Gita 1.1

[Guest guest]

I will focus particularly on issues that I hope experienced Gaudiyas will be able to answer. Let me clarify at the outset that I do not disrespect Prabhupada - I appreciate the spreading of bhakti around the world by him. But I do not consider his words as absolute authority particularly since I feel he many times contradicts shAstra, and I am very intrigued by the attitude of many Gaudiyas that he cannot be wrong whatsoever in anything he said or wrote. If anyone were to admit that he could have made mistakes in the commentaries, there is nothing further I can ask. But an insistence that every single word he wrote is right sounds highly dogmatic. It is to question this dogmatism that I am writing this, not to start a "holy war" as alleged by a member of the group. In fact, it is this very attitude that I find predominant as soon as one questions Prabhupada (that the questioner wants to start a holy war, etc), and I strongly question it. In a previous mail, I was asked to post in detail all my questions. I am starting to do that in this mail.

 

In Gita 1.1, this is what Prabhupada says -

 

<quote>

 

Dhrtarastra, the father of the Kurus, was highly doubtful about the

possibility of his sons' ultimate victory. In his doubt, he inquired

from his secretary Sanjaya, "What did my sons and the sons of Pandu

do?" He was confident that both his sons and the sons of his younger

brother Pandu were assembled in that Field of Kuruksetra for a

determined engagement of the war. Still, his inquiry is significant.

He did not want a compromise between the cousins and brothers, and he

wanted to be sure of the fate of his sons on the battlefield. Because

the battle was arranged to be fought at Kuruksetra, which is

mentioned elsewhere in the Vedas as a place of worship--even for the

denizens of heaven--Dhrtarastra became very fearful about the

influence of the holy place on the outcome of the battle. He knew

very well that this would influence Arjuna and the sons of Pandu

favorably, because by nature they were all virtuous. Sanjaya was a

student of Vyasa, and therefore, by the mercy of Vyasa, Sanjaya was

able to envision the Battlefield of Kuruksetra even while he was in

the room of Dhrtarastra. And so, Dhrtarastra asked him about the

situation on the battlefield.

 

</quote>

 

Since Dhritarashtra was told about Bhishma's fall before the Gita

was narrated by Sanjaya, and since all this was told by Sanjaya to him

10 days after the battle had started (since Sanjaya was also fighting

the battle), here, Prabhupada contradicts the Mahabharata by

assuming that the narration of the Gita was a live telecast.

Dhritarashtra could never have doubted whether the battle happened or

not. How would Gaudiyas deal with this objection?

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

Dear Anant ji,

Namaste.

 

Here's my take on your question. I will first take up the question

itself, and then comment on your preamble:

 

> Since Dhritarashtra was told about Bhishma's fall before the Gita

> was narrated by Sanjaya, and since all this was told by Sanjaya to

him

> 10 days after the battle had started (since Sanjaya was also

fighting

> the battle), here, Prabhupada contradicts the Mahabharata by

> assuming that the narration of the Gita was a live telecast.

 

Firstly, please note that the story of Sanjaya speaking with

DhRtarASTra is ITSELF being narrated in the Bhagavad GitA, as is

evident from words like "DhRtarASTRa uvAca" and "Sanjaya uvAca", etc

("Dhritarashtra said", and "Sanjaya said"). This is because the

speaker of the Mahabharata, Shri Vaishampayana, a disciple of

Vyasadeva, is reciting the BhISma-parva section to his listener,

JanamEjaya, by beginning with the words "dhRtarASTra uvAca."

 

Thus, it is a narration within a narrration, as is common in Vedic

Puranic tradition, such as the Shrimad BhagavataM.

 

Now, in ANY commetary to a Puranic narration, the MOST IMMEDIATE

narrative scope and context is taken, so as to provide the closest

and most relevant semantic and pragmatic context to the dialogue. Do

you understand the need for this? As a student of Shri Madhva, I hope

you do.

 

Secondly, I have not seen Bhaktivedanta Swami used the words "live

telecast" or anything to that effect. Still, it was worth making the

above points.

 

> Dhritarashtra could never have doubted whether the battle happened

or

> not. How would Gaudiyas deal with this objection?

 

Please re-read the part you have quoted from the Bhaktivedanta

purport:

 

"Dhrtarastra, the father of the Kurus, was highly doubtful about the

possibility of his sons' ultimate victory....He did not want a

compromise between the cousins and brothers, and he wanted to be sure

of the fate of his sons on the battlefield."

 

Thus, Prabhupada's choice of words is about DhRtarASTra's concerns

for his sons' "ultimate victory" on the battlefield, and fear

of "compromise". A compromise can be reached at any stage of a war,

and not just during pre-war parleys.

 

All the above is from Shrila VishvanAtha's commentary on the Bhagavad

Gita. Thus, given (a) the context of this narration, and (b) the

relative language, I am not sure why you concluded that the author,

Shrila Prabhupada, is making any kind of earth-shaking error in his

commentary. The issue you raised CLEARLY has nothing to do with

philosophy.

 

On the other hand, let's take another more interesting example:

Shrila Madhvacharya, who is part of this Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya

tradition, has chosen to arbitrarily eliminate the two chapters of

the Shrimad Bhagavatam (10th canto) that deal with the Brahma-

vimohana lilA -- Lord Brahma's Illusion. He did so on the contention

that a Guru can never be in illusion.

