Is Gaudiya Vaishnavism a form of cheating ?

[Guest guest]

Vedas are apoureshya and anaadi. For this reason they are accepted as an authority. But in modern times, the authority of Vedas is going down - this place being taken by modern science, politics, non-vedic religions etc. This is perhaps because of the rigour involved in the practice of true vedic life. Even among faiths that claim to have a basis in the Vedas there is a decline in faith in the Vedas. Very few of the vaishnava sampradayas give importance to the Vedas themselves. Of all Gaudiya Vaishnavism is very explicit in the rejection of Vedas as the highest pramana. In the different schools of gaudiya vaishnavism, the works of gosvamis and later day saints are given more importance than shruti itself. On one of the websites promoting a form of gaudiya vaishnavism I saw a picture which will be considered offensive by any traditional person familiar with agama sastras. It is a picture of a gopi lifting her frock and there is a sadhaka sitting under her loins. There are very ugly forms of gaudiya vaishnavism.

 

When questions are raised about gaudiya vaishnavism, then they quote as authority the writings of gosvamis and writings of later day saints combined with modern interpretation . They dont even feel obliged to establish it all based on sastras. This leads one to believe that it is a form of cheating religion exploiting the saintly nature of Caitanya. Any counters ?

[Guest guest]

 

The reality of life is that God is in control.

This is truth.

anything else that is contrary to that, is

ignorance.

 

You believe whatever God sees fit for you.

 

The Vedas,Gaudiya sastra,Gopi pictures,etc..

 

all is under the same control....this is samadhi vision..

 

Only God is controlling,all else is controlled.

 

Wherever you go,there you are.

[raga]

On one of the websites promoting a form of gaudiya vaishnavism I saw a picture which will be considered offensive by any traditional person familiar with agama sastras. It is a picture of a gopi lifting her frock and there is a sadhaka sitting under her loins. There are very ugly forms of gaudiya vaishnavism.

On account of your mundane vision you imagine the picture to represent something it does not.

 

The picture depicts Raghunatha Das Gosvami who is absorbed in samadhi in the mid-day heat, under the scorching rays of the sun, unaware of bodily pains and pleasures. Out of compassion for Her beloved devotee, Sri Radha manifests on the earthly plane and protects Das Gosvami from the heat of the sun. The picture is a perfect illustration of the words of Sri Gita (9.22):

 

<center>ananyaz cintayanto mAM ye janAH paryupAsate

teSAM nityAbhiyuktAnAM yoga-kSemaM vahAmy aham</center>

 

This is the beauty of Bhagavan's affection towards His devotees. Please do not glance upon the world filled with negative prejudice. It will bring about no good.

 

Sri Jiva reasons the value of the Bhagavata over sruti in the present day and age as follows:

<blockquote>tatra ca veda-zabdasya samprati duSpAratvAd duradhigamArthatvAc ca tad-artha nirNAyakAnAM munInAm api paraspara-virodhAd veda-rUpo vedArtha-nirNAyakaz cetihAsa-purANAtmakaH zabda eva vicAraNIyaH. tatra ca yo vA veda-zabdo nAtha-viditaH so'pi pramotpAdakatvaM sthitam.

 

Because at present it is difficult to study the Vedas in their entirety -- it is difficult to understand their meaning -- and because the great thinkers who have commented on the Vedas interpret them in contradictory ways, we should therefore study only the Itihasas and Puranas, since they are Vedic in nature and are conclusive in determining the meaning of the Vedas. Moreover, with the help of the Itihasas and Puranas we can infer the meaning of the unavailable portions of the Vedas. Thus at present only the Itihasas and Puranas are the appropriate sources of valid knowledge.

 

tathA hi mahAbhArate mAnavIye ca – itihAsa-purANAbhyAM vedaM samupabRMhayet iti, pUranAt purANam iti cAnyatra. na cAvedena vedasya bRMhaNaM sambhavati nah y aparipUrNasya kanaka-valayasya trapuNA pUraNaM yujyate.

