The Critical Review

[shvu]

 

Clarification:

 

It is not that Madhva gave a brand new interpretation. It was in existence previously too.

 

Cheers

[BDas]

Dear Shivu,

 

I am new on this forum but from what I was able to glean from this thread I believe you are a tattvavadi who objects to the Gaudiya claim of succession from Madhva. Given the two groups obvious differences in doctrine and approach to spirituality it is not difficult to understand why you feel this way. I see you also object to Prabhupads text and Gaudiya interpretation of Bhagavad Gita.

 

First of all the idea of Gaudiya disciplic succession from Madhva is based on the claim that Mahaprabhu’s guru Isvara Puri had been initiated into the Madhva sect. But this idea is external because the foundation of the Gaudiya faith is that Mahaprabhu is Krishna. As Krishna, Mahaprabhu does not need a Guru and neither does He need a sampradaya to be connected with. Krishna we know is Guru and sampradaya in Himself. Therefore for Mahaprabhu and his devotees the necessity to be connected with the Madhva sampradaya is largely a formality. It is meant to bring Mahaprabhu to the forefront and add further legitimacy to his mission for those who are unable to recognize who Mahaprabhu is.

For those tattvavadis who do not recognize Mahaprabhu as Krishna this may all be considered unacceptable. To them I can only say that as the essence of the missions of Madhva and Mahaprabhu are the same, that is to bring the lost souls back to Krishna I beg they reconsider their objections. The two groups would better serve the cause of Krishna as brothers and friends rather than to argue over doctrine.

 

As for Prabhupads embellishments of the text of Bhagavad Gita and his Gaudiya interpretation this is again done to bring Mahaprabhu and His mission to the forefront.

As Gaudiyas believe Mahaprabhu to be Krishna they also believe the words of Mahaprabhu are the same as those of Krishna found in Gita. Krishna spoke the Gita to promote devotion to Himself. If Mahaprabhu is Krishna those who are promoting devotion to Mahaprabhu are doing the work of Krishna. And the Bhagavatam tells all to overlook any mistakes or embellishments in any literature that has been written to promote devotion to Krishna. Therefore again I beg all Vaisnavas and especially the tattvavadis to first consider this advice from Bhagavatam before they negatively critique Prabhupads Gita or other works. Although there are differences in doctrine Gaudiyas genuinely love Madhva and unlike some other groups recognize and appreciate his mission. Sincerely BDas

 

[shvu]

Hello BDas,

 

Thanks for a polite and logical reply.

 

To begin with, the Sampradaya issue was dealt with by Shrisha Rao on the dvaita website and not by me. I was pointing out translation errors by Prabhupada. You have stated that,

 

1. The Sampradaya connection is more a formality than anything else.

 

2. Prabhupada's translations are embellished.

 

3. The doctrines are different.

 

We are in perfect agreement here. I would like to mention a couple of other points. The Tattva-vadis hold that Vishnu does not incarnate during Kali-yuga. That is why they cannot accept Chaitanya as an avatar of Vishnu. The Gaudiya Sampradaya is recognized as a Vaishnava Sampradaya owing to their worship of Krishna. However it is considered different and distinct from that of Madhva's because it has Abedha as well, while Madhva is pure Bedha. That apart I am not aware of any other issues that the Tattva-vadis have with Gaudiyas.

 

Cheers

[BDas]

Dear Sivu,

 

Good, now at least you and I understand each other and we agree on those points albeit relatively. As you know we Gaudiyas

appreciate the beda more than the abeda aspects of our doctrine so in that way we feel we are brothers with the Tatvavadis.

Personally I would appreciate if you would start a thread on this board that explains the doctine of Madhva so we Gaudiyas could ask questions and understand it better. I would support you on that thread and that way hope we could keep out offencive mentalities and confrontation. Because of what may appear to some as your previous assults on Prabhupads books this may not always be possible but we could try. As you know the western Gaudiyas are not really familiar with tattvavadi doctrine. What do you think? BDas

 

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

First of all thanks Shvu for responding to my question. I was having exams and was busy. So I couldn't follow up my posting.