 

This kind of omission is potentially far more serious from the

philosophical point of view, especially when it contradicts the very

first verse of the Bhagavatam says that Vasudeva is such that "by Him

even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion..."

(muhyanti yat surayaH). So it is possible for some students of Madhva

to reach wrong conclusions from this position. As a cyber-Madhva,

could you offer your understanding of why Shrila Madhvacharya has

rejected this part of scripture?

 

On the other hand, no such major problems arise from the purport you

quoted, which in any case is perfectly normal. There is also nothing

for you to compare from, because neither Shrila Madhva nor Shrila

Jayatirtha wrote comments to this verse, or any verse of the whole

first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita.

 

I understand Madhvacharya's strange omission, partly on the basis of

his bhAvAnuvAda, and mostly for the need to protect the student's

absolute respect for the integrity of the Guru. Since Brahma ji is

the Adi-Guru of our sampradaya, and Madhvacharya was the first person

to lead a renaissance of this school in this Age, it was very

necessary to not get into this rather delicate lilA of Brahma's

falling into Illusion. So he simply neglected to comment on that

whole section. For the sake of the new re-establishment of this

school, it was necessary to firmly establish faith in the

infallibility and bona fides of its Adi-Guru.

 

However, it could result in a wrong understanding of Guru's

infallibility, as your preamble shows. You said--

 

> I will focus particularly on issues that I hope experienced

Gaudiyas will be able to answer. Let me clarify at the outset that I

do not disrespect Prabhupada - I appreciate the spreading of bhakti

around the world by him. But I do not consider his words as absolute

authority particularly since I feel he many times contradicts

shAstra, and I am very intrigued by the attitude of many Gaudiyas

that he cannot be wrong whatsoever in anything he said or wrote.

 

Firstly, one needs to have some basic conception of what is "absolute" in order to discern whether someone has "absolute authority". Same goes with being able to judge whether something "contradicts shAstra". So far in all the discussions on the forum as well as with me in private, you have had trouble addressing any of the issues you raised philosophically. Your posts have not gone beyond nitpicking quotes, and speculative quibbling to sow doubt (vitaNDA). So far you have also not been able to show one instance where Prabhupada's writings "contradict shAstra".

 

Now who told you that Gaudiyas consider the Guru to be materially

omniscient? I believe Gaudiyas consider the Guru to be a perfect

instrument of Krsna, the perfection of the instrument being held

with respect to its function -- to teach Love of God.

 

In terms of instruction, the Guru is always metaphysically

omniscient, while Divine Ignorance comes with Divine Knowledge in the

interplay of the Lord's potencies upon His Pure Devotee. That's how Gaudiyas would also understand Brahma's "Illusion", which is different from our material ignorance.

 

On the other hand, a parrot-like nitpicking of "differences"

between the writings of Madhvacharya and some other acharya betrays a

misunderstanding of the Guru-tattva, as well as Reality,

metaphysically speaking. Consider this anecdote:

 

There are many snippety fellows out there. One such person approached

Shrila Prabhupada and asked: "You say that the Guru is omnniscient.

Since you are a Guru, you also must be omniscient." Bhaktivedanta

Swami smiled and replied, "Yes, that is correct." Then the gentleman

challenged him, "Then tell me howmany windows there are in the

Empire State Building." Shrila Prabhupada casually replied, "That's

like asking me howmany drops of water there are in a mirage."

 

Thus, before one can talk of "absolute

authority", "mistakes", "contradictions with shAstra", etc, it is

advisable to think a little about what omniscience means in the light

of the epistemology and ontology of the Vedic siddhAnta. Otherwise

people only expose their pygmy stupidity in the face of a giant

acharya when they pose challenging questions without any clue of what

they're dealing with.

 

> If anyone were to admit that he could have made mistakes in the

commentaries, there is nothing further I can ask.

 

I hope cyber-Madhvas take your advice sometimes. I have yet to

read one single piece of "analysis", "position paper", or post from a

cyber-Madhva going on the rampage against Gaudiyas that was

philosophically coherent, what to speak of intellectually honest and

genuine.

 

> It is to question this dogmatism that I am writing this, not to

start a "holy war" as alleged by a member of the group.

 

Declarations of "holy war" were made by a cyber-Madhva when those

slander websites were first put up. It was clearly stated then that

there was a pressing "problem" -- large numbers of people born into

Madhva community castes were being attracted by the spread of Gaudiya

Vaishnavism. That was the first and foremost concern of the

gentleman. All the pseudo-philosophical criticism came after that,

and most of that was foot-in-mouth.

 

It appears that, in the name of "anyathA-jnAna-nindanaM" and

defending the "purity" of Madhva doctrine, cyber-Madhvas imagine

themselves to be a crusading monkey-army on the rampage against

Gaudiya impostors. I think that, given how their arguments flow from a premature grasp of, both, Madhvacharya's philosophy and certainly of Gaudiya philosophy, this whole ill-motivated campaign is a sahajiya exercise in vaiSNava-aparAdha.

 

Hope this helps clarify things a little. I still look forward to

hearing from you on the varNAshrama thread, in case you remain

unconvinced.