 

This is why the Mahabharata (Adi-parva 1.267) and Manu-samhita state, "One should complement one's understanding of the Vedas with the help of the Itihasas and the Puranas." And elsewhere it is stated, "The Puranas are called by that name because they are complete." It is not possible to complete or explain the meaning of the Vedas with something that is not Vedic in nature, just as it is improper to finish an incomplete gold bracelet with lead.</blockquote>

It has been discussed elsewhere how less than six percent of the original body of sruti (1130 Samhitas, 1130 Brahmanas, 1130 Aranyakas and 1130 Upanishads) is presently available.

 

Which questions particularly about Gaudiya Vaishnavism have you raised? I already made the point that the specific details for each tradition's practices will not be found in the shruti shastra.

 

I am reading a book, "Philosophy and Theistic Mysticism of the Alvars" by S.M.S. Chari. Aside the Visishtadvaita theory, I wonder how much of the beautiful, emotional devotion they exhibited can be justified solely on the basis of shruti shastra. Anandamayo 'bhyAsAt? Or let me try something easier: Could you establish the position of Lakshmi-Narayana as the supreme, original form of Divinity solely on the basis of shruti shastra? I would be very impressed.<small>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-01-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by shiva:

The reality of life is that God is in control.

This is truth.

anything else that is contrary to that, is

ignorance.

 

You believe whatever God sees fit for you.

 

The Vedas,Gaudiya sastra,Gopi pictures,etc..

 

all is under the same control....this is samadhi vision..

 

Only God is controlling,all else is controlled.

 

Wherever you go,there you are.

When Krishna and His eternal consorts are offended in the name of devotion, one has to point out it is not in line with sastras. There is no denying the fact every thing is under the Supreme Control - that includes my legitimate criticism also.

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

On account of your mundane vision you imagine the picture to represent something it does not.

 

The picture depicts Raghunatha Das Gosvami who is absorbed in samadhi in the mid-day heat, under the scorching rays of the sun, unaware of bodily pains and pleasures. Out of compassion for Her beloved devotee, Sri Radha manifests on the earthly plane and protects Das Gosvami from the heat of the sun. The picture is a perfect illustration of the words of Sri Gita (9.22):

 

First, let us see if there is there any gaudiya vaishnava literature which allows this depiction.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, as if I declined to accept Srimad Bhagavatham as an authority. Any theology that claims to be based on the Vedas should

 

1. be based on available smrti

2. be consistent with Vedanta Sutras which are available in full

3. not contradict the available shruti

 

I see nothing that Jiva Gosvami said contradicting these three points. Do you ?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-02-2002).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

This is why the Mahabharata (Adi-parva 1.267) and Manu-samhita state...

Of course if someone were to actually quote from Mahabharata or Manu-samhita in a discussion, I suspect the answer would be, "There are many other traditions, we only follow the Goswami's..."

 

This double standard, of only accepting evidence that supports our own view, is quite disappointing. If the evidence suggests something else, we will reject the whole body of literature simply because we cannot defend a stance traditionally.

 

Thus it becomes meaningless to quote from these sources at all (including the above quote), unless one is prepared to accept all references from these literatures. We cannot pick and choose what we want to accept as authoritative and what we don't like.

 

[shvu]

 

Because at present it is difficult to study the Vedas in their entirety -- it is difficult to understand their meaning -- and because the great thinkers who have commented on the Vedas interpret them in contradictory ways, we should therefore study only the Itihasas and Puranas...

 

Firstly, no one is required to study the Vedaas in full. According to *all* the traditional schools of Vedaanta, only the Suutras and the main Upanishads are sufficient for all the Suutras can be traced back to existant Shruti. None of the traditional Achaaryas ever had a problem with *missing* Shruti while interpreting the Suutras. About the great commentators, interpreting Shruti in contradicting ways, they have done the same with the Gita which is also part of Itihaasa. Going by Jiva's logic, people should not study the BG either.

