Doubt and Krishna-Consciousness (was Fall of the Jiva & OOP)

[Guest guest]

On 13 Feb 1999, Nayana-ranjana das wrote:

 

> I feel that this book is one of GBC's major

> accomplishments in establishing the supremacy & straight-forwardness of

thePlease read the book 'Our Original Position" and then one can be protected

> from all apasiddhanta and all of one's doubts are completely cleared on this

> subject matter. This book is a very comprehensive, scholarly presentation

> published with a lot of effort.

> purports of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada over all

> vicious & dangerous speculations which try to undermine the purports and the

> crystal clear opinion of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Hare Krishna. Dandavat pranams.

 

I would like to say something if I may, in spite of the fact that this thread

is probably dead now.

 

I do not feel that labeling any legitimate doubt regarding the correctness of

a given philosophical point as "vicious & dangerous speculation" is consistent

with Vaishnava behavior. In fact, it has the underpinnings of fanatical

Christianity, which discourages doubts and insists on blind obedience to a

single set of views.

 

Doubt is not a desireable thing, to be sure. But it is natural to have doubts

if one has intelligence. Srila Prabhupada, in one of his 3rd Canto purports,

writes that doubt is a sign of intelligence. He criticizes only those doubts

which doubt the authenticity of scripture (since scripture is the ultimate

authority). I don't have the exact quote or purport # on me, but I can search

for it later and post it here if desired. I do remember posting it to the

btg-talk mailing list sometime within the previous month.

 

The point I am making here is that fanatical obedience to a single set of

views is not characteristic of Vaishnava Vedanta schools. You can see this in

the way the previous aachaaryas write their commentaries on something like the

Vedaanta-suutra - each commentary includes an explanation of the suutra,

followed by a contradictory explanation offered by an opponent (called the

puurva-pakshin), and then an explanation as to why the puurva paksha view is

incorrect and the commentator's explanation is correct. Similarly, in his

purport to the BG 4.34 (tad viddhi pranipaatena....), Srila Prabhupada

explains that the verse condemns both absurd inquiries (those inquiries which

are not motivated by a desire to learn, but rather an attempt to make trouble)

and blind following.

 

It should be obvious why blind following is condemned by the Lord. If one does

not express his doubts about a given philosophy, how can he be truly convinced

of its correctness? Even if he outwardly follows, he may have doubts inwardly

which he did not feel welcome to express. That is why the Lord says tad viddhi

pranipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa - by service AND submissive inquiries. What

are we supposed to inquire about? Obviously, we are supposed to ask about

doubts. A true guru is one who can remove them, since he is j~naaninas tattva

darshinaH.

 

That brings me to the present point. By labeling a doubt held by other persons

as "dangerous," you have successfully created a hostile environment to the

expression of such doubts. Threats of ostracism or excommunication have a

powerful effect on devotees who are perfectly sincere if not completely

convinced. No one benefits when a devotee refrains from expressing his doubt;

and the worst possible thing is when a devotee suppresses so many doubts that

he eventually loses his faith and leaves the association of devotees. It is

precisely to prevent such situations that we should be receptive to devotees

who have doubts.

 

I personally would welcome devotees to express their doubts on this forum. I

will defend their right to do so, even if I do not agree with their doubt.

 

All that being said, I would like to address another statement made by

Nayana-ranjana prabhu, "Please read the book 'Our Original Position" and then

one can be protected from all apasiddhanta and all of one's doubts are

completely cleared on this subject matter. This book is a very comprehensive,

scholarly presentation published with a lot of effort." I actually have OOP,

and I agree that the authors put a lot of time and effort into it. I admit

also that I have not finished reading it, partly because there were other,

more important books for me to read, and also because I did not feel that the

subject matter was serious enough for me to devote the necessary amount of my

reading time to it. I am not one of those ISKCON devotees who believes that

no-fall vaada is somehow evil, or tainted with maayaavaada.

 

But for all its arguments, OOP did not clear all of my doubts; it frankly

raised more doubts. For one thing, I cannot understand why the authors insist

on quoting the Shrii-bhaashya (Raamaanuja's commentary on the Vedaanta-suutra)

instead of the Govinda-bhaashya, when the latter was written by our own

sampradaaya achaarya. Furthermore, it perplexes me that the authors would even

bother quoting Raamaanuja at all, when I have heard from followers of that

sampradaaya that the Shrii Vaishnavas do not routinely describe the origin of

the jiiva by fall-vaada. In fact, of all the Vaishnavas I have ever met, only

ISKCON devotees rigidly adhere to fall-vaada to explain the jiiva's origin.

Finally, I found the reasoning used to explain the "no-fall" statements in

Srila Prabhupada's purports and in scripture to be extremely roundabout and

unconvincing - they require one to accept assumptions about the meaning of

such statements which are not found in the statements themselves.

 

I would be happy to discuss these kinds of doubts at more length if anyone is

interested. I may be totally wrong, but winning the argument isn't the point.

The point is to learn what is correct by letting others examine my doubts with

a critical eye/ear and allowing me to do the same with others' views.

 

 

Hare Krishna,

 

-- K