 

Your servant,

Carl

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000 wrote:

>

But I do not consider his words as absolute authority particularly

>

 

If it is the view of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy that a guru is

an "absolute authority" on all matters material and spiritual, then

you should be able to show that this is so with respect to canonical

Gaudiya Vaishnava literature. Otherwise, your argument is nothing

more than a strawman.

 

I remember reading many things asserting the importance of a bona

fide guru and the tremendous respect that should be given to him. I

don't recall reading anything in the Gaudiya writings that says he is

omniscient.

 

>since I feel he many times contradicts shAstra, and I am very

intrigued by the attitude of many Gaudiyas that he cannot be wrong

whatsoever in anything he said or wrote.

>

 

I have also been intrigued about the attitude of many Madhvas I know

who drink tea and coffee and think it is ok to allow their children

to eat hamburger meat. But I'm not sure what the attitude of "many

Madhvas" has to do with regards to any discussion of Tattvavaada,

anymore than I am sure what the attitude of "many Gaudiyas" has to do

with regards to any discussion of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy.

 

Of course, I realize in retrospect my naivete. When criticizing

Tattavavada, we must understand it on the strength of its literature,

whereas when criticizing Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the misbehavior and/or

misunderstandings of any Gaudiya or Gaudiyas is fair game. Silly me.

 

Carl is correct in that this whole objection has nothing to do with

philosophy. It comes across as nothing more than nit-picking, hair-

splitting analysis over fairly irrelevant issues. So Anant's whole

point is that Prabhupada's presentation of the timeline of events is

a bit off? Big deal. Krishna is still the Supreme Personality of

Godhead.

 

> If anyone were to admit that he could have made mistakes in the

commentaries, there is nothing further I can ask. But an insistence

that every single word he wrote is right sounds highly dogmatic.

>

 

Why don't Tattvavadis acknowledge errors in the writings of their

acharya? Most Tattvavadis I have met don't even know Sanskrit, but

they regularly assert that Madhva's writings are super-excellent and

beyond any blemish. Why is that not dogmatic? Do you spend even half

as much time criticizing them?

 

>here, Prabhupada contradicts the Mahabharata by

assuming that the narration of the Gita was a live telecast.

Dhritarashtra could never have doubted whether the battle happened or

not. How would Gaudiyas deal with this objection?

>

 

As far as Gaudiyas are concerned, I don't know. Personally, I'd say

that the objector should get a life. But that's just me.

[Guest guest]

Carl-ji,

Namaste,

 

achintya, "Carl" <rind_19 wrote:

> > Since Dhritarashtra was told about Bhishma's fall before the Gita

> > was narrated by Sanjaya, and since all this was told by Sanjaya to

> him

> > 10 days after the battle had started (since Sanjaya was also

> fighting

> > the battle), here, Prabhupada contradicts the Mahabharata by

> > assuming that the narration of the Gita was a live telecast.

>

> Firstly, please note that the story of Sanjaya speaking with

> DhRtarASTra is ITSELF being narrated in the Bhagavad GitA, as is

> evident from words like "DhRtarASTRa uvAca" and "Sanjaya uvAca", etc

> ("Dhritarashtra said", and "Sanjaya said"). This is because the

> speaker of the Mahabharata, Shri Vaishampayana, a disciple of

> Vyasadeva, is reciting the BhISma-parva section to his listener,

> JanamEjaya, by beginning with the words "dhRtarASTra uvAca."

 

Also note that the Bhishma Parva does not begin with the Bhagavad

Gita. Before the Gita, VaishampAyana tells Janamejaya that Sanjaya

returned after the fall of Bhishma on the 10th day and presented the

bad news to Dhritarashtra. After Dhritarashtra's going into a state

of shock, and composing himself to then ask Sanjaya to explain

everything in detail to him that happened right from the beginning,

the Gita is then placed.

 

>

> Thus, it is a narration within a narrration, as is common in Vedic

> Puranic tradition, such as the Shrimad BhagavataM.

 

That is quite clear.

 

>

> Now, in ANY commetary to a Puranic narration, the MOST IMMEDIATE

> narrative scope and context is taken, so as to provide the closest

> and most relevant semantic and pragmatic context to the dialogue. Do

> you understand the need for this? As a student of Shri Madhva, I

hope

> you do.

 

What do you mean "the most immediate narrative scope and context"?

The context is that Sanjaya has disclosed Bhishma's fall on the 10th

day of the battle, which implies that Dhritarashtra cannot possibly

doubt whether the battle began or not!

 

Further, the Mahabharata is a continuous narrative story, unlike the

Bhagavatam (whose contents do not have a chronological ordering).

 

>

> Secondly, I have not seen Bhaktivedanta Swami used the words "live

> telecast" or anything to that effect. Still, it was worth making the

> above points.

 

His words indicate that it was a live telecast, such as the following

statement from 1.2 purport - "Sanjaya wanted, therefore, to encourage

the despondent king and thus assured him that his sons were not going

to make any sort of compromise under the influence of the holy place."

 

This not only indicates that he feels it was a live telecast, but

also that Dhritarashtra feared a pre-war compromise.