 

...since they are Vedic in nature and are conclusive in determining the meaning of the Vedas.

 

When interpreted in the light of Shruti, yes. Not otherwise.

 

Moreover, with the help of the Itihasas and Puranas we can infer the meaning of the unavailable portions of the Vedas.

I wonder how one arrives at this conclusion. The entire purport of the Vedaas has been summarized by Vyaasa in the Suutras. And since there is no Suutra that remains unexplained, one can safely conclude that there is no unkown material to be known in any *missing* Vedaas. Thus if there is any material in a Smriti text which cannot be traced back to Shruti, it is Pramaana only if it does not contradict any of the existant Shruti and not otherwise.

 

Given the above, it is incorrect to say only the Itihaasa and Puraanas are sufficent by themselves to understand the Vedaas. At least, none of the traditional Vedaanta Gurus took such an approach. Hence, concepts like "Bhakti is greater than Mukti" , "Will not accept Mukti even if it is *offered* to us", etc are not Vedic. I am not saying they are false, for no one really knows what is true or false. I am just saying they do not have support from the Vedaas.

 

Cheers

 

 

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

First, let us see if there is there any gaudiya vaishnava literature which allows this depiction.

 

 

This is a famous history, from Bhakti Ratnakara, I recall. Unfortunately I don't have the original title at my disposal. I'll relate the version found in Rajasekhara Brahmacari's (ISKCON Vrindavan) "The Color Guide to Radha Kunda" to give the outline.

<blockquote><font color=blue>On another day, Raghunatha dasa Gosvami was sitting in the sunshine on the banks of Radha Kunda, lamenting in separation from Radharani. As the day wore on, the sun became unbearably hot and Raghunatha started perspiring profusely. Torrents of tears were also flowing from his eyes and making the ground muddy. Srimati Radharani could not bear this scene and personally came there and stood behind Raghunatha dasa. Holding Her veil, She shielded Raghunatha from the scorching sun. Bearing the full force of the sun, Srimati Radharani also started perspiring profusely, which caused Her clothing to become wet and made the ground even more muddy

 

It so happened that Sanatana Gosvami once again arrived there on a visit and got a shock when he saw Srimati Radharani protecting Raghunatha from the scorching midday sun. Radharani glanced at San5tana, smiled and suddenly disappeared. Sanatana then went over to Raghunatha and disturbed his meditation, admonishing him for taking service from Srimati Radharani, and described to him all that he had witnessed. Raghunatha in disbelief turned around and saw the lotus footprints of Srimati Radharani in the soft muddy earth. Raghunatha them started crying like a child while madly rolling back and forth on the ground."</font></blockquote>This painting ( on the front page of http://www.raganuga.com ) is in the bhajan kutir of Raghunatha Das at Radha Kunda.

[raga]

Any theology that claims to be based on the Vedas should

1. be based on available smrti

2. be consistent with Vedanta Sutras which are available in full

3. not contradict the available shruti

Now that we speak of it, could you substantiate this precept on the basis of shruti?

 

[raga]

JNDas:Of course if someone were to actually quote from Mahabharata or Manu-samhita in a discussion, I suspect the answer would be, "There are many other traditions, we only follow the Goswami's..."

 

This double standard, of only accepting evidence that supports our own view, is quite disappointing. If the evidence suggests something else, we will reject the whole body of literature simply because we cannot defend a stance traditionally.

Let us see when the day comes as you quote from the Mahabharata or the Manu Samhita. Feel free to quote and give it a try.

 

The reason for considering the Gosvamis' view first for many is their simple faith in the instructions of Sri Caitanya and his request for them to compile the essence of dharma from all scriptures into their literature. Obviously this is not the way to go for interreligious encounters.

