nitya baddha

[theist]

sanatan, I find that idea as depressing as the Muslim and Christian preachments of eternal hell. I see no difference.

[sanatan]

 

sanatan, I find that idea as depressing as the Muslim and Christian preachments of eternal hell. I see no difference.

 

I do too, brother, believe me. But it's still intriguing, especially since it was proposed by a major saint and acharya, albeit pre-Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in Srila Prabhupada's sampradaya.

 

Madhvacarya was a philosopher and writer, and obviously thought out of the box. This line of reasoning was an extraordinary blip in the history of Indian/Vedic philosophy.

 

I read that he met Christian missionaries, and incorporated some of their doctrines into a logical or reasoned philosophical theory of the "Problem of Evil."

[theist]

Maybe so but why agree with him. The Christian preachers don't understand karma and reincarnation which if they did shows the way out of eternal damnation proposals.

 

I find the whole idea preposterous.

 

A major blip for sure.

[raghu]

 

I am going to ignore what you say

 

Fine, I give you credit for knowing how to evade the question. Once again, are you going to continue ignoring what Vyasa says in sutras 2.1.34-36? Since you are going out of your way not to consult the relevant evidence, let me provide it here for you:

 

vaiShamyanairghriNye na sApeKShatvAt tathA hi darshayati | 2.1.34 |

 

na karmAvibhAgAditi chennAnAditvAt | 2.1.35 |

 

upapadyate chApyupalabhyate cha | 2.1.36 |

 

Now I would appreciate hearing from you as to why you think karma does have a beginning even though the sutras above clearly say otherwise. Feel free to consult your sampradaya acharya's commentary.

 

 

it says because I don't blindly accept as absolute truth things that anonymous people on forums are posting.

You could be chewing on a sausage and washing it down with whiskey as far as I know.

 

Certainly. And you could be looking at cyber-porn and sleeping with prostitutes for all I know. But what does this have to do with what Vyasa wrote in the Vedanta-sutras?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

But what does this have to do with what Vyasa wrote in the Vedanta-sutras?

 

So, there is no guru between you and Vyasadeva that has explained to you the meaning of the Sutras?

 

Did Mahaprabhu and his chief disciples teach everyone to study Vedanta-sutra?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

.

Certainly. And you could be looking at cyber-porn and sleeping with prostitutes for all I know. But what does this have to do with what Vyasa wrote in the Vedanta-sutras?

 

It has to do with the fact that you must have a guru in disciplic succession to explain what Vyasadeva wrote.

You can't just barge willy nilly into the Vedanta-sutras without a guru and claim to know what Vyasadeva meant in the Vedanta-sutras.

 

You need an acharya to explain them to you.

 

Who is your guru in succession from Vyasadeva that has explained the Vedanta-sutra to you?

 

Do you think that knowing Sanskrit alone is qualification for knowing the meaning of Vedanta-sutras?

[bija]

 

Did Mahaprabhu and his chief disciples teach everyone to study Vedanta-sutra?by sonic

 

i am sure you know the story behind why baladeva vidyabushana composed a commentary of vedanta sutra. the opposing parties did not consider gaudiya vaisnavism as a part of bona-fide sampradaya, due to not having commentary of vedanta sutra. baladeva took up the challenge.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

i am sure you know the story behind why baladeva vidyabushana composed a commentary of vedanta sutra. the opposing parties did not consider gaudiya vaisnavism as a part of bona-fide sampradaya, due to not having commentary of vedanta sutra. baladeva took up the challenge.

 

Good point, but that still doesn't change the fact that Mahaprabhu put all emphasis on Srimad Bhagavatam.

Whenever someone came to see Mahaprabhu for guidance, Svarupa Damodar would tell them all to study the Bhagavatam under the guidance of a person Bhagavat.

 

Baladeva took up that task as an effort to support the authenticity of the Gaudiya sampradaya, yet that still did not make Vedanta-sutra the recommended reading for students of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

It was for the Vedantists, for their benefit.

It was not for the devotees.

 

The Vaishnavas already had the commentary and explanation of Vedanta-sutra by Vyasadeva in the form of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Baladeva Vidyabusana commented on Vedanta-sutra but that still is not near as important for devotees as Srimad Bhagavatam.

