Is Gaudiya Vaishnavism Superior to the Vedas ?

[Guest guest]

nAnA-zAstra-vicAraNaika-nipuNau sad-dharma-saMsthApakau

lokAnAM hita-kAriNau tri-bhuvane mAnyau zaraNyAkarau

rAdhA-kRSNa-padAravinda-bhajanAnandena mattAlikau

vande rUpa-sanAtanau raghu-yugau zrI-jIva-gopAlakau

 

"Considering the various shastras with unique expertise, they established the essential, eternal religious principles. Benefactories of the three worlds, they are worthy of honour and taking shelter of. They were intoxicated with the ecstacy of worshiping the lotus feet of Sri Radha and Krishna, and unto them, Rupa, Sanatana, the two Raghus (Raghunatha Bhatta and Raghunatha Dasa), Sri Jiva and Gopala, I offer my obeisances." The glory of the gosvamis is that they established the essential eternal principles of religion based on the sastras.

 

But there are a lot of realizations in the gaudiya vaishnava tradition which are supra-vedic, that is not found in the available Vedas. In some cases the Vedic knowledge is rejected. The support comes from the Bhagavad Gita, where the Lord says,"trai gunya vishayo veda nistrai gunyo bhavArjuna"

 

All other schools hold the sruti to be the supreme authority. Whereas smriti is accepted as much as it does not contradict the sruti. Even the Bhagavad Gita glorified as it is the essence of the Vedas (sarvopanishado gavo) where as it is the upanishads that are used to establish the tattvas (iswara and brahman in the case of advaita and narayana in the case of vishishtAdvaitA and dwaita schools). And even the Lord refers to Vedas to establish some tattvas in the Gita. It is not that we dont have commentaries on Vedanta Sutras or upanishads. We do. But the focus is definitely on Gita and Bhagavatham. And works of the acharyas.

 

It is said that based on Srimad Bhagavatham, whose authority comes from the fact that it is a natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. And it was written because even after Vyasa wrote every other vedic literature, he was not satisfied until he wrote Srimad Bhagavatham to describe the pastimes of Lord Sri Krishna and His devotees.

 

So in conclusion one may say that the gaudiya vaishnavism is the fruit of all vedic knowledge and has to be judged by its own merits. So, can it be concluded that the Gaudiya Vaishnavism is superior to Vedic knowledge ? I have heard this thought from some devotees.

 

But the problem that I have personally in reconciling to this is that the Vedas - sruti - is apoureshya and anadi. And it has been accepted as the Supreme knowledge by all the Vedantins. While different schools of thought have been based on Vedic thought, can any one supersede the Vedas themself ? Are not the Vedas the basis on which any vedic school of thought should be judged ?

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-05-2002).]

[raga]

But there are a lot of realizations in the gaudiya vaishnava tradition which are supra-vedic, that is not found in the available Vedas. In some cases the Vedic knowledge is rejected. The support comes from the Bhagavad Gita, where the Lord says,"trai gunya vishayo veda nistrai gunyo bhavArjuna"

 

Ram, would you demonstrate this with case examples of particular Vedic knowledge being rejected?

 

The traigunya vishayo veda obviously refers to portions of the Vedic literature which are concerned with pursuits other than that of paramartha.

 

The Gita also states, yaH zAstra-vidhim utsRjya vartate kAma-kArataH | na sa siddhim avApnoti na sukhaM na parAM gatim ||. Shastra is not to be neglected.

 

It is also taught by the Gosvamins (Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.101):

<blockquote><center>zruti-smRti-purANAdi-paJcarAtra-vidhiM vinA

aikAntikI harer bhaktir utpAtAyaiva kalpate</center>

"That exclusive devotion of Hari which is devoid of the directions of shruti, smrti, Puranas etc. and Pancaratra, is a cause of public calamity."</blockquote>

Thus shruti and smriti are definitely the foundational basis. This is what Jiva Gosvamin's Sat-Sandarbha is all about -- he establishes the essential doctrines of Mahaprabhu and the Gosvamins based on shruti and smriti.

