Guest guest Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 Responses to some more questions asked by Krishna Susharla prabhu: <<<Just for my edification, can you please mention the explicit evidence that says that Satyavati was a kshatriya woman? I apologize if I missed it.>>> Please refer to http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01064.htm though Ganguli's translations are not very good. Nevertheless, because what you are asking is illustrated by a simple episode, you will still get your answer from his translation. Satyavati was the daughter of the king Uparichara Vasu. This episode shows that. This is why the word "vasavyAm" appears in that BhAgavata verse I pointed to earlier. The fisherman was a different person, to whom Uparichara Vasu gave his daughter as a gift. It is only for vaishya and > shudra mothers that the child adopts the caste of the mother. This > is brought out quite explicitly by Bhishma to Yudhishthira in his > upadesha after the battle. <<<OK, first of all, what is the exact pramaana, and secondly, is smriti now acceptable as pramaana for these discussions? Or will it suddenly be unacceptable if I quote the same source tomorrow?>>> Please see: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b013.htm (the second para has the pramANa you asked for) http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b014.htm You may also note how much birth is considered important by Bhishma. I do not have a problem if you quote from Mahabharata. <<<Are kshatriyas and vaishyas not also initiated into the sacred thread? Krishna and Balarama "learned" the Vedas under Sandipani Muni as children of Vasudeva's dynasty.>>> Yes they are initiated into the sacred thread, and they study the Vedas. The shudras and those outside of varNa system do not have Veda- adhikAra. > So the solution is for you to establish it based on the Brahma > Sutras which sets the rules of interpretation of the whole shAstra. <<<And yet, brahma-sutras are not shruti. So again, who is the basis for your epistemology? You can't take the position that we should only depend on shruti if you must rely on brahma-sutras.>>> The shrutis are the most authoritative, being apauruSheya (unauthored and eternal). The Brahma-sutras were written by Vyasa to enable people to correctly interpret the shrutis (and thus also the shruti-aviruddha- smritis, which are authoritative because of their conformance to the shrutis). One cannot independently interpret verses the way one likes if it is prohibited by the sutras. > Also note that many of Madhva's so-called obscure sources have been > quoted by many others before and just after him. <<<That seems to be a convenient fiction designed to elude what is otherwise a very reasonable objection to this double-standard of pramaanas. What other Vedaantists quote from and accept quotes from, say, the Brahma-tarka? You should be honest and admit that many of Madhva's sources are only accepted by him and members of his line.>>> Please read http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/papers/mesquita.pdf and other papers by BNK Sharma available online on dvaita.net, which give evidences for authenticity of many of the so-called unknown texts. There are also other papers published by BNKS not available online. Speaking specifically about Brahma-Tarka, from what I know, 1. AdvaitAnanda, a commentator on Shankara's Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya, has cited one verse from Brahma-Tarka (also cited by Madhva in Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya) and argues against Madhva's interpretation of the second line of that verse. What matters is that he accepts the authenticity of the Brahma Tarka. 2. Madhusudana Saraswati has accepted the quotes by Vyasatirtha from Brahma-Tarka in the bitter debate between the two. If this work was completely dubious, then it is inconceivable how advaitins like the above did not question the authenticity of Brahma Tarka, as well as those who Madhva himself converted. On the other hand, the Gaudiyas, being 300 years later, also have no history of debate or dialectical literature (such as the AdvaitaSiddhi- Nyayamrita debate continuing over a few hundred years between advaita and dvaita). Thus, the obscure quotations of Madhva cannot be considered at the same level as the obscure quotations by Gaudiyas. It is inconceivable that if the obscure references were unauthoritative, no advaitin for several centuries objected to them, and no dvaitin (including the stalwart advaitin scholars Madhva himself converted into his fold like Padmanabha Tirtha, Trivikrama, etc, as well as later dialectical commentators like Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha, or anybody else for that matter) bothered to even defend the authenticity of the references. Further, even Jiva Goswami and others have accepted Madhva's obscure quotations. (and they presumably did so in knowledge, so please don't ask for a deal that just because they accept Madhva's quotations, Madhvas should accept the quotations of Gaudiyas, as if truth is settled by such deals) <<<Bhaagavatam does not directly mention Raadha's name, but then again it does mention the gopikas and the rasa-lila, which are very much at the core of Gaudiya theology. I would say that for the Bhagavatam to mention the importance of the gopikas, while another source like the Padma Purana to mention the name of the one those gopikas, is a refinement.