 

Since you tried to slip out of this (by contradicting Vishvanatha and

Baladeva) by saying:

 

> Thus, Prabhupada's choice of words is about DhRtarASTra's concerns

> for his sons' "ultimate victory" on the battlefield, and fear

> of "compromise". A compromise can be reached at any stage of a war,

> and not just during pre-war parleys.

 

...and since Sri Krishna Susharla doubts my capacity of understanding

Sanskrit, let me quote directly the Sanskrit from Baladeva's Gita

Bhashya on 1.1 - "tat-prabhAvAt vinaShTa-vidveshAH mat-putrAH kim

pANDavebhyaH tad-rAjyam dAtum nishchikyuH | kim vA, pANDavAH sadaiva

dharma-shIlAH dharma-kShetre tasmin kula-kShaya-hetukAt adharmAt

bhIta vana-pravesham eva shreyaH vimamR^ishuH iti |"

 

Note that your statement "A compromise can be reached at any stage of

a war, and not just during pre-war parleys" is against Baladeva and

Vishvanatha both who says in 1.2 - "vidita-tad-abhiprAyas tad-

AshAmsitam yuddham eva bhavet |" [understanding the intention of

Dhritarashtra, Sanjaya said that the battle should certainly happen,

as Dhritarashtra was hoping] - so the question is about

whether "yuddham bhavet" or not.

 

Further, both pre-war and post-start-of-war compromise is meaningless

given that Bhishma has just fallen in battle.

 

>

> All the above is from Shrila VishvanAtha's commentary on the

Bhagavad

> Gita.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but I can read Vishvanatha's commentary on

the Gita in Sanskrit as well - and he himself raises the question

there of Dhritarashtra's intent in asking "kim akurvata" and answers

it as

"..tato bandhu-hiMsanam anuchitam iti ubhayeShAm api viveke udbhUte

sandhiH api sambhAvyate". - note that he talks of the possibility of

a peace treaty with both sides recognizing that to go ahead to kill

each other is inappropriate.

 

The next statement worsens things for him -

"tataH cha mamAnanda eveti sa~njayam prati j~nApayitum iShTo bhAvo

bAhyaH |" - He says that Dhritarashtra is externally indicating to

Sanjaya that he will be happy by a peace treaty.

 

"Abhyantaras tu sandhau sati pUrvavat sakaNTakam eva rAjyam mad-

AtmajanAm iti me durvAra eva viShAdaH |" - But internally, he is

feeling great viShAda that by a peace treaty, the Pandavas will

continue to pose as impediments to his sons.

 

So you can see that both Vishvanatha and Baladeva have completely

gone off track.

 

> Thus, given (a) the context of this narration, and (b) the

> relative language, I am not sure why you concluded that the author,

> Shrila Prabhupada, is making any kind of earth-shaking error in his

> commentary. The issue you raised CLEARLY has nothing to do with

> philosophy.

 

Let that be so, the issue is that all of them made an error - whether

philosophical or not makes no difference to me as long as you admit

the error as an error instead of trying to juggle out. Further,

making an error in the first verse of the Gita itself, showing that

the commentators have not read the Mahabharata, also puts an a priori

question on their ability to comment on the philosophy. When there is

a mistake on the easy part, what to expect from the difficult part?

 

>

> On the other hand, let's take another more interesting example:

> Shrila Madhvacharya, who is part of this Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya

> tradition, has chosen to arbitrarily eliminate the two chapters of

> the Shrimad Bhagavatam (10th canto) that deal with the Brahma-

> vimohana lilA -- Lord Brahma's Illusion.

 

For you to say that he arbitrarily eliminated it, you should first

give proof that the portion was originally part of the Bhagavatam in

his time. Just because your Gaudiya commentators have it does not

mean that someone centuries before them also had it in his recension.

 

> He did so on the contention

> that a Guru can never be in illusion.

 

There was nothing he "did" because it never existed in the Bhagavatam

in his time. How can one comment on a non-existing portion of a text

that someone interpolated later? Tomorrow, you will say that Madhva

did not have guts to comment on Chaitanya Upanishad?

 

>

> This kind of omission is potentially far more serious from the

 

Further comments on this issue without substantiation of the above is

a waste of time. In any case, if agreeing with you will make you

satisfied and focus on the issue at hand (Gaudiya commentary on Gita

1.1), let me for the moment grant you your case.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

[Note: Personal flames removed]

 

> Carl is correct in that this whole objection has nothing to do with

> philosophy. It comes across as nothing more than nit-picking, hair-

> splitting analysis over fairly irrelevant issues.

 

I still did not get an answer to Baladeva's comments on

Vidura and DharmavyAdha though you gave tons of quotes to point out

that what I claim about Veda-adhikAra is wrong.

 

So I am narrowing on an issue about which there won't be a long drawn

thread (hopefully). So don't blame me for not raising philosophical

issues.

 

But again, he has raised the issue of the Brahma-Vimohana lila to

digress the thread. (And there is no discussion possible on it - if

it was never in Madhva's recension of Bhagavata, which you can find

at http://www.dvaita.net/prerelease.html , what is the point in

wishful thinking that he deliberately didn't comment on a spurious

fictitious account? And given that there is a recension which doesn't

have it - and it is also not present in the Vishnu Purana, and that

Ramanuja tradition also considers it an interpolation, you can argue

all you want, but you can never claim with confidence that Madhva

didn't deliberately comment on it, for you do not have proof about

which recension is authentic. In fact, you do not even have the open-

mindedness to want to admit that there were multiple recensions of

BhAgavata historically. There are signs even today to indicate that

the section was an interpolation.