 

So in conclusion one may say that the gaudiya vaishnavism is the fruit of all vedic knowledge and has to be judged by its own merits. So, can it be concluded that the Gaudiya Vaishnavism is superior to Vedic knowledge ? I have heard this thought from some devotees.

I would suggest you take Gaudiya statements seriously when backed up by something said by Gaudiya purva-acharyas. Otherwise there are so many concoctions out there you hear, God only knows the end for them.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I would suggest you read Tattva Sandarbha, as it particularly establishes the Srimad Bhagavatam as the highest pramana among all Vedic references. It is a long topic, and will require many quotes to substantiate. Since all of this has already been done by Sri Jiva Goswami in his Tattva sandarbha, I would just suggest reading that, or if possible posting it here for all of us to read.

 

[shvu]

 

The answer is yes.

 

Are not the Vedas the basis on which any vedic school of thought should be judged ?

Evidently not, as one can see iskcon/GV claiming to be *vedic* while not actually following the Vedas. In fact they claim to be vedic while following something *better* than the Vedas, which shows how modest they are. Here is proof to show Gaudiya Vaishnavism is superior to the Vedas.

 

Proof

 

For thousands of years the people of India were following lesser(vedic) systems, and now we have a set of Gurus from Bengal who discovered the ultimate religion. People who are intelligent should immediately abandon whatever they are following and [...]

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-06-2002).]

[jijaji]

[raga]

Anyone out there who wants to comment pramana-wise should refer to a Vedic pramana to substantiate his claim.

 

Kindly present solid evidence on the interrelation of shruti, smrti etc. and then we have something serious to begin with.

 

I'll present some verses of shruti from the document to which our shvu referred to.

 

<blockquote>rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha

ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah

 

"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

 

evam ime sarva veda nirmitah sa-kalpah sa-rahasyah sa-brahmanah sopanisatkah setihasah sanvakhyatah sa-puranan

 

"In this way, all the Vedas were manifested along with the Kalpas, Rahasyas, Brahmanas, Upanisads, Itihasas, Anvakhyatas and the Puranas." (Gopatha Brahmana, purva 2.10)

 

asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama

vedo?tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina

 

"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord." (Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)

 

nama va rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama-veda atharvanas caturtha itihasa-puranah pancamo vedanam vedah

 

"Indeed, Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)</blockquote>

 

What is the issue at hand? Is there a clear objection to be presented in regards to the Gaudiya theology? If so, you may kindly present a case example with proper reference to a statement in the Gaudiya corpus of literature, and clearly word the objection with reference to shruti.

[Rati]

Originally posted by jndas:

I would suggest you read Tattva Sandarbha, as it particularly establishes the Srimad Bhagavatam as the highest pramana among all Vedic references. It is a long topic, and will require many quotes to substantiate. Since all of this has already been done by Sri Jiva Goswami in his Tattva sandarbha, I would just suggest reading that, or if possible posting it here for all of us to read.

JNDas: Is there an English translation in print that people could refer to? Jiva's Sanskrit tends to be difficult even for experienced Sanskritists.

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by jndas:

I would suggest you read Tattva Sandarbha, as it particularly establishes the Srimad Bhagavatam as the highest pramana among all Vedic references. It is a long topic, and will require many quotes to substantiate. Since all of this has already been done by Sri Jiva Goswami in his Tattva sandarbha, I would just suggest reading that, or if possible posting it here for all of us to read.

Sorry to sound like an iconoclaust once again. Why is that even great Vaisnava acaryas like Sri Ramanuja never quoted from SB even once? For sure he quoted occasionally from Visnu Purana. Mostly he debated using Brahma Sutra. I have not heard of either Madhvacarya or Sankaracarya ever quoting from SB. Why so? Is it because, they considered SB to be less reliable than srutis? Is it because of the many interpolations and recensions?

 

[raga]

Originally posted by Rati:

JNDas: Is there an English translation in print that people could refer to? Jiva's Sanskrit tends to be difficult even for experienced Sanskritists.

