Brahma-vimohana Lila

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla wrote:

>

>> > 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.

 

Addendum to the above. I don't remember exactly where, but Anant

provided a link to a recension on the Dvaita list to a Bhagavata

recension that is alleged to be Madhva's. I checked and this one does

not have the chapters on the Brahma-vimohana lila, or at least, not

in the places I would have expected to find them. I stand corrected.

 

> 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.

 

 

 

Assuming that this is indeed a faithful reproduction of Madhva's

recension, it still does not answer the question as to why he omitted

to comment on those chapters. Rather, it changes the question to one

of, "Why did he select as genuine a version that did not have those

chapters?"

 

>From what I read in Mani-manjari, his selection of what he considered

the "correct" recension of the Bhagavata was rather arbitrary. I

think it is even implied that he knew the correct one because he is

Vayu, Vishnu' right-hand man, etc. Obviously, that explanation will

satisfy those within the sect but not those who are trying to

approach the issue objectively.

 

Thus, the point that he did not comment on them because they were not

in the recension he hand-picked as genuine just does not fly. What is

the real evidence that his recension is genuine and the others not

so? Why did he avoid picking a recension that depicted Brahma's

falling into illusion? And that too when the Bhagavatam's very first

verse refers to the devas being put into illusion by Vasudeva? It

seems to me that this is just going to be another issue of whose

authority you ultimately accept to begin with.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla wrote:

> It

> seems to me that this is just going to be another issue of whose

> authority you ultimately accept to begin with.

 

No, IMHO even by the pre-Caitanyite Madhva sampradaya's own

internal evidence, Anant ji and his ilk are way out of line. Here's

how I currently understand it: W.r.t. the brahma-vimohana lilA,

Anant ji was making two claims:

 

A) Firstly, he said that this section simply did not exist during

Madhva's time, and was interpolated LATER. Here's what he had said

in his reply to me on this forum:

 

> 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?

 

1. But this is factually incorrect. Other existing recensions of the

Shrimad Bhagavatam existing in Madhva's time have been acknowledged

in the Sumadhva Vijaya of Narayana PanditAcarya. There is no reason

to believe that the recension containing the brahma-vimohana lilA

did not exist during Madhva's time also.

 

2. Another reason I had suggested that Madhvacarya must have been

familiar with other recensions is because of his wide travels,

during which he did collect different works.

 

So Anant ji was simply wrong in suggesting that the Gaudiya

recension was "interpolated later", and he seems to have admitted

the error to you now.

 

3. As to WHY Shrila Madhva chose to omit the Brahma-vimohana lilA,

it is a matter of conjecture and speculation. Anant ji said that

some people have been making attempts to prove, from the structure

of the shrimad-bhAgavataM, that the Gaudiya recension is

interpolated. But none of the points stated in support of this

allegation holds water. For example, one of them was that there is a

chronological continuity between the last verse of the section

immediately before this vimohana lila and the first verse of the

section immediately after it. But we know -- from the structure of

the bhAgavataM itself -- that it is not a chronological narration at

all -- in the sense of linear mundane time. Moreover, the shAstras

themselves say that even all that is available of Krsna's lilA is

only a drop in the ocean. And Madhvacharya and Shri Jayatirtha have

said that parts of the Vedas (and their extensions) are hidden from

time to time, and uncovered later. So all such contrived arguments

are quite unconvincing, though the single-minded efforts of their

manufacturers is to be admired.

 

B) Secondly -- and more importantly -- the issue was first raised to

point out that this deliberate omission of the brahma-vimohana-lilA

(for certain wise reasons, no doubt) has resulted in philosophical

problems for neo-Madhva students. Anant ji himself, and many neo-

Madhvas have said "Brahma cannot be in illusion". In one of his

emails to me, Anant ji declared, "Brahma's illusion is

philosophically untenable". Typically, he did not care to

substantiate, beyond referring to Madhva's epistemic hierarchy and

saying that since Lord Brahma is in the "Rju-yogin" class, his

knowledge could not possibly be eclipsed. Let's take a look at this

fallacy:

 

1. Firstly, definition of Rju-yogin: kramENavardhamAnaM | AmuktEH

tatO 'vyayaM | (MadhvacArya's pramANa-lakSaNa)

i.e., they have knowledge that is eternal, but within that scope it

can still "increase" depending on their meditative effort. At the

time of mokSa, its level becomes static.

