Is Gaudiya Vaishnavism Superior to the Vedas ?

[shvu]

 

Maadhva did not accept Radha as a divine personality, because she is nowhere mentioned (not even as a human character) in any cannonical texts including the Bhagavatam, clearly showing she was the figment of someone's imagination...someone who came much later than the Mahabharata and even SB.

 

More Info

 

But this does not mean he explicitly rejected her in his works...why would he? Radha was not worshipped in a big way anywhere during his time and was not important enough to be mentioned and rejected.

 

Cheers

 

 

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

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Maadhva definitely did not accept Radha as a divine personality...

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.

[Rati]

Originally posted by raga:

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.

 

Do you know who translated the one by VB Tripurari Swami? As far as I know he is not a Sanskritist.

 

[Avinash]

Radha has been mentioned very extensively in Brahm Vaivarta Puran. It can be argued that this Puran was written much after Bhagvatam. But, if we say this, then we have to believe that even Shiv Purana was written much after Bhagvatam. Shiv Purana has passing reference on Radha.

 

It is written in Parvati Khand of Rudra Samhita of Shiv Purana that Svadha had three daughters -Mena, Dhanya, and Kalavati. Once they went to Shveta Dwipa to meet Lord Visnu. Many seers were present there. The four kumaras (Sanak kumar and his brothers) came there. All those who had come to see Lord stood in order to give respect to the kumaras. But the three sisters kept sitting. The kumaras cursed them that they would be born on Earth. Mena became the wife of Himalaya. Parvati was their daughter. Dhanya became the wife of Janak. Sita was their daughter. Kalavati became the wife of Vrisbhanu. Radha was their daughter.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by gHari:

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?

 

 

Oh. My question is not intended to offend. If you see my previous post - the three questions - it becomes obvious.

 

[raga]

Ram: If you see my previous post - the three questions - it becomes obvious.

I'll go over the three questions in brief to bring a focus on the topic at hand.

 

1. What is the proof that the Vedas are lost?

 

Quoting from http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html :<blockquote><hr>Kurma Purana (52.19-20):

 

eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura

sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

 

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah

atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

 

"Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions."

 

Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

 

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!<hr></blockquote>

 

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

 

We turn to that which supplements the Vedas, and we turn to the one who understands the purpose of the Vedas. Gita 15.15, Sri Krishna: vedaiz ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedAnta-kRd veda-vid eva cAham -- "Of all the Vedas, I am to be known. I am the compiler of Vedanta and the knower of Veda."

 

 

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.

 

In fact, not only the Vedas -- it is a common belief that a good portion of the Vedic literatures, including the Puranas, are interpolated to some extent.

 

Sri Caitanya declared the Bhagavata to be "purANam amalam", a spotless Purana, and recommended the study of the Bhagavata in understanding the meaning of the Vedas. The Vedic literature is to be studied under the guidance of a guru, according to his recommendation.

 

Sri Caitanya quoted from the Mahabharata, Vana-parva (313.117):<blockquote><center>tarko 'pratiSThaH zrutayo vibhinnA

nAsAv RSir yasya mataM na bhinnam

dharmasya tattvaM nihitaM guhAyAM

mahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH</center>

 

"Arguments are fluctuating, the srutis are separated,

He is not a sage who does not have a different conclusion,

The truth of dharma is hidden in the path which the mahajanas walk."</blockquote>

 

Thus it is understood that the sruti has various branches, which are not all to be adopted by everyone.

 

Each mahajana has advocated a certain path of dharma in accordance with the needs of the time, having emphasized a certain section of the Vedas. The approach of Sri Caitanya is befitting for picking the fruit of prema-dharma from the desire tree of Vedic literature.

 

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.

 

Taittiriya Upanisad 2.7.1: raso vai saH, rasaM hy evAyaM labdhvAnandI bhavati. And there are lots of more statements which can be interpreted as one desires. As it was stated, "tarko 'pratiSThaH". I will have my interpretation and arguments in support of it, and someone else will have his. Arguments and interpretations are endless.

 

Find a path of mahajanas -- find the one which appeals to you the most, and through which you feel you can best express your eternal dharma in relation with Bhagavan. This path is found through our sincere prayer. If you find it in a teacher of sruti, go for it, and if smrti is more helpful for you, go for it. They were all written for someone to follow, and you get the most out of them with a teacher.

 

[gHari]

Originally posted by ram:

[...] Oh. My question is not intended to offend. If you see my previous post - the three questions - it becomes obvious.

Of course. I see now. I must have seen some of that other stuff. My tolerance for pompous doubts is at an all-time low; now I'm even nuking the innocent. Sorry about the fallout.

 

Something in my heart suggests that speculating about anything being above the Vedas is walking on pretty thin ice. Who knows the Vedas well enough to make such a brash postulation?

[shvu]

 

Radha has been mentioned very extensively in Brahm Vaivarta Puran. It can be argued that this Puran was written much after Bhagvatam. But, if we say this, then we have to believe that even Shiv Purana was written much after Bhagvatam. Shiv Purana has passing reference on Radha.

Thanks for the Info. Is Krishna mentioned in this Purana? Is there a link established between Krishna and Radha?

 

A Vaayu-Purana is quoted in the Mahabharata and Harivamsha. This Vaayu Purana is also known as the Shaiva Purana or as Shiva Purana. Other than this, there is also a upa-Purana by the name of Shiva Purana. I wonder if there is some confusion here.

 

There are many reasons for believing that the present version of Brahmavaivartha was modified in Bengal around 500 years back. Originally, the Puranas carry a definition of Puranam Panchalakshanam (Five characterestics) and the same definition is also found in the Amarakosha. However most of the Puranas in their present form do not satisy this condition, which is the prime reason for suspecting their authenticity. They contain material which has nothing to do with these 5 characterestics and also lack material to satisy these conditions. The Vishnu Purana is the *only* Purana which comes close to satisfying these conditions. The Brahmavaivarta is the worst and is completely different from the other Puranas in style and content. It specifies another set of conditions for a Purana and proceeds on. Also, the style of writing, the places it describes, and the nature of the topics provide clues for it's time and location of composition. Of course, there was a very old Brahmavaivarta at some point of time, which appears to have disappeared mostly.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Avinash]

Thanks for the Info. Is Krishna mentioned in this Purana? Is there a link established between Krishna and Radha?

 

Yes. When kumaras say that Kalavati would be the mother of Radha, they also say that it would be Radha from Goloka and the beloved of Krsna.