fault. Sanjay asked the

question about whether or not Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur ate meat

before his devotional life began, and he mentioned that he found the

reference on raganuga.com. I pointed out that the people maintaining

that site were not in our line, and I pointed out some inflammatory

documents from the internet posted by others in similar lines of

thinking wherein Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's paramparaa was challenged on

various grounds - with the view of showing that there were likely

alternate versions of our paramparaa's history given by those with

different agenda to promote. I also invited a discussion of the

points they raised, just so that the faith of new devotees would not

be disturbed by this sort of criticism running unchallenged.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2002, krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote:

>> Here on Achintya we were discussing Bhaktivinoda Thakura's biography

>> when someone saw an opportunity to post caste/babaji propaganda,

>> ostensibly on the plea that some babaji guru was possibly being slighted;

>> I don't read every single post here, but I don't recall anyone else first

>> mentioning any babajis' names.

>

> Actually, in all fairness, this is partly my fault.

.. . . I also invited a discussion of the

> points they raised, just so that the faith of new devotees would not

> be disturbed by this sort of criticism running unchallenged.

 

I see. In that case, I rescind my statement above and apologize

for any misunderstanding. I might as well also take this opportunity to

reassure Madhava prabhu that I for one intend no criticism of any

particular babaji or caste gosvami he may be following at present.

 

MDd