There's one edition by Satya Narayan Das and another one by BV Tripurari Maharaja. I have the former edition, haven't seen the latter, though they say it is good.

 

[shvu]

 

Mostly he debated using Brahma Sutra. I have not heard of either Madhvacarya or Sankaracarya ever quoting from SB. Why so? Is it because, they considered SB to be less reliable than srutis? Is it because of the many interpolations and recensions?

Shankara and Ramanuja never quoted SB. Madhva wrote a taatparya on SB, to show that it does not digress from the Mahabharata.

 

Coming to the question, there are many possible reasons. The most likely one being the SB was not yet popular during their time (They did not quote any Purana except for VP). Unlike VP, SB has plenty of material on Krishna, which is not found in the Mahabharata and also differs from the Mahabharata at times suggesting interpolation and tale-weaving. This may be a reason (The Vedaantic schools treat the Mahabharata as a stronger authority than the SB).

 

Shankara in his commentary on BS 2.1.1 clearly says Smriti is authority *only* when it does not contradict Sruti and not otherwise, thus giving it an inferior position. As any typical vedaantin, Shankara's dependance on Smriti is very minimal. Needless to say, this is the position of all major Vedaantic schools.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-07-2002).]

[raga]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Sorry to sound like an iconoclaust once again. Why is that even great Vaisnava acaryas like Sri Ramanuja never quoted from SB even once? For sure he quoted occasionally from Visnu Purana. Mostly he debated using Brahma Sutra. I have not heard of either Madhvacarya or Sankaracarya ever quoting from SB. Why so? Is it because, they considered SB to be less reliable than srutis? Is it because of the many interpolations and recensions?

It is well known that Madhva wrote a commentary on Srimad Bhagavata called "Bhagavat Tatparya". Therein he quotes the following verse from the Garuda Purana:<blockquote><center>artho ?yam brahma-sutranam bharatartha-vinirnayah

gayatri-bhasya-rupo ?sah vedartha-paribrmhitah

grantho ?stadasa-sahasrah srimad-bhagavatabhidhah</center>

 

"The Bhagavata is the authorized explanation of Brahma-sutras, and it is a further explanation of Mahabharata. It is the expansion of the gayatri-mantra and the essence of all Vedic knowledge. This Bhagavata, containing eighteen thousand verses, is known as the explanation of all Vedic literature."</blockquote>

This verse was also quoted in the paper which shvu linked to us above.

 

According to JNDas in an earlier thread, http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000365.html , in this title Madhva relates that eight Bhagavata commentaries were written prior to his. Interestingly, Madhva states that one of them was by Shankara.

 

JNDas knows more about this I trust. Perhaps he even has Bhagavat Tatparya at hand.

[shvu]

 

Raga,

 

The Bhagavata is the authorized explanation of Brahma-sutras, and it is a further explanation of Mahabharata. It is the expansion of the gayatri-mantra and the essence of all Vedic knowledge. This Bhagavata, containing eighteen thousand verses, is known as the explanation of all Vedic literature."

The scope of the Bhagavata as clearly mentioned at the start of the work, is to describe the activities of Lord Narayana, when he was born as Krishna. The scope of the Brahma-sutras is to establish the Vedic Brahman and refute other rival schools. As can be seen, the two works are entirely different and it is hardly reasonable to say the SB is a commentary on the BS. The BS has dealt with a number of differences with other schools which are nowhere to be found in the SB. Had the SB been a *natural* commentary on the BS, and had Maadhva believed so, he would not have written a new commentary or at the least would have explained why he is writing a fresh (unnatural) commentary on the BS while there already exists a natural one.

 

Concerning "lost vedic scriptures", all the Brahma Sutras can be traced to Vedic sources which are still extant and readily available. Thus someone's claim that most of the Vedas are lost and so there is no point in studying them, does not wash. If Vyasa who composed the Sutras was content with these many sources, I would think that should suffice for anyone.