 

> So Anant's whole

> point is that Prabhupada's presentation of the timeline of events

is

> a bit off? Big deal.

 

Prabhupada's (and Baladeva and Vishvanatha too) understanding of why

Dhritarashtra asked that question is wrong. That is how I would state

it (you can resolve it for yourself in any euphemistic way you like).

But is the answer to my question Yes or no?

 

> Krishna is still the Supreme Personality of

> Godhead.

>

> > If anyone were to admit that he could have made mistakes in the

> commentaries, there is nothing further I can ask. But an insistence

> that every single word he wrote is right sounds highly dogmatic.

> >

>

> Why don't Tattvavadis acknowledge errors in the writings of their

> acharya?

 

Tattvavadis have recognized errors in the writings of those acharyas

of theirs who committed an error - they are open enough to admit that

some statements are incorrect (such as Jayatirtha saying so for

Narahari Tirtha) if reason demands it. BNKS has done it for several

of them. I have yet to see such open-mindedness in Gaudiya tradition.

 

> Most Tattvavadis I have met don't even know Sanskrit, but

> they regularly assert that Madhva's writings are super-excellent

>and

> beyond any blemish.

> Why is that not dogmatic? Do you spend even half

> as much time criticizing them?

 

Yes that is dogmatic, and criticism of that is meant for a different

forum and audience. And it is not that Shrisha Rao or others give

such people any value.

 

Yours,

 

Anant

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000 wrote:

> ..and since Sri Krishna Susharla doubts my capacity of

understanding

> Sanskrit, let me quote directly the Sanskrit from Baladeva's Gita

> Bhashya on 1.1 - "tat-prabhAvAt vinaShTa-vidveshAH mat-putrAH kim

> pANDavebhyaH tad-rAjyam dAtum nishchikyuH | kim vA, pANDavAH

sadaiva

> dharma-shIlAH dharma-kShetre tasmin kula-kShaya-hetukAt adharmAt

> bhIta vana-pravesham eva shreyaH vimamR^ishuH iti |"

 

Yes, I continue to doubt your capacity to understand Sanskrit, though

I compliment you on your ability to transliterate the devanagari.

 

> For you to say that he arbitrarily eliminated it, you should first

> give proof that the portion was originally part of the Bhagavatam

in

> his time. Just because your Gaudiya commentators have it does not

> mean that someone centuries before them also had it in his

recension.

>

 

This is an incredibly asinine argument if ever I've heard one. Using

this argument, one can rationalize any omission on the part of one's

acharya - "oh, he didn't comment on the parts that disagree with his

position because they weren't around at that time." This would then

be followed by the equally ludicrous request for "proof," which we

will never see since no one has an 11th century manuscript just lying

around in his library.

 

There is no recension in existence that lacks the chapters in

question. Even if there were, it would certainly be outnumbered by

the recensions that do have the chapters. Carl's question is

certainly appropriate - Madhva should have commented on them but he

did not do so. That he omitted to comment on the Brahma-vimohana lila

is the obvious and most logical conclusion.

 

If you insist on wasting archive space with useless arguments over

trivial details, you could surely at least trouble yourself to base

your rebuttals on firmer footing.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anant ji.

 

Thanks for your reply. We can go deeper in discussing the

purpose of commentary itself. Here's my 2c to sections from both

your latest posts. First I will point out what IMHO are fundamental

errors in your approach, and then take up this particular case as an

example.

 

> So I am narrowing on an issue about which there won't be a long

drawn

> thread (hopefully). So don't blame me for not raising philosophical

> issues.

 

What do you mean? No human intelligence is required to do what you

have done on this forum so far. Your contribution as an intelligent

human has been nil. I mention this because it is relevant in the

discussion on semantics to follow.

 

> Let that be so, the issue is that all of them made an error -

whether

> philosophical or not makes no difference to me as long as you admit

> the error as an error instead of trying to juggle out.

 

As I keep repeating, you had better learn to talk philosophy,

especially if you want to go around pointing out "errors" in the

works of acharyas. If a person uses a hammer to cut a cake and

it makes a mess, only an idiot would call the hammer an "imperfect"

instrument, or point out an "error" in the cutting action itself. In

order to talk of "perfection", "error", etc, we need to establish

relationships, purposes, intentions, and then make the right

associations.

 

> Further,

> making an error in the first verse of the Gita itself, showing that

> the commentators have not read the Mahabharata, also puts an a

priori

> question on their ability to comment on the philosophy. When there

is

> a mistake on the easy part, what to expect from the difficult part?

 

What you don't seem to understand is that the "easy part" comes AFTER

the student gains some practice in the "difficult part", in any work

undertaken in goodness (ref. Bhagavad Gita 18:36-38). For

instance, Bhaktivedanta Swami has cautioned innumerable times that

one must first learn HOW to "read" or "hear" shAstra. He has spoken

of the "platform" on which reading or hearing is to be performed, and

urged students to understand shAstra as providing an "ontological

aspect" to human civilization. Similarly, Shrila Bhaktisiddhanta has

also spoken a lot about semantics w.r.t. the ontology and morphology

of Vedanta.