 

It was clear to me since the beginning of the topic that Mr. Shirsha Rao was not aware of the fact that 'WHY' Gaudiya's put Madhva's name in their succession. So when he came across Srimad Madhvacarya's name and saw that Srila Prabhupada had preached something other than dvaita, he came up with the review of this sort. But to me it didn't make a difference. Why? because-

Gaudiyas are very clear that Madhva's philosophy is Dvaita and Gaudiya philosophy is acitya-bedhabheda. This difference in siddhanta is enough for anyone to understand that Srila Prabhupada's book or for that matter any Gaudiya literature can never be 100% exactly same to any of Madhva's work. Furthermore it is clear from Srila Prabhupada's life that while preaching he taught his followers that Madhva's sampradya is called Tattvavada and they follow Madhva's dualistic vedanta. So what is our relationship with Madhva-

We gaudiyas descend in line from Madhva as proved below-

Go through the following links- http://www.vnn.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000492.html

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/indexh.html

Also on the above web page scroll down to footnotes section and read both articles provided in the number 8th point.

 

All this shall hopefully make the point clear as to why Sripada Madhvacarya is included in Gaudiya disciplic succession.

 

Furthermore you must note that we call ourselves a genuine branch off Madhva's sampradya, but still admit that it is tattvavadis who follow Madhva's dualistic vedanta.

So if Mr. Rao's claim has to be taken seriously he has to prove in his review refutation of what Gaudiyas says[in the above link]. If he wants to show difference in Srila Prabhupada's and Madhvacaryas books based on the verses[as he has just done], then considering that way, I can show up the difference by just showing that both differ in siddhanta or the conclusion of the vedic literature. There is no need of quoting one or two or three or more verses to show the difference. The difference can be shown just by acknowledging that the siddhanta of both are different. So I repeat that review can be taken serioulsy only when he refutes the points made by Gaudiyas, rather than just showing how the interpretation of few verses is different.[which would be since the siddhanta differs]. And no where in any Gaudiya literature it is said that Madhva preached acintya-bedhadheda. It is clear enough for any reader to notice that Gaudiyas have always said that Madhva preached dvaita and we preach acintya-bedhaabheda. So the entire review by Mr. Rao is baseless and shows his own ignorance of Gaudiya-Madhva connection. If he has to call Srila Prabhupada liar he has to do more than just showing the difference in the verses. I again point out that difference shall definately exists since the siddhanta of both are different. So just showing difference in few verses doesn't makes Srila Prabhupada a liar. Because what makes him put Madhva in Gaudiya disciplic succession is already stated in the links provided above. If he[Mr.Rao] can show that there is no connection between Gaudiyas and Madhvites as claimed by the Gaudiyas only then he has right to call Srila Prabhupada a liar. And if this is the case then entire Gaudiya lineage shall become a liar, since not only Srila Prabhupada but all Gaudiyas since day ONE have traced their lineage to Madhvacarya through Sri Madhavendra Puri. Although in his review he has described Srila Prabhupada with so many adjectives yet he misses the point which he should have definately adressed for the learned to take his review seriously. Towards the end I would call the review useless, born out of author's own ignorance.

 

More to come.....................

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga

Sumeet.

 

[shvu]

 

Hi BDas,

 

Your idea is a good one. Unfortunately I am no authority on Tattva-Vada and hence not qualified to start such a thread. However those who are interested to know the differences among different Vaishnavas, may start with the faqs at,

 

http://www.bookcase.com/library/faq/archive/religions/vaishnava/

 

One can also join the respective mailing lists to clarify doubts. Sorry I cannot be of more help here.

 

My personal issues about Prabhupada are his translations and his side-stepping to bash Advaita providing weak watered down arguments. If his mission was to spread the message of Chaitanya, he should have simply stuck to that. But for some reason, he has taken up the task of spreading false Propaganda on Advaita as well. He should have got his facts straight before doing that, which he did not bother about. Such mistakes will most certainly invite criticism. Other than that I have no issues about Prabhupada.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

Hi Sumeet,

 

Let us clarify the position of Shrisha Rao first. I seem to be the unauthorized representative of Shrisha Rao on this forum The review does not criticize the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya nor the Acintya Bedha-Abedha Tattva. It shows that SP's interpretations are not conforming to Madhva's, period. And Shrisha Rao says that it is not right of SP to claim disciplic succession from Madhva.

 

Now let us discuss if SP was justified in adding Madhva's name in the foreword of the translation. I have read that article pointed out by you earlier once. When one states that he belongs to x's Sampradaya, he should adhere to x's philosophy. That is what is meant by Sampradaya. Dhiksha was always a prerequisite for Shiksha, but is that by itself a sufficent condition? I think not, but perhaps you can clarify this. Now since Prabhupada does not adhere to Madhva's interpretation, and yet claims that he belongs to Madhva Sampradya, it is incorrect in my opinion and is likely to confuse readers, who may think that this is what Madhva said too.