>>> Even granting that one of the gopikas is called Radha as per Padma Purana, it is inconceivable how the supposedly highest layer of truth is found in Padma Purana (actually not even that, since the details of the pastimes are found primarily in writings of Gaudiya acharyas, not in Padma Purana either), and not in any of the standard texts on Vedanta. As far as rasa-lila is concerned, Madhva has given it due importance in his commentary, but he hasn't lifted it over and above everything else as the deepest understanding of truth, which you would expect to find in standard texts on Vedanta. <<<You'll forgive me if I seem unimpressed by your take on what constitutes an "obscure source." Like the word "interpolation," you will just use that to dismiss anything that presents evidence that you do not like. Madhva himself quotes from the Puraanas when it suits him, but when Puraanas are quoted regarding the existence of Radha, you and other Tattvavadis just dismiss it without a further thought.>>> I don't think it matters to accept Radha as one of the gopikas. What matters is her position in Gaudiya ontology which is based entirely on obscure sources. Hopefully, the above has given an indication that obscure sources of Madhva and obscure sources of Gaudiyas do not carry the same degree of obscurity. Madhva's sources are backed up by research papers and have passed through centuries of dialectical debate with advaitins with no attempt to defend or attack their authenticity on both sides. And dvaita ontology does not depend on them. Yours, Anant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 achintya, "anantshenoy2000" <anantshenoy2000 wrote: > > Please refer to http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01064.htm though > Ganguli's translations are not very good. Nevertheless, because what > you are asking is illustrated by a simple episode, you will still get > your answer from his translation. As always, if you feel the issue is a crucial one, feel free to parse out the Sanskrit and explain what the correct translation should be. > Satyavati was the daughter of the king Uparichara Vasu. This episode > shows that. This is why the word "vasavyAm" appears in that BhAgavata > verse I pointed to earlier. The fisherman was a different person, to > whom Uparichara Vasu gave his daughter as a gift. Thank you for providing this section which proves that Satyavati was not the seminal daughter of a fisherman. Here are the passages in question. Reading them, I continue to have doubts: "While they were fighting, the seed (of Vasu) fell into the waters of the Yamuna. And in those waters dwelt an Apsara of the higher rank, known by the name of Adrika, transformed by a Brahmana's curse into a fish. As soon as Vasu's seed fell into the water from the claws of the hawk, Adrika rapidly approached and swallowed it at once. That fish was, some time after, caught by the fishermen. And it was the tenth month of the fish's having swallowed the seed. From the stomach of that fish came out a male and a female child of human form. The fishermen wondered much, and wending unto king Uparichara (for they were his subjects) told him all. They said, 'O king, these two beings of human shape have been found in the body of a fish!' The male child amongst the two was taken by Uparichara. That child afterwards became the virtuous and truthful monarch Matsya. After the birth of the twins, the Apsara herself became freed from her curse. For she had been told before by the illustrious one (who had cursed her) that she would, while living in her piscatorial form, give birth to two children of human shape and then would be freed from the curse. Then, according to these words, having given birth to the two children, and been killed by the fishermen, she left her fish-form and assumed her own celestial shape. The Apsara then rose up on the path trodden by the Siddhas, the Rishis and the Charanas. The fish-smelling daughter of the Apsara in her piscatorial form was then given by the king unto the fishermen, saying, 'Let this one be thy daughter.' That girl was known by the name of Satyavati. And gifted with great beauty and possessed of every virtue, she of agreeable smiles, owing to contact with fishermen, was for some time of the fishy smell. Wishing to serve her (foster) father she plied a boat on the waters of the Yamuna." So in summary, it was the semen from a kshatriya (King Vasu) which fell into the water and was swallowed by/impregnated by an Apsara in the form of a fish. So actually Satyavati is the daughter of a king and an apsara, or a king and a fish, depending on how you look at it. But either way, she clearly isn't a pure kshatriya. Even if she were a pure kshatriya, I'm still not convinced that children of brahmin/kshatriya matings are considered brahmins - at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b014.htm we find the following: "Bhishma said, 'The sons that a Brahmana begets upon spouses taken from the three inferior orders, those begotten by a Kshatriya upon spouses taken from the two orders inferior to his own, O Bharata, and the sons that a Vaisya begets upon a spouse taken from the one order that is inferior to his,--are all called Apadhwansajas." Furthermore, in this case there is sufficient doubt as to whether or not Satyavati can be considered a kshatriya. Consider this quote at the same source: "Bhishma said, 'His is the son from whose seed he has sprung. If, however, the owner of the seed abandons the son born of it, such a son then becomes his upon whose spouse he has been begotten. The same rule applies to the son called Adhyudha. He belongs to the person from whose seed he has taken his birth. If, however, the owner of the seed abandons him, he becomes the son of the husband of his mother. 