 

Only a fool would start criticizing the commentaries of historic acharyas after reading certain editions of the Mahabharata

like a storybook. For example, you keep wriggling out of a sane

philosophical debate, but you want to pick a detail and criticize it

in isolation, and then expect Gaudiya students to "open-mindedly"

acknowledge your criticism. Get serious.

 

 

> What do you mean "the most immediate narrative scope and context"?

> The context is that Sanjaya has disclosed Bhishma's fall on the

10th

> day of the battle, which implies that Dhritarashtra cannot possibly

> doubt whether the battle began or not!

 

You didn't get it. Before we go to the commentaries you quoted,

let's get some background on semantics and meaning, shall we? Upto

the 1940's or 50's, most "experts" in Semantics still used `referent'

and `operation' in order to define structures of meaning (this view

is still used in beginner's level textbooks and commoner's

definitions of "semantics"). However, these two hardly provide ANY

information about meaning at all. We refer to A. Korzybski's ground-

breaking Theory of General Semantics for a comment on this problem,

with a simple and very similar example he has used. Note that the

views being expressed here are reflected in the writings of the great

Vedic acharyas. Madhvacharya's criticism of Mayavadi commentaries

makes heavy use of this kind of missing *psycho-logical* context

(e.g. Uddhalaka's instructions to an impertinent Shvetaketu) –

 

QUOTE "The present day theories of 'meaning' are extremely confused

and difficult, ultimately hopeless, and probably harmful to the

sanity of the human race. ...Some have written much on 'referents'

and 'operational' methods, in the abstract, based on verbalism. Let

us consider some facts, and how the theories of referents and

operational methods fit *human* *evaluations* [emphasis in original].

Here is, for instance, Smith-1, who, through family, social,

economic, political, etc., conditions has become 'insane'. Smith-1

finally, in ordinary parlance, kills Smith-2. From a human point of

view, it is a very complex and tragic situation. Let us account for

it in terms of referents and operations. The body and the heart of

Smith-2, the hand of Smith-1, the knife, etc., are perfectly good

referents. The grabbing of the knife by Smith-1 and plunging it in

the heart of Smith-2, the falling down on the ground by Smith-2 and

kicking of his legs are perfectly good operations. However, where is

*human* *evaluation*? Where is concern with his 'sanity'

and 'insanity'? Here we deal with some of the deepest human and

social tragedies which, in this case, involve not only the killing of

Smith-2 by Smith-1, but the sick, unhappy, twisted life of Smith-1,

affecting all his life connections, and with which we must be

concerned if we are to be *human* *beings* [emphasis in original] and

different from apes.

[...]

Thus, theories of 'meaning', or worse, 'meaning of meaning', based on

referents and operational methods are thoroughly *inadequate* to

account for human *values*, yet they do affect the nervous systems of

humans. We must, therefore, work out a *theory* *of* *evaluation*

which is based on the optimum electro-colloidal action and reaction

of the nervous system." UNQUOTE

 

Now Anant ji, the simple example used by the author above is very

similar to our scene under discussion. A tragedy that is already in

the making. Dhritarashtra and his son's lifelong psycho-logical

corruption is the major factor in the precipitation of this disaster.

And the whole point of Vedic acharyas passing down this story is so

that we can learn about human values and make changes in our

affective responses.

 

So any *holistic* commentary MUST provide this full context, since

the purpose of the acharya is to effect a transformation in our

semantic responses over time by meditating on the shAstra thru

commentary. Without providing this context, the student undergoes no

qualitative change. What is the use of us reading so much Vedic

shAstra if we remain petty, impertinent, irreverent, cantankerous

rascals? No use, isn't it?

 

1. Since the Bhagavad Gita officially begins with Dhritarashtra's

question, a holistic commentary to this text would say something

about Dhritarashtra's state of mind, his motivations in asking this,

his hidden fears, guilt and anxieties, and his external behavior. Now

Shrila Madhvacharya's and Jayatirtha's commentaries do not do this

(for many good reasons), while we see that the Gaudiya commentaries

do. In this and other cases, we see how the Gaudiya paramparA is an

extension of the Madhva jnAna-paramparA. As Shri Jayatirtha puts it,

this is the whole rationale behind revelation, and even the existence

of certain scriptures themselves -- "yathA dharmO jnAtvA utpAdanIyaH

na tathEdaM kiMtu jnAna-paramparaiva tad-viSayA'anuSTheyA' iti

jnApanaM |" (pramEya dIpikA)

 

2. A commentator takes up that scope of narration which provides the

greatest meaning to the words under discussion. The structures of

meaning communicated in a dialogue about a past (or future) event have connections across those narrative scopes. When one is given the

present status of an unfolding tragedy and one asks for a narration

of it from the beginning, one is psychologically transporting oneself

back (or forward) in time to absorb those events. One would be an ass to suggest that this is NOT so when two people are having a conversation about a past (or future) event.

 

3. But you are using historical time as an absolute referent, which

is absurd. It is against the Vedic ontology of time, which has at

least three aspects – historical, psychological and absolute time.