 

Here I have to mention something. I have read that the early Gaudiya Acharyas wrote commentaries on the Gita, which were perfectly adhering to Madhva's Bhasya. If I remember right, it was Sridhara Maharaj and Baladeva, perhaps? If that is true, then Prabhupada not only deviates from Madhva but also from the early Gaudiya Acharyas too. I don't have more details about that though.

 

'And if this is the case then entire Gaudiya lineage shall become a liar, since not only Srila Prabhupada but all Gaudiyas since day ONE have traced their lineage to Madhvacarya'

 

I have a few questions here myself. Did Chaitanya himself provide the title of BMG or was it someone later? Because since Chaitanya is considered an avatar by the Gaudiyas, their Sampradaya could have started there and would also be considered to have a perfect source. This would make the exercise of tracing back to Madhva, unnecessary. I would like you to clarify this doubt.

 

Cheers

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Thanks for your reply dear shvu. I will find out the answers to your questions from whatever limited resources I have access to.

give me some time.

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga

Sumeet.

 

[BDas]

Dear Shvu,

Thanks for the reply and the clarification of your position as an adwaitin.

Apart from what I said previously Gaudiyas claim connection with Madhva based on their agreement with some of Madhva’s key points of theology.

 

Sri Madhva has said —

1. Visnu is Supreme.

2. He is known by the study of the Vedas.

3. The Material world is real.

4. The jivas are different from the Lord.

5. The jivas are by nature subservient to the Lord.

6. In both the conditioned and liberated condition, the jivas are situated in higher and lower statuses.

7. Liberation is the attainment of Lord Visnu’s lotus-feet.

8. Pure devotion grants liberation.

9. Direct perception, logic and Vedic authority are the three sources of actual knowledge.

 

As you have pointed out we have abeda in our theology therefore we agree with various points of adwaita also. Because of this many tattvavadis do not appreciate the Gaudiya claim of connection with the Madhva line. But as you know our theology is closer to Dvaita than Adwaita so we are therefore sometimes forced to appreciate Madhva on our own and not be too concerned about anyone’s objections.

Historically the main dispute between the to sects of Vedanta have to do with the doctrine regarding the position of Visnu in ultimate reality. Apart from the actual disputed points themselves I can understand how you may object to some of the ways adwaita theology is sometimes presented in Prabhupads books. Adwaita theology is a vast subject and in many cases Prabhupad presented an abridged form of adwaita in his books for the western audience. As the tattvavadis have their objections to Prabhupads books so the adwaitins may have theirs also. And from some point of view their objections may be acceptable. Any book of philosophy or theology can be critically critiqued from some viewpoint. I just read a view by Dr. Ambedkar one of the framers of India’s constitution and considered a respected religious leader and theologian by many. He has critically critiqued the entire Vedas and concluded it would be better if India was Buddhist. Swami Dayanand the founder of Arya Samaj has critically critiqued the Puranas as well as Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva and concluded they are all unacceptable and only the Four Vedas and 10 principal Upanishads are of God. My point here is that anyone can make an academic case against any philosophical or theological book. If you present any of the religious books you love on line I am sure someone will come by who will be able to find fault in them in some way. If you feel that your campaign against Prabhupads books is a noble one than what can I say. I understand your objections and will do what I can to address them in a reasonable way. For in spite of all the theological bickering among sects it is still true that the truth can not be realized by theology. And brahmasutra tells us logic is inconclusive in matters of the Divine (tarko pratisthanat).

Therefore we may agree the truth is experiential and is experienced in both dwaita and adwaita realizations. Respectfully, BDas

 

 

 

[BDas]

 

 

Dear Shvu,

The following is a letter from Swami B.V. Tripurari that explains the main point of contention between the Vaisnava acharyas and Shankara in greater detail than is usually found in Prabhupads books. It is presented to illustrate how difficult it is to present these points to the layman. And you may not even agree with this Swami’s presentation but it is meant just to illustrate my points on the matter.

 

 

The followers of Sri Caitanya accept the Srimad Bhagavatam as the perfect commentary on the Brahma sutras of Badarayana. Garuda Purana confirms this, Artho 'yaM brahma-sUtrAnAm . . . . SrImad-bhAgavatAbhidhaH.