[raghu]

 

It has to do with the fact that you must have a guru in disciplic succession to explain what Vyasadeva wrote.

You can't just barge willy nilly into the Vedanta-sutras without a guru and claim to know what Vyasadeva meant in the Vedanta-sutras.

 

You need an acharya to explain them to you.

 

Who is your guru in succession from Vyasadeva that has explained the Vedanta-sutra to you?

 

Do you think that knowing Sanskrit alone is qualification for knowing the meaning of Vedanta-sutras?

 

My guru did teach me the meaning of the Vyasa-sutras. Why did you assume otherwise? Are you just assuming otherwise because you are desperately trying to evade the question?

 

When are you going to explain why it is that you are disagreeing with Vyasa? Anyone who claims to be a devotee of Krishna but disagrees with Vyasa is a renegade.

 

Once again, the relevant sutras illustrating literally beginningless karma:

 

vaiShamyanairghriNye na sApeKShatvAt tathA hi darshayati | 2.1.34 |

 

na karmAvibhAgAditi chennAnAditvAt | 2.1.35 |

 

upapadyate chApyupalabhyate cha | 2.1.36 |

[raghu]

 

I do too, brother, believe me. But it's still intriguing, especially since it was proposed by a major saint and acharya, albeit pre-Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in Srila Prabhupada's sampradaya.

 

Madhvacarya was a philosopher and writer, and obviously thought out of the box. This line of reasoning was an extraordinary blip in the history of Indian/Vedic philosophy.

 

I read that he met Christian missionaries, and incorporated some of their doctrines into a logical or reasoned philosophical theory of the "Problem of Evil."

 

This is incorrect. Madhva never met Christian missionaries and most certainly did not incorporate their ideas into his philosophy, which is based on the shrutis and prasthana-trayi only.

[kaisersose]

 

So, there is no guru between you and Vyasadeva that has explained to you the meaning of the Sutras?

 

Did Mahaprabhu and his chief disciples teach everyone to study Vedanta-sutra?

 

They did not recommend sutras, you are right. But did Mahaprabhu explicitly say that Karma has a beginning? Or does the Bhagavatam?

 

Since Baladeva comes in the line of your Acharyas, his words ought to have some value, if not very much. Do you just dismiss him away or do you attempt to reconcile his commentary on the Sutras with the rest of your beliefs? Or do you think that is not necessary?

 

Also, in a line of Gurus, if 2 Gurus have said 2 different things, which Guru do you pick and why?

 

Cheers

[sanatan]

 

This is incorrect. Madhva never met Christian missionaries and most certainly did not incorporate their ideas into his philosophy, which is based on the shrutis and prasthana-trayi only.

 

Can you cite a historical source on this?

 

All I can do offhand is cite hearsay, as I don't remember where I read about the Christians. It does sound plausible from a circumstantial POV, as well-established commercial routes from the Mediterranean to India existed at that time, and Christians have been prosetylizing since "time immemorial".

[theist]

Rather he took it fro the Christians or came to it some other way makes no difference to me. The idea that Krishna brought some souls into being just to experience samsara eternally is bizzare.

[kaisersose]

 

Can you cite a historical source on this?

 

It is the other way around. If someone is claiming a christian hand, they should be able to back it up with evidence.

 

 

All I can do offhand is cite hearsay, as I don't remember where I read about the Christians. It does sound plausible from a circumstantial POV, as well-established commercial routes from the Mediterranean to India existed at that time, and Christians have been prosetylizing since "time immemorial".

 

1) Madhva never said anywhere that part of his doctrine was inspired by Christian Sources.

2) There is no part of his doctrine where he just makes some bald claims and says this is outside the realm of the Trayi. He has quoted a Brahma Tarka which is not available and never appears to have been available outside the tradition, but his chief tenets are not critically dependant on the authenticity of this missing text.

3) His biography does not say anything about Christian influences.

 

Conclusion: There is no evidence for the connection.

 

Did he know Christians? Maybe. Did he know their doctrine? Maybe. Was he influenced by them? Maybe. But there is no evidence for that and when such links are proposed, it should be made clear that it is all speculation.