2 Know that even this is what the law declares.'" Of course, it doesn't say this in regards to daughters, but one can still detect the principle that one's ancestry is of less importance if one is not actually raised by the biological parent. Satyavati was not raised by her kshatriya father. Ergo she would not be considered a kshatriya according to these principles. This same principle can be detected from the following statement: "Bhishma said, 'When a person takes up and rears a son that has been cast off on the road by his father and mother, and when the person thus taking and rearing him fails to find out his parents after search, he becomes the father of such a son and the latter becomes what is called his made son. Not having anybody to own him, he becomes owned by him who brings him up. Such a son, again, comes to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ be regarded as belonging to that order to which his owner or rearer ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ belongs.'" ^^^^^^^ Thus, I don't see how this proves your point, but I agree that Satyavati is not the seminal daughter of the fisherman. Then again, if one's conduct helps to determine one's varna, then which varna would she be assigned to on this basis, prior to her marriage to Santanu? She certainly wasn't performing kshatriya duties, was she? > Please see: > http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b013.htm (the second para has > the pramANa you asked for) > http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b014.htm > > You may also note how much birth is considered important by Bhishma. > Bhishma does consider birth important. There is no denying it. He even says something to the effect of how knowledge, etc may make a lower class person look good but eventually the person will be found out. This seems to imply that there is no point in shudras trying to uplift themselves through brahminical samskaras. And yet, ironically, he still says this: "If a person happens to belong to a superior order but still if he happens to be divested of good behaviour, he should receive no respect or worship." This seems to substantiate my earlier impression that a non- practicing brahmin should not be thought of as a brahmin simply because of his birth. And: "One may worship even a Sudra if he happens to be conversant with duties and be of good conduct. A person proclaims himself by his own good and acts and by his good or bad disposition and birth. If one's race of birth happens to be degraded for any reason, one soon raises it and makes it resplendent and famous by one's acts." Conversely, those being born of shudra families but taking on the nature of brahmins should be respected as such and his family's status considered to have been uplifted. > I do not have a problem if you quote from Mahabharata. I'll keep that in mind. One of these days, someone will have to explain to me why the Mahabharata, which has so many recensions and suspicion of interpolation, is acceptable to Tattvavadis, while the Bhagavatam and other major Puranas are considered by them as "obscure sources." > > So the solution is for you to establish it based on the Brahma > > Sutras which sets the rules of interpretation of the whole > shAstra. > > <<<And yet, brahma-sutras are not shruti. So again, who is the basis > for your epistemology? You can't take the position that we should > only depend on shruti if you must rely on brahma-sutras.>>> > > The shrutis are the most authoritative, being apauruSheya (unauthored > and eternal). The Brahma-sutras were written by Vyasa to enable people > to correctly interpret the shrutis (and thus also the shruti- aviruddha- > smritis, which are authoritative because of their conformance to the > shrutis). One cannot independently interpret verses the way one likes > if it is prohibited by the sutras. All of these things can just as easily be said of the Puranas, especially the Bhagavatam, namely: 1) Authorship by Vyasa 2) Intended to explain the meaning of the shrutis Either your position is based directly on shruti or it is not. In fact, what you mean by "based on shruti" is really "based on the interpreation of Vedanta-sutras." I have no problem with that. But then, if someone chooses to understand the shruti based on the Bhagavata Purana, such a position should not be criticized by those who are also using smritis to understand shruti. > > Also note that many of Madhva's so-called obscure sources have > been > > quoted by many others before and just after him. > > <<<That seems to be a convenient fiction designed to elude what is > otherwise a very reasonable objection to this double-standard of > pramaanas. What other Vedaantists quote from and accept quotes from, > say, the Brahma-tarka? > > You should be honest and admit that many of Madhva's sources are > only accepted by him and members of his line.