Historical time is not an absolute referent (even if referents

and operations were the only contextual factors in semantics.)

 

4. All the commentators you quoted (Prabhupada, Shri Baladeva, and

Shrila Vishwavatha) are commenting on Dhritarashtra's use of the

words "dharma-kSetrE kurukSetrE", and his anxiety. They are delving

into the mood and psychology in which Dhritarashtra started making

these inquiries. Dhritarashtra's use of the word "dharmakSetra" is

clearly significant, and is weighing on this mind. All the quoted

commentators have explained it in basically two ways – (a) the

holiness of the place and Dhritarashtra's guilty admission of the

relative moral superiority of the Pandavas, with Krsna on their side,

and (b) as a field of dharma in which the non-devotee elements will

be weeded out.

 

To me, that sounds like an excellent commentary. I'm not sure why you

think its an "error".

 

 

> Note that your statement "A compromise can be reached at any stage

of

> a war, and not just during pre-war parleys" is against Baladeva and

> Vishvanatha both who says in 1.2 - "vidita-tad-abhiprAyas tad-

> AshAmsitam yuddham eva bhavet |" - so the question is about

> whether "yuddham bhavet" or not.

 

See above. Reconsider your understanding of psychological

time, and also the author's purpose in writing about Dhritarashtra's

psycho-logical case study.

 

 

> Further, both pre-war and post-start-of-war compromise is

meaningless

> given that Bhishma has just fallen in battle.

 

5. What rubbish. Its clear that Dhritarashtra is more worried

about "mAmakAH". Bhishma is not exactly his mAmaka. So any kind of

compromise at any time is newsworthy to Dhritarashtra. On some

thoughts, when he thinks there may be a chance for victory, he is

glad that his sons did NOT compromise. At other thoughts, he is

fearful of the influence of a holy place on the outcome, favouring

the Pandavas, which in his envy he may see as "unfair" to his own

sons. He may be looking to blame this "dharmakSetra" nature of the

battlefield for his sons' imminent defeat.

 

6. All in all, we see what tremendous psychological insight the

Gaudiya commentators have provided into the mind of one who,

throughout his life, has gone against dharma in spite of himself.

They have provided all possible angles – Dhritarashtra's exterior

face ("tataH cha mamAnanda eveti sa~njayam prati j~nApayitum iShTo

bhAvobAhyaH |"), internal anxieties ("Abhyantaras tu sandhau sati

pUrvavat sakaNTakam eva rAjyam mad-AtmajanAm iti me durvAra eva

viShAdaH |"), etc.

 

Thanks a lot for quoting all those relevant sections, though you

somehow concluded that Shrila Vishwanatha was "making things worse

for himself". You sound like a fruitcake.

 

> Tattvavadis have recognized errors in the writings of those acharyas

> of theirs who committed an error - they are open enough to admit

that

> some statements are incorrect (such as Jayatirtha saying so for

> Narahari Tirtha) if reason demands it. BNKS has done it for several

> of them. I have yet to see such open-mindedness in Gaudiya

tradition.

 

Its interesting that you admit that neo-Madhvas freely point

out "errors" in the writings of their acharyas. OTOH, Madhva-Gaudiya

students understand the term "error" quite differently -- especially

when it has to do with the writings of acharyas. Even disagreements

between acharyas are not seen as evidence of "errors" on the part of

one or the other. Rather, those exchanges *themselves* are seen as

instructive of some principle of Vedanta. Have you heard of the

concept of Arsha-prayoga and its unquestionable authority in the

Vedic tradition? There are prominent and wonderful descriptions of

this in Shri Chaitanya's life, including his own exchanges in the

form of a disciple with a teacher of His.

 

Gaudiya students do NOT take sides and agree that one of two historic

acharyas committed "errors", as BNK Sharma has done (especially when

some of BNK Sharma's own "critiques" are riddled with fallacies).

That is why, for any sincere student of Vedanta, the first and

foremost pillar of discipleship is to accept the *functional*

infallibility of the Acharya. It seems that neo-Madhvas have kicked

down this central pillar of Vedic transmission of knowledge, while

sometimes flaunting some secretarial level of pseudo-scholarship that

any electronic search program like the "Vedabase" can do.

 

Secondly, the "open-mindedness" of Gaudiyas is demonstrated by the

fact that the owner of this list is freely allowing a postor with an

impertinent attitude and a proven record of flaming to bring up all

such issues for open discussion here. When I had started a discussion with cyber-Madhvas long ago, my perfectly decent posts were abruptly blocked without explanation when it became clear that no one was addressing certain points, just like you here.

 

Now for your brave defense of the missing sections from your

preferred Shrimad Bhagavatam edition –

 

> In fact, you do not even have the open-

> mindedness to want to admit that there were multiple recensions of

> BhAgavata historically.

 

Pardon? We would be the first to point out that there were many

recensions. Thanks for acknowledging it. Now Madhvacharya would

certainly have come across these recensions, but he clearly chose not

to include it in his version.

 

The point remains, that one comes across several Madhvas rejecting

the Brahma-vimohana lilA on the grounds that Lord Brahma cannot come

under illusion. Now that is a philosophical ERROR. Pure and simple.