 

Lastly about Shankara commenting on the SB, check your sources again. Maadhva *never* mentions Shankara by name anywhere in his works. I have this from a very reliable source. All of Shankara's works (including some which he may have never authored, but still carry his name), have been preserved over the years and are easily available. No Taatparya on the Bhagavata figures in this list.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-07-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Shvu and Raga,

 

Thanks for the information regarding Madhvacarya. Talking of much portion of vedas having been lost, Paramacarya of Kanchi Sankara mutt also holds a similar view. He feels that only a fraction of (5 or 6 %) of the original srutis have been preserved. He also gave many arguments in support of that.

 

Of course, none of this means that the vedas, because much has been ost, are irrelevant today.

[jijaji]

Madhavacarya did not accept Radha and the gopis the way the later Gaudiyas did. He in fact said the gopi's were 'apsaras' from the heavenly planets, descended to give service to Krishna avatar.

But 'Radha' is not accepted by Madhva.

 

Also note that Madhva considered the Mahabharata of his period to have been made up mostly of interpolation.

 

[Guest guest]

1. What is the proof that the Vedas are lost ? If the Vedas are lost, then how do we make sense out of it as it is only half truth ?

2. Why were the Vedas lost - the metaphysical purpose ? Perhaps to allow Srimad Bhagavatham to take the central place - just speculating. But some one can give a more authoritative purpose.

3. If the Vedas are lost, then what is the scope for a realized soul to express his realization through the authority of the sruti ? Especially those realizations which are perhaps in the lost part of the sruti. Example: rasa in devotional relationship with the Lord.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-07-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-07-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Allah O' Akbar!

 

Originally posted by Ram:

1. If the Vedas are lost, then how do we make sense out of it ? What is the proof that the Vedas are lost?

Insha Allah, let me try to give my understanding. In the post vedic times, anukramanis or vedic indices were compiled. They give a nice cross tabulation of the mandalas, hymns and the authors and their families. Basically, they refer to several hymns which we don't find anymore. Paramacarya, based his argument on this and other references found in upanisads. He also partly retrieved one shaka from Gujarat. Even if the vedas are available in full, you cannot make any sense out of them. As the verse I posted from Rk veda shows, the words themselves don't convey a thing. They are at best a medium for transporting you to the other world. Kind of a worm hole. Acaryas have written that just by repeating the panca akshara or the pranava mantra one can get the real experience alluded to by the vedas. Jijaji recommends soma

 

Originally posted by Ram:

2. Why were the Vedas lost - the metaphysical purpose ? Perhaps to allow Srimad Bhagavatham to take the central place - just speculating. But some one can give a more serious purpose.

Vedas were orally transmitted. Each family practised a shaka. Nobody learnt everything in the vedas. so, if a family perished, due to war or floods, then the tradition they preserved was lost. The vedas we have now are supposed to a recenssion by Shakalya. I am speculating that he compiled whatever was left during his time. Someone can correct me.

 

Originally posted by Ram:

3. If the Vedas are lost, then what is the scope for a realized soul to express his realization through the authority of the sruti ? Especially those realization which are perhaps in the lost part of the sruti.

Does a realized sould express his realization? Assuming he does, then I guess that he has to be content expressing through what is extant of the vedas

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Allah O' Akbar!

 

I dont know if your website supports it. But if you can make this post invisible - i am not saying remove it - - i can hope to get some meaningful answers for my questions.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

1. What is the proof that the Vedas are lost ? If the Vedas are lost, then how do we make sense out of it as it is only half truth ?

The obvious proof is that the numbers of verses in particular branches of the Vedas are mentioned in various texts such as Puranas, and we don't find even 5% of the number in existence today. The same is the case of the Puranas, Upapuranas and Upakhyanas, which should number 18 x 18 x 18, of which we have 30 or 40 in existence today. The Ayurveda, dhanurveda, etc., are an identical case, where the millions of verses that are supposed to exist just don't.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

He in fact said the gopi's were 'apsaras' from the heavenly planets, descended to give service to Krishna avatar.