 

This idea is well established in the Upanishads. E.g. "AtmanA

vindatE vIryaM vidyayA vindatE amRtaM" (Kena Up).

 

As far as I understand, "increase" here is not to be understood in

some kind of *linear* fashion. Knowledge is *qualitative* (see BG

13:8-12), and so is not limited by *linear* measurement. Measurable

factors of knowledge are only a *means* to essential, qualitative

understanding. This measurable knowledge may "fluctuate" in non-

linear *patterns* while the ESSENTIAL knowledge only "increases".

 

2. Secondly, Rju-yogins fall under the epistemic category of yogi-

jnAna, which is inferior to the Isha and lakSmI categories. Even

lakSmI's epistemic scope includes everything perfectly -- except

ViSNu. dvitIyaM IshO 'nebhyO 'dhikaM | asArvatrikaM | anyatra

sarvaviSayaM | (pramANa lakSaNa)

 

So when an epistemic category wholly superior to Lord Brahma's

category does not understand ViSNu fully, that applies even more to

Lord Brahma's epistemic scope.

 

3. Moreover, Yogi-jnAna has the svarUpa-jnana AND manOvRtti-jnAna

forms of knowledge. tad dvi-vidhaM | svarUpaM manOvRtti-rUpaM cEti |

(ShrI Jayatirtha's pramANa paddhati)

 

So Rju-yogins DO depend on manOvRtti-jnAna also. This clearly opens

the door to fallibility of a *certain* *type* of measurable

knowledge, since the mind is fallible by its defining

characteristics. (Relate this to point 1.)

 

Note, the "yathArtha-jnAna" of a manOvRtti is different from that of

kevala-jnAna. They are of two different epistemic scopes.

 

By this time it should be clear where the epistemic bracket of Rju-

yogins lies in our MadhvacArya's system. There is every possibility

of them being illusioned about ViSNu.

 

4. Moreover, MadhvAcArya is quite clear that no one, not even the

highest tattvika-yogins and Rju-yogins fully comprehend Brahman --

sat-cid-Ananda AtmEti mAnuSaishca sUreshvaraiH yathA-kramaM

bahuguNaiH | BrahmaNAt akhilaiH guNaihi", i.e., mAnuSa-s ("humans"),

the lowest in the ladder of mukti-yogyas, realize only three of His

attributes (sat, cid and Ananda). Higher souls like the devas

realize more of His attributes according to their rank ("yathA-

kramaM bahu-guNaiH"), and Brahma and the Rju-taatvika-yogis realize

an infinite number of His attributes -- while still missing out on

an even larger infinity of others!

 

5. Further, the definition of "Illusion" is qualitative. There is

such a thing as Divine Illusion that interplays with Divine

Knowledge in the fully enlightened state of jIvas.

 

But the meaning of "Illusion" has been misunderstood by our cyber-

Madhva friends, and been equated with mundane mind-ignorance. Anant

ji had written to me:

 

> This also shows that stories where the R^iju yogi

BrahmA falls into moha while lesser jIvas like the

gopas do not - is just that, a story interpolated into

BhAgavata by zealots

 

But any beginner Gaudiya student/"zealot" understands that the

gopas are very much within the yogamAyA potency of Krsna. As for

what he meant by "lesser jIvas", only he knows (along with Lord

Brahma, ViSNu, and great yogis from the right caste).

 

6. Lastly, Gaudiyas do hold that Lord Brahma (and any fully self-

realized sad-guru) is "perfect" *as* *spiritual* *Master*, in spite

of coming under Illusion as per the wishes of ShrI Krsna. Their

coming under illusion itself teaches students something about ViSNu.