Let's not get into which recension is better. The point is that an

omission in one commentary lead to serious philosophical mistakes for

less intelligent students of that commentary, whereas the point you

brought up in starting this thread has NO philosophical risks at all,

a fact that you yourself admitted.

 

> For you to say that he arbitrarily eliminated it, you should first

> give proof that the portion was originally part of the Bhagavatam

in

> his time. Just because your Gaudiya commentators have it does not

> mean that someone centuries before them also had it in his

recension.

 

You must be kidding. The recension that the Gaudiyas use was not

disputed by pundits in that area. It is possible that in the deep

south the full text was not available, but it was in Bengal, Benaras

anr other northern areas. But an analysis of that section does not

provide any real evidence of interpolation at all.

 

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. As a student

of Madhva's pramana theories, you should have known that. Your demand

here is ridiculous.

 

In any case, I referred you to the very first verse of the Bhagavatam

that states that even demigods come under the illusion of the Supreme

Personality of Godhead.

 

> Tomorrow, you will say that Madhva

did not have guts to comment on Chaitanya Upanishad?

 

There you go again. Gaudiya students are all disciples of

Madhvacharya by default. We do not make infantile statements about

the "guts" of any acharya. I've told you before, please raise your

mental level if you want people on this forum to take you seriously.

 

In response to HKS ji you wrote:

 

> > Most Tattvavadis I have met don't even know Sanskrit, but

> > they regularly assert that Madhva's writings are super-excellent

> >and

> > beyond any blemish.

> > Why is that not dogmatic? Do you spend even half

> > as much time criticizing them?

>

> Yes that is dogmatic, and criticism of that is meant for a different

> forum and audience. And it is not that Shrisha Rao or others give

> such people any value.

 

Nice to know that you have some sense of place and time to bring up

subjects -- only when it concerns Madhvacharya.

 

Its also amusing to see your devotion and loyalty to Shrisha Rao ji.

Kudos for putting up some shruti commentaries and other good material

on the web. But unlike Madhvacharya, Madhva-Gaudiya students do not

consider Shrisha ji above criticism. Please feel free to continue

bringing up points of contention here. Someone with the time or

inclination will no doubt make a dog's breakfast of any

spurious "position papers" and whatnot.

 

> ..and since Sri Krishna Susharla doubts my capacity of

understanding

> Sanskrit, let me quote directly the Sanskrit from Baladeva's Gita

> Bhashya on 1.1

 

You crack me up. HKS prabhu was being sarcastic about the futility of

your neophyte acquaintance with Sanskrit, which any schoolboy can

acquire. But from your misreading of his statement above, you exposed

an insecurity, as well as your priority in terms of qualifications

required in a student. Remember -- the difficult part precedes the

easy part in any work undertaken in sattva-guNa. BG 18:36-38. Because

you have chosen to read shAstra with the ill-intent of slandering

certain acharyas, your results will be void.

 

 

> I still did not get an answer to Baladeva's comments on

> Vidura and DharmavyAdha though you gave tons of quotes to point out

> that what I claim about Veda-adhikAra is wrong.

 

You didn't get an asnwer? Those "tons of quotes" were about what

varNa really means w.r.t. individuals, and also across yugas, which

you should have applied to Shri Baladeva's comments.

 

One point about vedAdhikAra is pertinent here -- The whole point of

studying philosophy is not to show off one's latest research chops or

ability to transliterate Sanskrit. Rather, the whole point is to

condition oneself to be able to meditate on the Holy Name without

commiting any of the 10 offences. Those 10 offences can be grouped

under basically 2 categories - (a) Wrong concepts and (b) Wrong

application of concepts. Now when you undertake study of shAstra with

any motive other than to avoind the 10 offences, you lose adhikAra

immediately. Whether it is "shruti" or "smRti", even if one reads,

one will not understand, as you yourself said. Worse, reading in

order to slander acharyas is directly committing one of the 10

offences. This is dangerous to the individual and society, and that

is why students were evaluated for qualifications before being

allowed access to different categories of Vedic knowledge.

 

That is also why all Vedanta traditions note that apparent "mistakes"

are woven into the fabric of Vedic literatures as a form of "asura-

vimohana" -- to bewilder and shoo away those with a demoniac

mentality. Now if you insist that Bhaktivedanta Swami has made a

mistake in BG 1.1, I suggest you just stop reading him, stay at a

distance, and be happy. Instead, it seems that cyber-Madhva forums

are compulsively attracted towards Gaudiya literatures in order

to "prove" their "two-nation theory" of sampradayas.

 

Yours,

Carl

[Guest guest]

achintya, "anantshenoy2000"

<anantshenoy2000 wrote:

>

> [Note: Personal flames removed]

 

How is it a flame to point out that you don't know as much Sanskrit as

you would have us believe you do?

 

If Prabhupada's alleged misunderstanding of history casts doubt on the

validity of his commentaries, then your lack of Sanskrit fluency

certainly casts doubt on the validity of your objections to anyone's

interpretation of Sanskrit scripture.

 

It is ironic that you would have us listen calmly to your doubts about

Prabhupada's qualifications as a commentator, yet you are unwilling to

entertain similar doubts about your ability to critically evaluate such

commentaries. Another case of, "hear my criticism, but don't criticize

me" perhaps?

 

k