The highest benefit given by Gauranga

[Guest guest]

On 27 Aug 1999, Pragnesh Surti wrote:

 

> well in Srimad Bhagavatam, Eleventh Canto,The NavaYogendras tell Maharaj

Nimi

> about Lord Chaitanya - a very direct reference:

>

> krsnam varnam tvisa krsnam

> sangopangaastra parshadam

> yajnaih sankirtanair prayair

> yajanti hi su medhasa

>

> Lord Chaitanya is Lord Krsna, but: a)not as Bhagavan Sri Krsna, but as his

> devotee; and 2)not in the color of krsna (bluish-black hue). he comes with

all

> of his full entourage (the CC Adi, and Chaitanya Bhagavat tell in detail

about

> Lord Chaitanya's associates). He starts the Sankirtan movement. and those

who

> are intelligent will follow.

 

Hare Krishna. It's always nice to hear this verse again and again. But as

mentioned previously, the verse does not explicitly refer to Chaitanya

Mahaaprabhu, nor does it make it clear that it is referring to an avataara in

Kali Yuga. Other sampradaayas preceeding our own have commented on this text,

and none of them have taken it to refer to a golden avataara appearing in this

age. Other readings of the verse are equally if not more possible. For

example, here is the Gita Press translation:

 

"It is well-known that (in this age) wise men worship, through sacrifices

mostly consisting of chanting the names of the Lord and singing His praises,

the Lord who is of a dark colur, though bright by lustre, perfect in all

limbs, adorned with ornaments, furnished with His weapons and waited upon by

His attendants."

 

In fact, the above translation is similar to the way in which the Tattvavaadis

take it.

 

Now, before someone starts attacking me as being insincere, rascal, demon,

etc, I will say that I prefer Srila Prabhupada's translation to the one given

by Gita Press and others. My point is only that Srila Prabhupada's translation

isn't obvious to others. No one else has taken the verse as a prediction of

Mahaaprabhu's appearance. And from a literal reading of the verse (based on

the BBT translation which gives the synonyms), it is obvious that Chaitanya

Mahaaprabhu's name is not even mentioned in the Sanskrit, nor is it clear that

His descent is being referred to. So the question I pose (which I suppose is

best answered by the Sanskritists among us) is why is Srila Prabhupada's

translation better than others offered for the same verse? Note that I am not

looking for sentiments like "because Srila Prabhupada spread

Krishna-consciousness all over the world, and he is bona fide, etc." What I am

looking for is an answer that is based on the grammar and/or on context -

something that a skeptic would have to admit is unassailable logic.

 

>

> i think this is a main stream text.

>

 

Yes it is. Unfortunately, my experience with mainstream texts has always been

that if they predict Mahaaprabhu's appearance, they do so only in very

indirect and vague ways, so vague that no one outside our sampradaaya treats

them in that sense. On the other hand, the explicit, undeniable references

always seem to occur in texts that no one has ever heard of (Ananta Samhita?

Vishnu Yaamala? Chaitanya Upanishad?). Thus the dilemna. How can we assert the

correctness of Mahaaprabhu's divinity when the only texts which explicitly

speak of His appearance are the ones which only we accept as bona fide anyway?

 

 

The way I see it, we have one of two possible courses. Either we prove that

those obscure texts should be considered mainstream texts, or we demonstrate

without a doubt that the hidden predictions in the mainstream texts are best

explained by our aachaaryas' interpretations.

 

> ps: in 7th canto: Prahlad Maharaj describes lord Nrsingha as Tri-Yuga, for

he

> comes down as Bhagavan in the first three yugas, while in Kali-Yuga he comes

> as a devotee.

 

He specifically says that the Lord is "channaH" in the Kali Yuga, and is hence

known as Tri-Yuga. The tattvavaadis take "channaH" in this case to mean that

He is not there and hence is covered. Personally, I don't find that logic

convincing - one does not speak of someone being covered unless He is there to

be covered. So I think Srila Prabhupada's translation here is truly

unassailable, and that this is relatively strong evidence for our position.

But then again, the verse still does not explicitly name Chaitanya

Mahaaprabhu. Of course, we can expect that explicit references would be hard

to find since the verse describes His descent in Kali Yuga as covered.

 

regards,

 

K