 

IMHO, the first reason Anant ji and his friends don't get it is

their confusion about the role of epistemic *scopes* in Madhva's

epistemology, nor the two different meanings of "eternity". The

latter, for example, involves an ontology of Time, but in one of his

emails Anant ji wrote to me that I have the bad habit of bringing

in "obfuscations" like ontology, epistemology, semantics and

etiology. I thought these subjects were PRE-REQUISITES for studying

Madhva -- not "obfuscations"! That's why MadhvAcArya wrote so many

prakaraNas, etc on these subjects, in the light of which all the

rest of his commentaries were to be understood.

 

Because of such lacunae, they do not even understand how

the "yathArtha-jnAna" of a manOvRtti is different from that of

kevala-jnAna.

 

Moreover, "mistake", "perfection" and "illusion" are qualitative

terms with multivalent meaning -- just like all words. The multi-

ordinality of semantic usage is not being considered.

 

In conclusion, Brahma's being under Divine Illusion is completely in

harmony with MadhvacArya's philosophy. Also, the existence of other

bhAgavata recensions *during* Madhva's time is evidenced from works

of the pre-Caitanyite Madhva sampradaya itself.

 

I had immediately replied as per the above to Anant ji on how

Madhva's epistemic hierarchy is better understood -- though he

angrily ignored my reply, and started ranting about the various

social problems of "blind salivating Gaudiyas", and about a "Gaudiya

gameplan" to link their sampradaya with Madhvacarya. (BTW, if anyone

here has more info about the "Gaudiya gameplan", please let me

know). He then ran off to vent on another forum.

 

Also a timely disclosure to members -- In all his personal flame

emails to me (which I have on record), as well as the 2 posts to

Achintya that were rejected by moderators (also saved), Anant ji

simply refused to address the issue as above. The posts were

rejected because they were mostly rants about things that have

little to do with the thread, and not for any other reason. The

thread was silenced by HKS ji, who would not let any of the rest of

us make a post either, "until cyber-Madhva heads cooled down."

 

Yours,

Carl

[Guest guest]

This is what Sri MadhvAcAryA says in BhagavatatAtparyanirNaya (6-9-23) :

 

"janishhyatAM janAnAM tu svabhAvAnAM prasiddhaye |

j~nAnAdiguNapUrNasya brahmaNo.api kshaNArdhagAH |

bhayAdikAM bhavantIha kathaM tasmin sthirAlayAH | iti cha

bhagavatpRitaye nityaM brahmaNo ye bhayAdayaH |

na vR^ithA tasya bhAvaH syatkashchitte.api kshaNArdhagAH |

aj~nAnaM tu chaturvAraM dvivAraM bhayameva cha |

shoko.api tAvannAnyatra kadAchidbrahmaNo bhavet.h |

tatrApi bhagavatprItyA unnatyashchAsya tadbhavet.h |

iti brahmatarke"

 

"For the sake of making well known the nature of the people

who will be born, for only half a kshaNa, fear, etc. occur to

Brahma, who is guNapUrNa with j~nAna, etc. How can these

fear, etc. take a permamnent abode in them? Brahma does

every act to please the Lord. Even these kshaNArdha fear, etc.

are not futile, but are meant to please the Lord. For Brahma,

ignorance occurs 4 times, fear twice and those two times

sadness also and never again [the ignorance, fear or sadness].

Even that happens for the sake of pleasing the Lord and

for the glory of Brahma".

 

The statement that the chapters are interpolated is a later day addition by the cyber Madhvas with no support from Madhva himself. They say its interpolated because Madhva did not quote.

 

 

 

dasa

Narasimhan

 

 

 

 

 

 

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go

with Mail for Mobile. Get started.

http://mobile./mail

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

But does not Sripad Madhvacharya's quote in the

Bhagavata Tatparyanirnaya debunk the Gaudiya claim

that he did not comment on Lord Brahma's illusion

because he could not accept this possibility ? He

seems to clearly accept and even explain it !

 

das

jai

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

in the Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

http://answers./dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jai Simman R. Rangasamy"

<rjsimman wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna.