 

 

shvu:Hence, concepts like "Bhakti is greater than Mukti" , "Will not accept Mukti even if it is *offered* to us", etc are not Vedic. I am not saying they are false, for no one really knows what is true or false. I am just saying they do not have support from the Vedaas.

I asked it in the other thread already, but could anyone substantiate the following concepts based on Upanishads and Vedanta Sutra?

 

1. Lakshmi Narayana as the original feature of the Divinity;

2. Nartaka Gopala as the original feature of the Divinity;

3. Radha Krishna as the original feature of the Divinity?

 

I would be eager to learn from our pandits of shruti.

 

[Guest guest]

This is with reference tgo Raga's response (the third post above this).

 

So why is the picture showing the frock instead of using the veil ?

 

http://raganuga.com/image_raghunatha.htm

 

I am glad that this atleast is not gaudiya vaishnavism.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-02-2002).]

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

This is with reference tgo Raga's response (the third post above this).

 

So why is the picture showing the frock instead of using the veil ?

 

http://raganuga.com/image_raghunatha.htm

 

I am glad that this atleast is not gaudiya vaishnavism.

 

Frock instead of veil? It looks like a separate piece of cloth to me in the painting.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Frock instead of veil? It looks like a separate piece of cloth to me in the painting.

See, if you see clearly, it is the same colour as the saree. And the effect shown in the picture is the same as lifting one's saree and frock ( the petticoat that is worn inside ).

 

 

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

See, if you see clearly, it is the same colour as the saree. And the effect shown in the picture is the same as lifting one's saree and frock ( the petticoat that is worn inside ).

 

 

I think she is wearing not a saree but a so-called "gopi-dress" common in Braj, which has separate top and bottom part to it -- naturally of the same colour.

 

If you look at the border of the cloth She holds, I can't imagine how you get the effect of lifting the saree (whatever it is) and the pettycoat. If you lift them over someone's head, the border decoration certainly does not touch the ground in the middle, as it does in the picture. Try it out if you don't believe me.

 

[sha]

Originally posted by raga:

Frock instead of veil? It looks like a separate piece of cloth to me in the painting.

To me it looks like the 'upper garment', otherwise known as 'dupatta' that covers the bosom and stays over the blouse but it is extra long and wide.

Mothers and other female relations usually use this extra long piece for fanning or giving protection to their loved ones in rain or sun heat.

It does not look like the skirt of Srimatiji at all to me!!!

[stonehearted]

This is indeed a famous story among Gaudiya vaishnavas; I heard it 30 years ago, as a member of ISKCON. And if you look carefully at the picture, it's clear she's holding a separate piece of cloth over Das Gosvami's head.

 

I'm as concerned as raga that ram would see something unseemly in this picture. Soem folks are so locked in self-righteous sectarianism that everyone who's not part of their party is suspect. And I'm even more concerned by ram's reluctance to accept raga's explanation.

 

However innocently these threads begin, they too quickly degenerate into name-calling and insults. This is low-class behavior in any company; in the company of vaishnavas (and anyone whose faith is so tender that he or she can't see anyone not part of their own group as a vaishnava would better spend their time trying to improve their chanting rather than fiddling around on these forums)it risks sadhu-ninda, and there are probably reasons why this is the first offense against the holy name.

 

[This message has been edited by stonehearted (edited 06-03-2002).]

[karthik_v]

From that picture itself there is nothing to show that is a 2 piece wear like ghagra choli. why? Because, a ghagra doesn't go over the bosom, while the fabric in this depiction does. So, it looks more like a saree. Let us see if it could be dupatta or chunri. either of them is worn around the shoulder. If you were to hold it in your hands, then it should drape around your hands and fall down. It should look distinctly seperated from the body. In this case it doesn't. So, it is not either.