>>> > > Please read http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/papers/mesquita.pdf and other > papers by BNK Sharma available online on dvaita.net, which give > evidences for authenticity of many of the so-called unknown texts. Anant, this highly verbose essay by Srisha Rao does not exhaustively prove the authenticity of Madhva's sources. How could it, when he spends the first two paragraphs impuning bad motives on the part of Mesquita, after which he just slips in the following: "It is well beyond the scope of the present paper to discuss the question of the unknown sources in full detail, but here we simply highlight evidences for a few of the "fictitious" sources (with an emphasis on the ´Sruti sources, which are thoroughly researched), and also point out other errors in the claims Mesquita presents as facts. We intend the following solely as a template for further thorough research, rather than as an exhaustive resource in itself." In other words, Srisha is going to only address the authenticity of those sources for which he has some evidence to speak of, not the other sources for which he does not. >From what I can tell, Mesquita has not done anything to Madhva that CMS members haven't already done to Chaitanya and his followers. If Mesquita's methodology is flawed, then it must be always held to be unacceptable, even in sectarian debates with Gaudiyas. Speaking specifically about Brahma-Tarka, from what I know, > 1. AdvaitAnanda, a commentator on Shankara's Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya, has > cited one verse from Brahma-Tarka (also cited by Madhva in Vishnu > Tattva Vinirnaya) and argues against Madhva's interpretation of the > second line of that verse. What matters is that he accepts the > authenticity of the Brahma Tarka. Since I do not see the original context, I have no way to verify this. Then again, are *you* even familiar with the original context? I also see Tattvavadis arguing with Gaudiya interpretations of "obscure sources" all the time, only to say later that, "well even if it's saying what you claim it's saying, it's obscure anyway." > 2. Madhusudana Saraswati has accepted the quotes by Vyasatirtha from > Brahma-Tarka in the bitter debate between the two. Again, I would need to see context. I find it highly dubious that later Advaitin commentators would attach importance to an obscure source that their own acharya never mentioned in his writings. > If this work was completely dubious, then it is inconceivable how > advaitins like the above did not question the authenticity of Brahma > Tarka, as well as those who Madhva himself converted. This line of reasoning can applies to Gaudiyas too. They have within their ranks converts from Madhva (Baladeva Vidyabhushana), Sri Vaishnava (Venkata Bhatta), and Advaita (Prakashananda Sarasvati and others) traditions. If the works cited by the Gosvamis were of dubious authenticity, it is inconceivable how these esteemed scholars would not question them. > On the other hand, the Gaudiyas, being 300 years later, also have no > history of debate or dialectical literature (such as the AdvaitaSiddhi- > Nyayamrita debate continuing over a few hundred years between advaita > and dvaita). This is incorrect, at least as far as debate is concerned. There are examples of debates with advaitins documented in Gaudiya literature, of which the conversion of Prakashananda Saraswati comes foremost to mind. Thus, the obscure quotations of Madhva cannot be > considered at the same level as the obscure quotations by Gaudiyas. Translation: don't hold us to the same standard. Sorry, Anant, but I'm not buying it. It > is inconceivable that if the obscure references were unauthoritative, > no advaitin for several centuries objected to them, and no dvaitin > (including the stalwart advaitin scholars Madhva himself converted > into his fold like Padmanabha Tirtha, Trivikrama, etc, as well as > later dialectical commentators like Jayatirtha and Vyasatirtha, or > anybody else for that matter) bothered to even defend the authenticity > of the references. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any scholarly objection to the sources cited by the Gosvamis for 5 centuries, until the Cyber Madhva Sangha came into existence and needed to do something about the problem of Madhva followers going to ISKCON temples. > Further, even Jiva Goswami and others have accepted Madhva's obscure > quotations. (and they presumably did so in knowledge, so please don't > ask for a deal that just because they accept Madhva's quotations, > Madhvas should accept the quotations of Gaudiyas, as if truth is > settled by such deals) You don't have any idea of what you are talking about. In the Tattva Sandarbha, Jiva Gosvami admits that he has not studied some of these obscure sources in the original, only that he is accepting their authenticity on Madhva's authority. If I am an outsider to both traditions, then this still says nothing to me about the authenticity of the texts in question. > Even granting that one of the gopikas is called Radha as per Padma > Purana, it is inconceivable how the supposedly highest layer of truth I do not understand or agree with your position that the name of Krishna's chief gopika constitutes the highest layer of truth in achintya bheda abheda philosophy, as I understand it. > is found in Padma Purana (actually not even that, since the details of > the pastimes are found primarily in writings of Gaudiya acharyas, not > in Padma Purana either), and not in any of the standard texts on > Vedanta. As far as rasa-lila is concerned, Madhva has given it due > importance in his commentary, but he hasn't lifted it over and above > everything else as the deepest understanding of truth, which you would > expect to find in standard texts on Vedanta. There is actually nothing inconceivable about this position of the Gaudiyas if one accepts that the Puranas authored by Vyasa (like the Bhagavata) are also intended to elucidate the subject matter of Vedanta, and are thus Vedantic texts. At the heart of your "inconceivable" objections is the elitist premise (some might say prejudice) that devotional works like the Bhagavatam are not "standard texts on Vedanta." What becomes a "standard text on Vedanta" then becomes an issue of semantics. Apparently if it has a history of polemical interpretation of the kind that is relished by scholars, then you would consider it a "standard text on