>

> But does not Sripad Madhvacharya's quote in the

> Bhagavata Tatparyanirnaya debunk the Gaudiya claim

> that he did not comment on Lord Brahma's illusion

> because he could not accept this possibility ? He

> seems to clearly accept and even explain it !

>

 

First let us make certain we know what we are talking about. It is a

foregone conclusion that the Tattvavadis will misrepresent everything

that is said here, but at least we must be clear and accurate in the

points we are making - is it in fact a "Gaudiya claim" that Madhva

avoided commenting on the Brahma-vimhoana-lila because he could not

accept the possibility of it? If so, exactly *who* claimed this? Are

we talking about something that was stated by the Gosvamis, other

purvacharyas, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada himself or someone else?

 

I do not know the answer to this. I am asking for clarification. The

problem is that anything that any of us say, despite our being

neophyte students of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, is immediately taken by the

Tattvavadis to represent *the* Gaudiya Vaishnava position on the

subject. My own words got quoted on that list as representing the

Gaudiya Vaishnava point of view, even though I've many times made it

clear that I cannot claim to represent Gaudiya Vaishnavism at all - I

am as much a student as anyone else.

 

I've given up on expecting them to show some honesty in their

dealings with us. At least let us ask for specific quotes from

whichever acharya made the claim above, and then we can frame the

discussion around that.

 

Also, I want to point out that, at least on some issues that are not

central to Achintya Bedha Abedha Tattva, I am hesitant to claim that

there is a single, homogenous Gaudiya Vaishnava position. What one

acharya says was on Madhva's mind when he wrote his Bhagavata

commentary can hardly be extrapolated to the sampradaya as a whole.

IMHO, the willingness of the Cyber-Madhvas to pull up minor points

regarding one or two individuals like this and illustrate them as

problematic of the sampradaya as a whole is uninspiring as far as

intelligent discussions go. Frankly, I think it is childish.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jai Simman R. Rangasamy"

<rjsimman wrote:

 

> But does not Sripad Madhvacharya's quote in the

> Bhagavata Tatparyanirnaya debunk the Gaudiya claim

> that he did not comment on Lord Brahma's illusion

> because he could not accept this possibility ? He

> seems to clearly accept and even explain it !

 

Dear Jai Simman prabhu,

Dandavats. Happy Gaura-purnima!

 

It was *not* a Gaudiya claim that Shrila Madhva did not include

those chapters because of philosophical problems with the chapters. Why would anyone from a Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya say that? Rather, the issue arose when neo-Madhvas called these chapters "false" and "interpolated" for various unconvincing reasons. And one of the biggest bloopers among the suggested "reasons" was that this chapter is "philosophically untenable" (a claim which was debunked as per Shrila Madhva's siddhAnta). So it was some internet *neo-Madhvas* who made this assertion, not Madhva-Gaudiya students, and certainly not MAdhvacharya.

 

Your question then is, if the section is philosophically authentic, then why did Madhvacharya not comment on it? Why Acharya chose not to include these chapters is a matter of conjecture, for whatever that is worth. Some reasonable conjecture may be offered. I would personally rationalize along the following lines if I were asked to --

 

1. All Vedic literatures and their extensions possess ontological

knowledge in their essence. Madhvacharya was the first to show this

in this Age in all his commentaries, from RigVeda to Mahabharata.

Shrila Prabhupada has said that the Bhagavatam provides ontological

knowledge, and Shrila Bhaktisiddhanta has written a lot on the issue.

 

2. An ontological 'grammar', especially one like Vedanta, can be

fleshed out endlessly, generating a morphological "derivation tree"

with diverse illustrations for different subtler aspects of the

ontology. Thus, the shAstra itself attests that whatever of Krsna it

describes is a drop in the ocean.

 

3. OTOH, austerity of material helps prevent confusion without

sacrificing philosophical integrity. Because of the nature of

ontology, it is perfectly possible to "telescope" some parts of

shAstra within one's presentation -- without sacrificing

completeness and integrity -- though sacrificing some detail.