...and Narada was a maidservant's son who lost his mother to a snake bite, and Prahlada was a sinful king who accidentally fasted on Nrisimha Chaturdashi. The Purana's are full of such stories to show the potency of devotional service. The eternally liberated devotees choose to manifest in Lord Krishna's pastimes through an indirect route, sometimes taking prior births. The Pandavas were Indras in previous lives. This does not contradict anything taught by Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas.

 

But 'Radha' is not accepted by Madhva.

This is not correct. Madhva does not speak about Radha, he neither acknowledges nor rejects her existence.

[jijaji]

Originally posted by jndas:

This is not correct. Madhva does not speak about Radha, he neither acknowledges nor rejects her existence.

Your wrong sorry..

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

Again, this is your inference. Madhva does not speak of Radha. So whether she is rejected or accepted is a meaningless argument. Unless of course Shivu and Jijaji can show me the writings of Madhva that reject the divinity of Radha.

When it is said Maadva rejects the divinity of Radha, it means his teachings do. That is the idea. He did not accept anything that was not based on Shastra, auto means that he does not accept Radha.

 

The divinity of Radha is rejected on the simple grounds that it has no basis in scripture. No explicit mention is necessary. For instance, Maadhva did not mention Islam in his writings does not mean his teachings do not reject islam as authentic. Just like the standard list of avatars of Vishnu does not include Chaitanya is sufficient by itself to prove Chaitanya was not an avatar. The list does not have to explicitly reject Sai Baba, Chaitanya and the new age Kalki Bhagavans.

 

btw, It is Rukmini, who holds the position of Lakshmi, during the avatar of Krishna (refer SB). If anyone, it is her who can be rightfully looked upon as divine, by those who worship Krishna.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-08-2002).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The divinity of Radha is rejected on the simple grounds that it has no basis in scripture.

It is your own opinion that there is no scriptural reference for Radha. If anyone shows you a reference, you will dismiss it as recent. On what grounds? Because according to you the concept of Radha is only X years old, therefore it must be recent. Your circular logic keeps recircling on this topic from time to time.

 

Sri, Bhu and Nila are the three divine manifestations of Lakshmi. Rukmini, Satyabhama and Jambavati are the same divinities in Krishna's Dwaraka lila. In Vrindavana lila, they manifest as gopis. One can say it the other way around as well (i.e. from Krishna's vrindavan pastime they manifest into Dwaraka, and then Vaikuntha).

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-08-2002).]

[shvu]

 

You know well enough that there is absolutely no mention of Radha in the Mahabharata, Hari Vamsha, Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavatam. These are the works that go into the life of Krishna in detail and have been acknowledged as such, since a long time. While people who hardly play any role in Krishna's life are mentioned, Radha who apparently was close to him is *never* mentioned. One can cover himself with a blanket, turn off the light and hide under the bed, but this fact is not going to change. When the prime recognized sources do not mention Radha, no other evidence will do. That is the point.

 

We have done this before. This bucks the core beliefs of some peole here and they cannot accept it. The good thing is no one has to, for it makes absolutely no difference whom one worships and whether the icon is real or not.

 

Cheers

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by jndas:

Again, this is your inference. Madhva does not speak of Radha. So whether she is rejected or accepted is a meaningless argument. Unless of course Shivu and Jijaji can show me the writings of Madhva that reject the divinity of Radha.

 

What they can show is the writings of present followers of Madhva, but not the writings of Madhva.

That is a most illogical argument....

 

Why would Madhva comment on the 10th canto of SB (songs of the gopis) and not mention Radha ??

If in fact he accepted her...?

 

shvu is correct in stating that Madhva never accepted or rejected Radha because it just never came up in the time/space/reality tunnel he lived in!

 

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 05-08-2002).]

[gHari]

Is Gaudiya Vaishnavism Superior to the Vedas ?

Asking this question suggests to me that Gaudiya Vaishnavism's understanding of the Vedas is superior to ours.

 

No Gaudiya would ask this question, but then I would never ask "Is Sri Vaishnavism Superior to the Vedas ?", since who am I to conclude either way?