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

 

They did not recommend sutras, you are right. But did Mahaprabhu explicitly say that Karma has a beginning? Or does the Bhagavatam?

 

Since Baladeva comes in the line of your Acharyas, his words ought to have some value, if not very much. Do you just dismiss him away or do you attempt to reconcile his commentary on the Sutras with the rest of your beliefs? Or do you think that is not necessary?

 

Also, in a line of Gurus, if 2 Gurus have said 2 different things, which Guru do you pick and why?

 

Cheers

 

Beginningless means that something has no beginning.

If your life had no beginning would you be here now?

If America had no beginning would it be here now?

 

What part of beginningless is it that we cannot understand?

 

Karma has no beginning because in fact karma is an illusion.

 

The spirit soul has no karma.

The spirit soul is pure spirit.

 

Karma is caused by Krishna, the cause of all causes.

 

The jiva's karma has no beginning because the jiva is transcendental to karma.

 

Beginning less means that it never really began, because in fact it is not reality.

 

Because in reality if something begins it is eternal.

 

( )

[Sonic Yogi]

The Christians even claim that Krishna the cowherd boy was a spin-off of Jesus the shepherd.

Christians think they are the center of the universe and all other religions are some sort of copy cat religion that was ripped-off from Christianity.

 

They obviously are clueless about history.

[bija]

 

The Christians even claim that Krishna the cowherd boy was a spin-off of Jesus the shepherd.

Christians think they are the center of the universe and all other religions are some sort of copy cat religion that was ripped-off from Christianity.

 

They obviously are clueless about history. by sonic

 

Like moses as a baby in the reed basket, that story is in various cultures pre-dating jewish. Same as christian mythos and its stories, they are pre-dated in other cultures.

 

But, vedic culture claims to be the original source of all these myths. Big claim.

 

Rather than some original source from an advanced culture, could it instead be that these greater themes run within all cultures. And especially within the mind of man.

[kaisersose]

 

The Christians even claim that Krishna the cowherd boy was a spin-off of Jesus the shepherd.

 

There is a remote possibility of that - or a more higher probability of both stories ripped off from an even earlier source.

 

Krishna has several aspects to him. The Mahabharata Krishna (the king) who can reliably be placed before Christ is not a cowherd. Krishna the cowboy is to be found in other works which are all dated after Christ - not because of the alleged shepherd-cowboy link, but for various other factors. Similarly, there are reasons to suspect the fabrication of the Jesus story from earlier existing stories.

 

However, no evidence for any of these is conclusive. So anything goes.

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

A culture as rich and complex as the Vedic culture has not even a remote possibility of having any connection at all with the very simplistic and unsophisticated Christian and Jewish faiths.

 

The Vedic shastras as so vast and sophisticated that there is NO chance that Christianity had any influence on the Vedic culture.

 

In fact, the Old Testament is simply remnants of the Upanishads.

Tidbits and fragments of religious idea from the Upanishads filtered over from South Asia to the Middle East.

 

The middle east was just a tribal land of sheepherders and nomads while South Asia was a sophisticated Vedic civilization.

 

In fact, even Jesus is a myth derived from Zoroastrian origins.

 

There is nothing original about Christianity.

It is a mongrel religion that is a mix of Vedic remnants and Zoroastrian influence.

[raghu]

 

Can you cite a historical source on this?

 

All I can do offhand is cite hearsay, as I don't remember where I read about the Christians. It does sound plausible from a circumstantial POV, as well-established commercial routes from the Mediterranean to India existed at that time, and Christians have been prosetylizing since "time immemorial".

 

Huh?

 

The burden of proof is on you to provide the historical evidence substantiating your view. As far as Madhva's biographies are concerned, there is no record of a meeting with Christian missionaries. What, am I supposed to quote the entire Sri Madhva Vijaya here just to show you there is reference to a Christian meeting? Or were you looking for a quote in the biographies to the effect of "Madhva never met any Christian missionaries."??

[raghu]

 

Beginningless means that something has no beginning.

If your life had no beginning would you be here now?

If America had no beginning would it be here now?

 

What part of beginningless is it that we cannot understand?

 

Karma has no beginning because in fact karma is an illusion.