 

[because of the above relevant points, Madhvacharya has said that each part of Veda is complete in itself, even that each sUtra of VedAnta is complete. Meaning that even if some limbs of Veda are lost (and everyone agrees that a lot of Veda is lost), they can be reconstructed through ontological derivation by people of realization.]

 

The above points make the first point clear -- that the "completeness" of an Acharya's teaching should not be equated solely by his commentarial output on every Vedic text under the sun (see point 3 above).

 

Rather, to avoid philosophical confusion (especially in a very controversial environment), a Teacher may choose to include those parts that are least vulnerable to misinterpretation and emphasize those doctrinal aspects that are most neglected. As you have pointed out above, Madhvacharya has clearly spoken of Lord Brahma's epistemic position exactly as Gaudiyas understand it (though caste-conservative neo-Madhvas in denial of the historical emergence of MAdhva-Gaudiya Vedanta have made contrary statements). Even academic scholars of Madhva have suggested that he preferred to sideline those texts from which his opponents would try to derive a lot of support for their incorrect doctrines (this judgment being in full knowledge of Madhva's theology of "moha-shAstra-s").

 

It is clear that the Brahma vimohana lilA was certainly current, and

was being used (misused?) by several Advaitist groups. It is easy to

see how such a section could be abused for many ideas

propogated by neo-Advaitin groups going back centuries. Since

everything emanates from Lord Brahma, then Brahma's "Illusion" (a

word misunderstood even by our neo-Madhva friends!) would detract

from the absolute authority of shAstra, etc. Advaitins have always

had a problem defending their derogation of eternal, absolute nature

of shAstra-pramANa, and they use anything to support that tendency

to derogate shAstra (such as quoting BG 2.45, etc). Similarly, the

controversial issue of "reality" of the phenomenal universe, since

it emanated through Lord Brahma. Similarly, the issue of the

relationship between "BrahmA" and "hiraNya-garbha" and "Atman", over

which there is disagreement between Madhvacharya and many Advaitin

groups. And so on. Moreover, Madhva was establishing the Brahma-

sampradaya, for whom Lord Brahma is first Guru.

 

Thus, given the position of Lord Brahma, it is easy to see how such

a section could quickly become a feeding ground for

controversialists. Its is easy to see why, without sacrificing

integrity, Madhvacharya and other VaiSNava acharyas may have chosen

to exclude this much-abused section. On the other hand, one finds

that the Gaudiya sampradaya generally has a more relaxed attitude

towards many such sections of shAstra, irrespective of how misguided

groups were exploiting them. Human nature is such that willful

philosophical misunderstanding will always be there, no matter how

careful the presentation (as demonstrated by the whole cyber-Madhva

propoganda phenomenon for example). It appears that when Shri

Caitanya visited South India, He found adherents of even Madhvacharya to be wanting in Understanding, although they could

reproduce his historical arguments by rote.

 

This is because "words" are not meaning, but only vessels of meaning

(arthAshraya). We have episodes from shAstra showing that even words

like "yes" and "no" have multivalent meanings! Semantics is

therefore a central subject for those interested in the study of Vedanta, and not tota-pakhira-nyAya (parroting).

 

TO CONCLUDE -- the brahma-vimohana lilA, though providing leeway for

controversy, seems to have been around for as long as the

bhAgavataM, whether some people want to admit it or not. Now if

someone can show how it does NOT fit in with the ontology and

morphology of the Bhagavatam (and Madhvacharya), then that would

certainly be worth attention. Please do post any such material on

Achintya, so that readers can think about it. Anant ji, Shrisha Rao and others have also been invited to present any such information here.

 

Instead, Anant ji has so far only made spurious assertions in the name of Madhva. After the "philosophically untenable" blooper, the argument about "interpolation" is now being based on dubious historical evidence for "Vaishnava recensions", not on the possibilities arising from ontological analysis. The notable thing is that, possessed by the need to fault-find with Gaudiyas, they are bound to fall into self-contradictions every time they open their mouths on philosophical "differences", because our Madhvacharya always said no less -- and no more -- than what was required on an ontological point!

 

Yours in service,

Carl