It is clear from the Bhagavata itself that Vyasa realized its import and was inspired to author it after entering the samadhi of lila smaranam on Krsna lila, urukramasyAkhila-bandha-muktaye samAdhinAnusmara tad-vicezTitam. His experience in trance is related in several verses of the first canto's seventh chapter. There it is mentioned that Vyasa saw the Lord, his internal sakti, his maya sakti, and his jiva sakti, yayA sammohito jIva. The clear import of this essential section of the Bhagavatam reveals the nature of ultimate reality as experienced by its author. The book itself describes how the jiva and Paramesvara are inconceivably simultaneously one and different. The inconceivability of this identity and difference is realizable through bhakti yoga, bhakti yogam adhokzaje. My edition of Sri Jiva Goswami's Tattva-sandarbha explains this in great detail with reason and scriptural support. Anyone interested in understanding what Sri Caitanya meant by the term acintya bhedAbheda would do well to read this book more than once. Indeed, the very term that describes the tattva of Mahaprabhu's experience was fashioned by Sri Jiva Goswami in his own commentary on this treatise.

Your comments below regarding the sutras themselves are not entirely clear to me. The followers of Sri Caitanya have their own commentary on the sutras other than the Srimad Bhagavata. This commentary was composed by the learned Baladeva Vidyabhusana and is named Govinda bhasya.

I believe that the section of the sutras referred to below and the comments of Adi Sankara mentioned are not fully representative of the sutras themselves or Sankara's position. For example, the author has not make clear the fact that when Sankara says that the liberated jivatma does not have authority over creation, he is referring to the jivanmukta, who although a liberated jiva, has not yet attained videha mukti, the final end of liberation. According to Sankara, the jiva who has attained videha mukti is jiva no more. It is Brahman in all respects, in which according to Sankara, there is no possibility of any differentiation whatsoever.

The section of the sutras in which the jiva is differentiated from Brahman appears in the first adhyaya beginning with sutra 1.1.12, Anandamayo 'bhyAsAt "Brahman is joy.". Sutra 1.1.13 states that Brahman is not made of joy (a creation), but rather possessed of an abundance of joy. Evidence for this is offered in 1.1.14, which states that since Brahman is designated elsewhere as the cause of joy (Taittiriya Upanisad 2.7) he must be full of joy. Sütra 1.1.15 states that the scripture of joy (Taittiriya Upanisad) also celebrates Brahman as being joyful. Following this sütra in sütra 1.1.16, that which is Brahman and joyful is distinguished from the individual soul. The Brahman who is joyful is also described in the scripture as being the creator. Thus it is Brahman who is described as joyful, and not the individual soul, for only Brahman is described as possessing the ability to create the world. Sütra 1.1.17 then states that the individual soul and Brahman are declared to be different, bhedavyapadezcca. Even Sankara himself admits that sütras 1.1.16-17 concern the difference between Brahman and the individual soul. However, Sankara adds his own comment, declaring that the difference only exists on a lower level of reality (vyavaharic), whereas in ultimate reality (paramarthic) this illusion of difference ceases to exist. However nowhere in Vedanta sütra is there any reference to Sankara's two levels of reality and thus two levels of Brahman-a provisional manifestation of the Absolute (Krsna/the avatara/isvara) and an ultimate reality (unmanifest indeterminate Brahman).

Thus Sankara appears to have attached his own doctrine to the sütras. In this doctrine he calls his provisional manifestation of Brahman "saguna Brahman," Brahman with material adjuncts. The form of Krsna as saguna Brahman is thus considered a manifestation of Brahman constituted of the material quality of sattva that serves the purpose of helping individual souls realize the illusion of their individuality, at which time the form and person of the avatara is dispensed with as the enlightened realizes itself to be Brahman.

Caitanya Vaisnavas differ strongly from Sankara.

God is always nirguna in terms of his being free from the influence of the material gunas, either as indeterminate Brahman, or as Krsna or any of his avataras. I have not understood any verse in Bhagavad gita to describe the jivatma as saguna brahman. This is merely a particular interpretation of the text, one that Mahaprabhu does not acknowledge. The jiva is no doubt identified with the gunas of prakriti and in this sense saguna, but the idea that the jiva is Brahman who has become subject to this identification is another idea altogether. The jiva is Brahman in that it is a sakti of Brahman. In this sense it is identified with Brahman, but is also simultaneously different from Brahman in that it is one of Brahman's saktis, and a person's energy (sakti) and the person himself (saktiman) are both one and different from one another. Thus the possibility of an illusioned jiva exists, but not that of an illusioned Absolute. I hope this is helpful.