 

But, I am not rejecting Raga's explanation. It could very well be true. But the depiction in this picture is a pathetic form of painting, which doesn't reflect that. The picture reveals lifting effect of the lower wear - here a saree or a skirt. If I were the owner of the site, I will just admit that the depiction doesn't bring out the intent and also gives it a vulgar outlook. I will just scrap that picture and get a better artist to do a realistic rendering.

 

Unless I wanted to provide the anti-Hindu forces more ammunition to denigrate our religion.

[karthik_v]

originally posted by Ram:

Any theology that claims to be based on the Vedas should

1. be based on available smrti

2. be consistent with Vedanta Sutras which are available in full

3. not contradict the available shruti

Raga's rejoinder:

Now that we speak of it, could you substantiate this precept on the basis of shruti?

The simple fact that all the previous acaryas like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva defended their philosophy on the basis of Brahma sutras, should validate this claim. If conflicting schools still accepted Brahma sutras as the basis, then it simply means that they all accepted them as apaurusya.

 

originally posted by Raga:

I asked it in the other thread already, but could anyone substantiate the following concepts based on Upanishads and Vedanta Sutra?

 

1. Lakshmi Narayana as the original feature of the Divinity;

2. Nartaka Gopala as the original feature of the Divinity;

3. Radha Krishna as the original feature of the Divinity?

 

I would be eager to learn from our pandits of shruti.

You ask for a pandit and you get a half-baked one

 

The answer is NO. Here I am including only the samhitas, brahma sutra and the principal upanishads used by Sankara and Ramanuja. But, the truth is that these shrutis lend themselves to both monistic and dvaitic interpretations. Both are true. If Sankara interprets Purusha [pura + usha] as the Supreme eternal light or Brahman, then Ramanuja interprets the same word as the primeval Lord or Narayana.

[raga]

The simple fact that all the previous acaryas like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva defended their philosophy on the basis of Brahma sutras, should validate this claim. If conflicting schools still accepted Brahma sutras as the basis, then it simply means that they all accepted them as apaurusya.

In other words, this assertation can't be backed up with shruti? As we heard it from Hari Krishna Das in the other thread:

 

"If members of the LP party eschew the significance of shruti in establishing truth, then they cannot be called Vedaantists in any reasonable sense of the word. All Vedaantists accept the apaurusheya nature of the Vedas as an axiom. It is never acceptable to quote one's gurus' words as stand-alone evidence."

 

So...

 

 

I asked it in the other thread already, but could anyone substantiate the following concepts based on Upanishads and Vedanta Sutra?

1. Lakshmi Narayana as the original feature of the Divinity;

2. Nartaka Gopala as the original feature of the Divinity;

3. Radha Krishna as the original feature of the Divinity?

 

I would be eager to learn from our pandits of shruti.

 

The answer is NO. Here I am including only the samhitas, brahma sutra and the principal upanishads used by Sankara and Ramanuja. But, the truth is that these shrutis lend themselves to both monistic and dvaitic interpretations. Both are true. If Sankara interprets Purusha [pura + usha] as the Supreme eternal light or Brahman, then Ramanuja interprets the same word as the primeval Lord or Narayana.

So, returning to the original precepts put forth by Ram:

 

Any theology that claims to be based on the Vedas should:

 

1. be based on available smrti

2. be consistent with Vedanta Sutras which are available in full

3. not contradict the available shruti

 

In this case, the first is certainly true, but as for the two others, could you explain:

 

a) Is the acceptance of a personal dual deity consistent with the Vedanta Sutras?

b) Does it contradict the available shruti?

 

I guess based on one's choice of interpretation, both yes and no could be established. As for the proposals' being based on smriti, given the vast choice of smriti-shastra at our disposal, we have many things which could in theory be legitimately established.

 

But Ram, what about various details of arcana, as we see them nowadays in practice in the various sampradayas? Not found in shruti, nor in Puranas / Mahabharata. Do you include the pancaratrika body of literature within the category of "shastra", which is acceptable evidence?