 

The spirit soul has no karma.

The spirit soul is pure spirit.

 

Karma is caused by Krishna, the cause of all causes.

 

The jiva's karma has no beginning because the jiva is transcendental to karma.

 

Beginning less means that it never really began, because in fact it is not reality.

 

Because in reality if something begins it is eternal.

 

( )

 

Aside from the fact that you totally evaded Kaiser's questions along with mine, you are now just speculating wildly with no idea what you are saying.

 

I think the root of this problem, like that of many others on this forum, is your desire to preach without having made the necessary sacrifice of time to commit yourself to learning the subject matter properly under a qualified guru. A true student will admit when he does not know rather than concocting more fluff to conceal his ignorance. But in your behavior I do not see this sort of humility; rather, you seem desperate to prove that you are right even when it has been proven that you are incorrect.

 

Suffice it to say that the Vedanta-sutra clearly teaches the concept of beginningless karma. Baladeva Vidyabhushana, the Vedanta commentary for the Gaudiya sampradaya, also accepts beginningless karma (not beginningless "spiritual" karma or other concoctions of your fertile imagination). Nothing in the Bhagavata contradicts the concept of beginningless karma. As you have indicated, you disagree with all of the above, which makes any claim you could make of representing Gaudiya Vaishnavism tenuous at best.

[raghu]

 

There is a remote possibility of that - or a more higher probability of both stories ripped off from an even earlier source.

 

Krishna has several aspects to him. The Mahabharata Krishna (the king) who can reliably be placed before Christ is not a cowherd.

 

But His cowherd past is referenced at several points in the Mahabharata such as in 3.186-187, His killing of Kamsa in 2.13.33, and Sishupala's spiteful comments about His cowherd past in 2.38.4-9. It is highly unlikely that the Mahabharata would include such references if the multi-faceted Krishna as cow-herd, king, etc were not already a reality at the time of its compilation.

 

 

Krishna the cowboy is to be found in other works which are all dated after Christ - not because of the alleged shepherd-cowboy link, but for various other factors.

 

Well, let's see now. At one point in my life I was a humble village boy without a television set or an internet connection. Then I studied in university at a different time and in a completely different location. Then I later did graduate work in yet a third time and place. And later I entered professional life. All records of me during each of those time periods contain little to no information pertaining to my previous or future life experiences. So if I ever become famous, perhaps an enterprising historian will conclude that Raghu the villager is not the same as Raghu the graduate student and that this person is still different from Raghu the post-doc, Raghu the husband, Raghu the father, etc etc.

 

Convincing? No. But maybe it will work long enough for him to publish his thesis...

[kaisersose]

 

But His cowherd past is referenced at several points in the Mahabharata such as in 3.186-187, His killing of Kamsa in 2.13.33, and Sishupala's spiteful comments about His cowherd past in 2.38.4-9. It is highly unlikely that the Mahabharata would include such references if the multi-faceted Krishna as cow-herd, king, etc were not already a reality at the time of its compilation.

 

Interesting. I was not aware of the cowherd Krishna reference in the Mbh. My previous post is not fully correct, then. The MBh is believed to have been edited upto 7th century AD or maybe even later. But that does not mean the cowherd reference is bogus.

 

Other texts like Harivamsha and VP are dated primarily based on writing style plus other data like mentioning the Gupta kings, etc.

 

 

Well, let's see now. At one point in my life I was a humble village boy without a television set or an internet connection. Then I studied in university at a different time and in a completely different location. Then I later did graduate work in yet a third time and place. And later I entered professional life. All records of me during each of those time periods contain little to no information pertaining to my previous or future life experiences. So if I ever become famous, perhaps an enterprising historian will conclude that Raghu the villager is not the same as Raghu the graduate student and that this person is still different from Raghu the post-doc, Raghu the husband, Raghu the father, etc etc.

 

Convincing? No. But maybe it will work long enough for him to publish his thesis...

 

This is valid, if these exists a text which was completed before Raghu the village boy moved on. How many texts do we know which satisfy this condition? We can use this logic, to argue that the references to Radha in the Brahma Vaivarta is proof of her existence even though she is absent in other texts. Or for the avatarhood of Chaitanya and even Bhakti Vinoda's dreams where Madhva cried.