 

(Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of Tripurari Swami’s book Tattva Sandarbha, Sacred India’s Philosophy of Ecstasy or address questions to Swami can do so at www.dailysanga.com

 

[shvu]

Hi BDas,

 

I have no issues with people belonging to one Vedantic tradition criticizing other traditions of Vedanta. It actually has some advantages. What I resent is criticism without actually knowing anything. For example, the letter that you have posted is adressing specific points and is not indulging in blunt, personal criticism of Shankara, which is the right way of doing things.

 

I must say that the points raised have caught my interest I will address them soon.

 

Cheers

[BDas]

Dear Shvu,

Again I think it would be am excellent idea for you to start a thread on this board explaining and defending Adwaita doctrine. It is easy to assault a phantom opponent who cannot reply but not so easy to discuss in a reasonable way with scripture and logic various opposing points of theology. Personally, I would appreciate the opportunity to see how a person who has the utmost faith in adwaita presented the concepts of that religion. How civil this discussion would be would depend on the participants (including myself) and how much they try to set some kind of example how to have such a discussion politely. So again I encourage the idea.

 

As for your perception of disrespect of Shankara in Prabhupads books:

 

As you know it is the sampradayika tradition to gather whatever evidence possible from Vedic sources to support the thesis of their particular school of Vedanta. This evidence is considered and presented according to the view of that thesis. Even Adi-Shankara declares in his Taittiriyopanisad Bhasya that he rejects any Vedic statement that does not support his philosophy. So you will find all the schools translate and view the evidence to their own advantage. Sanskrit has broad leeway for translation and all the schools take advantage of that leeway.

 

In Gaudiya Vaisnavism our position in regards to Adi-Shankara is quite a conundrum. On one hand we oppose some of the key elements of His doctrine yet at the same time we revere him as an incarnation of Lord Shiva. That he is an incarnation of Lord Shiva is the expressed opinion of Mahaprabhu and therefore we accept this idea while other Vaisnava schools do not. Therefore you must admit Prabhupad gave us a higher conception of Adi-Shankara than many other schools of Vedanta have for him, especially the Madhva school who do not accept him in any way as an incarnation of Shiva.

 

This opinion of Mahaprabhu is supported by a verse in the Padma Purana,

Uttara-khanda (25-7) that says: (Shiva to Durga) “In the age of Kali I incarnate as a brahmana and explain scripture in an indirect way similar to Buddhism.”

 

Here again you will find we have supported our thesis with this verse from PP but the followers of Shankara do not accept our translation or maybe even this verse at all. Any school can claim interpolation and reject any sloka from any shastra they like.

Therefore all our scriptural arguments will mostly remain inconclusive and we will all proceed according to our faith. What path we follow is due in large part to our development and connections from our previous life. What faith we have is the key to unlocking the real truth of the Vedas and a connection to a genuine saint is essential in developing faith. All schools of Vedanta agree with this conclusion. Sincerely, BDas

 

[shvu]

Hi BDas,

 

I do not have access to Shankara's Bhasyas right now. That will take a while.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Even Adi-Shankara declares in his Taittiriyopanisad Bhasya that he rejects any Vedic statement that does not support his philosophy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

With due respect, I have to disagree. Can I get an actual reference here? This would be a good time to mention a few things. The Shankara school being a school of Vedanta, relies on Sruti [Vedas, Upanishads] as the prime authority. Smriti[everything else] is considered valid only when it does not contradict Sruti. A Vedantic tradition cannot say that there is a part of Veda or Vedanta that is not conforming to it's docrine and so rejects it. The reason is according to traditon, Sruti is Apourushaya [unauthored] while everything else is written by man and is prone to error. This is the view of the Dvaita tradition too. As opposed to this, the Gaudiya tradition relies more on Smriti than Sruti. They rely heavily on Puranas and rarely ever on the Vedas and Upanishads.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sanskrit has broad leeway for translation and all the schools take advantage of that leeway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Yes.

