vaishnava-smrti-grantha = bhakti-smrti-sastra

[Guest guest]

Home Base: ISKCON-Baroda

 

Dear NR Prabhu,

 

Namonamaƒ. Jaya ®r…la Prabhup€da!

 

Thank you for your message:

 

> Dear Basu Ghosh Prabhu,

> Hare Krsna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila

> Prabhupada.

>

> > "The subject matter of the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, by Sri Sanatana Gosvami,

> > was collected by Srila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami and is known as a

> > vaishnva-smrti. This vaishnava-smrti-grantha was finished in twenty

> > chapters, known as vilasas." (CC Madhya 1.35 SP Purport)

> >

> > So Srila Prabhupada calls it "Vaishnava Smriti Grantha". So you will

> > have to revise your phraseology here. :-)

>

> > It's a historical question here. Even Srila Prabhupada employed the

> > term "Vaishnava Smriti Grantha", which does distinguish those

> > literatures from Smriti shastras and, for instance dharma shastras and

> > vaishnava agama shastras (pancharatra & vaikhanasa agamas).

>

> In my humble opinion, you seem to have forgotten the instruction of Sri

> Caitanya Mahaprabhu to Sanatana Goswami which I had posted earlier and

> from where this term 'bhakti-smrti-sastra' has come from. I can repeat

> that:

>

> Cc Madhya 23.104:

>

> vrndavane krsna-seva, vaisnava-acara

> BHAKTI-SMRTI-SASTRA* kari' kariha pracara

>

> "Establish devotional service to Lord Krsna and Radharani in Vrndavana.

> You should also compile bhakti scriptures and preach the bhakti cult from

> Vrndavana."

>

> And in pursuance of those insrtuctions Sanatana Goswami composed the

> Hari-bhakti-vilasa. So it clearly means that HBV is 'bhakti-smrti-sastra',

> as per the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

>

> If Prabhupada mentions in CC Madhya 1.35 Purport that HBV is

> 'vaishnava-smrti-grantha', we can obviously conclude that:

>

> vaishnava-smrti-grantha = bhakti-smrti-sastra

>

> You can address the books of the acaryas by any of these two names. One is

> used by Lord Caitanya and one is used by Prabhupada. So I don't have to

> revise my phraseology at all. Both mean the same thing. So we can see that

> just because Prabhupada has used the word 'vaishnava-smrti-grantha'

> dosen't mean that are not sastras. They are & remain smrti-sastras.

 

OK. Don't revise your phraseology... whew, the fun this "folio" philosophy

is for both of us! :-)

 

Still the fact remains that these books are "shastras" for our sampradaya

only.

 

We still have to take into account the rest of India; the vipras who know

vedas, etc. They are worshipped by Lord Krishna (vida SB, BG, etc.)...

 

So when we want to establish principles... we do like the 6 goswamis do; we

go to the ancient shastras that are accepted by all followers of "sanatana

dharma".

 

> > Yes, we Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept the CC & CB, etc., as "Vaishnava

> > Smriti Granthas". But... other sampradayas may not.

>

> Again as proved above; vaishnava-smrti-grantha = bhakti-smrti-sastra

>

> > This is in order for us to convince other followers of the vedic

> > literatures that the path we are on is bona fide. In all humility I

> > ask; doesn't that make sense to you?

>

> In all humility, I have to say Prabhu, that it dosen't make sense. Why do

> we care what the other sampradayas accept or not accept? They don't accept

> Srila Rupa Goswami as acarya but we accept and we are proud that we are

> the servant of his servants. In the Vallabha sampradaya they accepted

> Girdhar Lal as acarya but Srila Jiva Goswami rejected him because he was

> not willing to accept the latter part of SB i.e the lilas between Krsna &

> the gopies.

 

We care because a vaishnava is supposed to care. No?

 

Otherwise, there is no meaning to preaching, uplifting the fallen, etc.,

etc., etc. As I mentioned above, people who are from families that already

follow sanatana dharma - the Hindus - are taught to revere shastras, i.e.

vedas, Mahabharat, Ramayan, etc., from childhood; although it is diminishing

here in India, unfortunately.

 

> And because they don't accept dosen't mean that the acaryas books cease

> from being bhakti-smrti-sastras. We only accept the verdict of Sri

> Caitanya Mahaprabhu irrespective of what anyone else says or feels about

> it. We are not ashamed of calling the books of our acaryas as

> bhakti-smrti-sastras even in front of them. Infact we loudly proclaim this

> truth so that the whole world comes to know about the literatures of the

> six goswamis and Srila Prabhupada and gets their mercy by reading these

> books.

>

> Your servant,

> Nayana-ranjana das

 

You can loudly proclaim whatever you want... :-).

 

But the 6 goswamis, as Srinivasacharya so nicely pointed out 400 years ago;

nana shastra vicharanaika nipuno... and THOSE are the shastras that I've

been talking about. Religious principles have been established by our own

acharyas on the basis of THOSE shastras... and therefore we too follow in

their footsteps. Which doesn't mean we reject our acharyas books as not

being shastras... but for the sake of broadening the scope of preaching and

establishing our siddhanta... in one sense... we say that they are

"sadhu"...

 

Or do you propose that "guru" & "sadhu" are only those who are in front of

us?

 

Anyway... I'm willing to accept anything you can dig up in the folio, etc.,

in that regard.

 

It's just that when we say, "guru", "sadhu" & "shastra"; just what do we

mean?

 

In my present most humble opinion; which I am open to revise, "guru" means

either "shiksha", "diksha" or "vartma pradarshak"; "sadhu" means

purvacharyas and "shastra" means vedic & vedic supplimentary literature;

with special important given to Vyasadeva as Krishna Kirti Prabhu was so

nicely pointing out...

 

And that shouldn't diminish the importance of our purvacharyas "bhakti

smriti granthas"; but the distinction between them and other vedic

literatures is made in those descriptions themselves. However, they are AS

GOOD AS vedic literatures. And here I'm sure we'll agree.

 

Just for the record I don't feel that I'm trying to "score" or play a game

of "oneupsmanship" here. I'm just trying to share my own subjective

realizations with the other readers of these texts. The aim was to have a

good grasp on siddhanta, so that we wouldn't be "hoodwinked" into accepting

deviant ideas, i.e. ritvikvad, sahajiyaism, etc.

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s