 

[shvu]

 

But, the truth is that these shrutis lend themselves to both monistic and dvaitic interpretations. Both are true.

Karthik,

 

Both interpretations cannot be true. For instance, Advaita says there is no duality after Mukti while Dvaita says duality is eternal. Advaita accepts Jiivan-mukti as possible while according to Dvaita, there is no such thing as Jiivan-mukti. Clearly both cannot be true. Either one of them is true or both are false.

 

Maadhva and Raamaanuja establish their respective positions by proving Advaita wrong. They never state Shruti is amenable to multiple interpretations and more than one interpretation can be true. Advaita will accept Dvaitic interpretations only on the Vyavahaarika level, or in other words, Advaita rejects the concept of eternal duality.

 

According to some Gaudiya Vaishnavas, there are four authorized sampradaayaas, which seems to imply that all the four may be correct. But such an idea is not entertained by the sampradaayaas themselves.Here is the <a href = "http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#3.5">Dvaita position</a> on this.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

But Ram, what about various details of arcana, as we see them nowadays in practice in the various sampradayas? Not found in shruti, nor in Puranas / Mahabharata. Do you include the pancaratrika body of literature within the category of "shastra", which is acceptable evidence?

Archana, etc are mostly derived from Aagamaas and here is where the Pancharaatras come in (for Vaishnavas). According to <a href = "http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#2">Maadhva</a> and also Raamaanuja, Pancharaatras are valid scripture.

 

Cheers

 

[Rati]

In the painting in question, there appears to be no body part of the lady revealed, and the cloth is obviously being used to shade the bhakta from the rays of the sun overhead. So, the question was raised by seeing something that was neither depicted nor intended, unless I am missing something due to the poor quality of the bitmap image.

[raga]

Originally posted by shvu:

Archana, etc are mostly derived from Aagamaas and here is where the Pancharaatras come in (for Vaishnavas). According to <a href = "http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#2">Maadhva</a> and also Raamaanuja, Pancharaatras are valid scripture.

 

Cheers

Is there any other basis for accepting the Pancaratras than the words of your predecessors? We demand shruti.

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by stonehearted:

This is indeed a famous story among Gaudiya vaishnavas; I heard it 30 years ago, as a member of ISKCON. And if you look carefully at the picture, it's clear she's holding a separate piece of cloth over Das Gosvami's head.

 

I'm as concerned as raga that ram would see something unseemly in this picture. Soem folks are so locked in self-righteous sectarianism that everyone who's not part of their party is suspect. And I'm even more concerned by ram's reluctance to accept raga's explanation.

 

However innocently these threads begin, they too quickly degenerate into name-calling and insults. This is low-class behavior in any company; in the company of vaishnavas (and anyone whose faith is so tender that he or she can't see anyone not part of their own group as a vaishnava would better spend their time trying to improve their chanting rather than fiddling around on these forums)it risks sadhu-ninda, and there are probably reasons why this is the first offense against the holy name.

 

[This message has been edited by stonehearted (edited 06-03-2002).]

Stonehearted, I have respect for Raga and would not insult anyone unnecessarily. For records, Raga and I are running a 108 post thread without silly mudslinging even though we disagree on issues. You may see for yourself, "niyamas of bhakti yoga". If Raga were to say that she is lifting the saree and try to defend it, I will react differently. But like a gentleman he says that it does not seem like that to him and I see no reason why I should fight. But I am pointing out what in my opinion is wrong in the picture. No one says it is a veil including Raga himself and this picture is therefore wrong as per gaudiya vaishnava literature. It has to be redone. I beg that you see that point atleast. I am not an artist and am not asking for a job -

 

After Raga gave his explanation, I again looked at the picture. But I could not see it his way. I had others look at it and got multiple answers like this group - but no one said it is a veil. Karthik sees it as lifting of bottoms much like I do. I am sure there will be 100 other people who would do that. This gives a chance to talk ill of GVV and sanatana dharma at large.