 

We would be inclined to lean towards the more "feasible" option. This can raise a whole other discussion that is not relevant to this thread. One example is the ancestor worship found in some Vedas vs. the reincarnation concept. To me the two are contradictory and were developed by different people during different times. But some others may try to reconcile the two with the intention of proving consistency.

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

Other texts like Harivamsha and VP are dated primarily based on writing style plus other data like mentioning the Gupta kings, etc.

 

Many of these dating methods are largely based on conjecture and are being constantly revised. They are interesting from an academic point of view but lack sufficient consistency to be used as a basis for making any sweeping statements.

 

I studied linguistics in university and I was struck by how subjective it was. I frankly feel sorry for people who make a career out of it and even more for those who desperately want this to be accorded the status of hard science. Physics is a science. Chemistry is a science. Linguistics and philology - not true science. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.

 

 

This is valid, if these exists a text which was completed before Raghu the village boy moved on. How many texts do we know which satisfy this condition? We can use this logic, to argue that the references to Radha in the Brahma Vaivarta is proof of her existence even though she is absent in other texts. Or for the avatarhood of Chaitanya and even Bhakti Vinoda's dreams where Madhva cried.

 

I am not trying to prove anything. Certainly there can be interpolations, and doubtless many texts have been contaminated such as in the instances you raised here. But really now, let us take a hard look at the evidence before casually repeating unproven and inconsistent hypotheses as if they are fact. For me to accept that "Krishna the cow-herd" references a different Krishna than the Krishna of the Mahabharata, I would have to ignore the multiple, multiple Mahabharata references that mention the cow-herd past. Now, does that seem like good science to you?

 

 

We would be inclined to lean towards the more "feasible" option. This can raise a whole other discussion that is not relevant to this thread. One example is the ancestor worship found in some Vedas vs. the reincarnation concept. To me the two are contradictory and were developed by different people during different times. But some others may try to reconcile the two with the intention of proving consistency.

 

Darwin's original theory of evolution which predicted gradual change over millions of years is not supported by the fossil record to date, which instead seems to show relatively abrupt changes of species in shorter bursts of time. To me this is contradictory. But then some tried to reconcile the two points of view by introducing the concept of "punctuated equilibrium." How convincing is it to you? In my observation, the attempts to reconcile seemingly contradictory facts is more believable when the person is already favorably disposed to the idea in the first place. So, if you are an atheist and feel better thinking that you know how life began, you will accept evolution and praise Darwin even though Darwin was technically wrong.

 

Western academics have a problem accepting the idea that the Vedic tradition can be multi-faceted by nature. Since they operate according to reductionist modes of thinking, they are always trying to break complex ideas down into apparently simpler components. This really isn't a problem until you start dealing with a religious tradition that is not merely an amalgamation of different parts.

[sanatan]

 

It is the other way around. If someone is claiming a christian hand, they should be able to back it up with evidence.

 

1) Madhva never said anywhere that part of his doctrine was inspired by Christian Sources.

2) There is no part of his doctrine where he just makes some bald claims and says this is outside the realm of the Trayi. He has quoted a Brahma Tarka which is not available and never appears to have been available outside the tradition, but his chief tenets are not critically dependant on the authenticity of this missing text.

3) His biography does not say anything about Christian influences.

 

Conclusion: There is no evidence for the connection.

 

Did he know Christians? Maybe. Did he know their doctrine? Maybe. Was he influenced by them? Maybe. But there is no evidence for that and when such links are proposed, it should be made clear that it is all speculation.

 

Cheers

 

I'm not coming from a pro-Christian position or trying to discredit Srila Madhvacarya.

 

I simply made the comment that I'd read something to effect that Madhvacarya had been influenced by Christian thought in formulating a certain intriguing POV, and that this was plausible in view of a broad historic circumstance, i.e., mobility in the 13th century.

 

Theist seems to be the only person here that picked up on the speculative nature of these posts, and responded accordingly.

 

The rest of you have gotten your feathers ruffled because I suggested that an important Vedic philosopher might have been influenced by Christians.

 

If I asked raghu to cite a source, it was because I'd really like to know the answer.