 

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Therefore you must admit Prabhupad gave us a higher conception of Adi-Shankara than many other schools of Vedanta have for him, especially the Madhva school who do not accept him in any way as an incarnation of Shiva.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

You may want to refer to the thread 'What is Mayavada?' to see how exactly Prabhupada refers to Shankara. btw the Advaitins themselves accept that the idea of Shankara being Shiva came in later after Shankara began to get a Superhuman image. Shankara himself never claimed that he was an avatar. Somebody else after him saying so does not account for much.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Here again you will find we have supported our thesis with this verse from PP but the followers of Shankara do not accept our translation or maybe even this verse at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

That verse is a fake one. There are multiple version of Padma Purana in India, and not so surprisingly the verses related to Mayavada and Shankara are not found in any version. Some GVs said it was from a lost version, and some said it is only in the Bengal version. Coincidence? I think not. However the point is that, since that verse is not found in any other existant version of the Padma Purana, it does not stand for argument.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Any school can claim interpolation and reject any sloka from any shastra they like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

A school of Vedanta cannot and will not reject any statement from the Sruti. That is the foundation of any school of Vedanta. However the Puranas as explained above do not hold that status, owing to their uncertain nature. How can one rely on a text that has different versions across the country? This is where the Gaudiyas generally run into trouble with their arguments. Their references to the Puranas mentioning Mayavada, Shankara as an avatar and Chaitanya as an avatar where all found to be non-existent. When asked, they said they were from lost sources. That as you will agree, does not stand for argument. Even if the Padma Purana did carry such verses at some point of time, the Tattva-vadis would have definitely mentioned them at some point. But as it turns out, they have no idea about such verses in the Padma Purana at all.

 

Some GVs hold that Sruti is what was spoken by Krishna and Smriti is what is spoken about Krishna. People can come up with any definition they like, but they must note that, after redifining these concepts, they cannot continue to call their school as a vedantic one nor will it be recognized by other schools as one.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

"A school of Vedanta cannot and will not reject any statement from the Sruti. That is the foundation of any school of Vedanta."

---

 

You seem to have the conception that the shruti is universally accepted and established in one written form. This is incorrect. There are as many varrying versions (and branches) of shruti texts as there are smriti texts. Only major and common texts have universal acceptance.

 

Much of the shruti does not even exist today, at least in written form.

 

Some people accept one text as authentic, others do not. Take Aitareyya Upanishad for example.

 

Though in words one may give more importance to shruti, the texts are subjected to the same subjective processes as smriti texts. This is because the "un-authored" texts have been put into writing - they are no longer "shruti".

 

Any view of them as more authentic than smriti is merely sentimental.

 

I do not deny that they are authentic (though there are individual cases to the contrary).

 

But let us just consider a single point:

 

How can there be 50 different readings of a particular text that is eternal and unauthored? There are many answers one may come to. Some may reject them all, some may accept them all (the veda is unlimited). That is for individuals to decide based on their realization and faith.

 

Others may question what does the shruti actually refer to? Is it the exact combination of varnas (syllables) which occur in the later stages of shabda (sound)? Or is it the supra-intellectual manifestation of sound existing on the level of pure consciousness - beyond the divisions of the alphabet.

 

Since the Vedas are established as eternal, they must belong to the para-shabda, and therefore are situated beyond (or prior to) the manifestation of mechanical sound in terms of letters, syllables, etc. Thus what is it that is actually "unauthored"? This requires an indepth study, and not just a passing glance.

 

[shvu]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"A school of Vedanta cannot and will not reject any statement from the Sruti. That is the foundation of any school of Vedanta."

---

You seem to have the conception that the shruti is universally accepted and established in one written form. This is incorrect. There are as many varrying versions (and branches) of shruti texts as there are smriti texts. Only major and common texts have universal acceptance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Point noted. When I say Sruti, I do mean the commonly accepted ones. I should have been more clear on that.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Some people accept one text as authentic, others do not. Take Aitareyya Upanishad for example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Out of curiosity, is there any vedantic school which rejects the Aitareyya? Any reasons mentioned for that?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Though in words one may give more importance to shruti, the texts are subjected to the same subjective processes as smriti texts. This is because the "un-authored" texts have been put into writing - they are no longer "shruti". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Technically yes. However the traditional classification of Sruti and Smriti still holds good.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Any view of them as more authentic than smriti is merely sentimental.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

From a historical perspective, yes. But traditionally it is an accepted view that Sruti is authentic, while Smriti is valid as long as it does not contradict Sruti. At least among the Shankara and Madhva schools.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>How can there be 50 different readings of a particular text that is eternal and unauthored? There are many answers one may come to. Some may reject them all, some may accept them all (the veda is unlimited). That is for individuals to decide based on their realization and faith.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Yes, I admit it is not as simple as my earlier posting makes it out to be.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Since the Vedas are established as eternal, they must belong to the para-shabda, and therefore are situated beyond (or prior to) the manifestation of mechanical sound in terms of letters, syllables, etc. Thus what is it that is actually "unauthored"? This requires an indepth study, and not just a passing glance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Correct again.

 

Cheers