Vedanta." But what really matters is that it was written by Vyasa, who also wrote the Vedanta-sutras, and it was written for the purpose of elucidating on the same subject matter as the Vedanta. It is therefore Vedantic in the literal sense of the word. I personally think that your dismissive attitude against the Bhagavatam is due to the fact that it is pretty clear in its views, unlike the Brahma-sutras whose terseness have historically made them amenable to misinterpretation. Otherwise, there is really no other objection, objectively speaking, since both are smritis, both are relatively well preserved, both claim to discuss that which is the essence of shruti, etc. That's just my impression as an outsider to both Gaudiya and Tattvavadi traditions. > <<<You'll forgive me if I seem unimpressed by your take on what > constitutes an "obscure source." Like the word "interpolation," you > will just use that to dismiss anything that presents evidence that > you do not like. Madhva himself quotes from the Puraanas when it > suits him, but when Puraanas are quoted regarding the existence of > Radha, you and other Tattvavadis just dismiss it without a further > thought.>>> > > I don't think it matters to accept Radha as one of the gopikas. What > matters is her position in Gaudiya ontology which is based entirely on > obscure sources. That is *simply* *not* *true.* I am prepared to name several fairly mainstream sources that mention Radha's name, but I am not going to do that until you exactly define what constitutes an "obscure" source and what does not. I don't want to name a source only to have you say, "Oh what, that mentions Radha? Oh, well then it must be obscure too." Padma Purana is not an "obscure source." It is a sattvik Purana mentioned in several Puranic lists. Hopefully, the above has given an indication that > obscure sources of Madhva and obscure sources of Gaudiyas do not carry > the same degree of obscurity. Madhva's sources are backed up by > research papers and have passed through centuries of dialectical > debate with advaitins with no attempt to defend or attack their > authenticity on both sides. And dvaita ontology does not depend on > them. 1) Some of Madhva's sources like Brahma-tarka are far more obscure than some smriti sources I know of which mention Radha. A perfect example of this is Padma Purana, which is in the sattvik class and which is in every major Purana list I have seen. Calling this "obscure" while trying to uphold Brahma-tarka as non-obscure just flies in the face of reality. 2) Your so-called research papers which authenticate Madhva's obscure sources do no such thing. They are primarily a sectarian rebuttal to an academic scholar who claims that Madhva was the author of those sources. They do not exhaustively prove the authenticity of all or even most of Madhva's obscure sources. 3) Gaudiya sources that you refer to as obscure have also passed through centuries of scrutiny, and again to the best of my knowledge I am not aware of any scholar questioning the authenticity of the Gosvamis' pramanas until the last 20 years when Madhva diaspora started going to ISKCON temples and reading ISKCON books against the wishes of their brethren. 4) This unconvincing attempt to show that Madhva's scholarship must not be scrutinized according to the same standards as those used on Gaudiya scholarship, along with point #3 above, just continues to reinforce my impression that all these objections are nothing more than politically motivated scholarship rather than scholarship for its own sake. regards, K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 achintya, "krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla wrote: Even if she were a pure kshatriya, I'm still not convinced that > children of brahmin/kshatriya matings are considered brahmins > Bhisma says in Anushasana Parva http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b013.htm "The Brahmana may take four wives, one from each of the four orders. In two of them (viz., the wife taken from his own order and that taken from the one next below), he takes birth himself (the children begotten upon them being regarded as invested with the same status as his own). Those sons, however, that are begotten by him on the two spouses that belong to the next two orders (viz., Vaisya and Sudra), are inferior, their status being determined not by that of their father but by that of their mothers. The son that is begotten by a Brahmana upon a Sudra wife is called Parasara, implying one born of a corpse, for the Sudra woman's body is as inauspicious as a corpse. He should serve the persons of his (father's) race. Indeed, it is not proper for him to give up the duty of service that has been laid down for him. Adopting all means in his power, he should uphold the burden of his family. Even if he happens to be elder in age, he should still dutifully serve the other children of his father who may be younger to him in years, and bestow upon them whatever he may succeed in earning." >From this, it seems pretty clear why Veda Vyasa who was conceived in Satyati by Parashar is a Brahmana and why Vidura Mahajana conceived by Veda Vyasa was considered a Shudra and that he actually served Dhritarashtra per the scripitural injunctions cited above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 A nice post by Sri anand(from sri vaishnava community)on this topic with lots off quotes! http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/bhakti-list/134673-regarding-casteism.html Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta. http://new.mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.