Is Gaudiya Vaishnavism a form of cheating ?

[stonehearted]

Originally posted by ram:

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.

Fair enough. I understand your objection better than before; however, I was more than just surprised that anyone would see such a thing in that picture.

 

Yes, the "niyamas" thread is a model of civility. Thanks to you and raga.

 

 

[raga]

I just had a look at another picture on the same theme. In that one, Srimati also holds a separate garment there. It may be that "veil" is a mistake in translation -- I'd have to see the original text, which is not available to me at present.

It probably speaks about a separate upper garment.

[raga]

<center>

 

 

Can you explain this?

 

If it was Her frock, it would mean that

when She puts it down, it lags half a meter

behind Her when She walks around, and She

will constantly stumble on account of

Her stepping on top of it.

 

 

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

[karthik_v]

If you look at the photo, there is zari, in yellow or gold, at the bottom. The wave pattern of the zari exactly looks like it should, if it were a saree or skirt. Had it been a dupatta, the zari will be on either sides or neither. It will never be on only one side. Second, try holding a dupatta in your hand and let it drape naturally. You can never see the zari on 3 sides as seen here. So, it is not dupatta.

 

Yes, Raga, has a valid point. This fabric seems too long to be a skirt. That is why I said it is bad artistic work, because it doesn't express the intent. It sends out very wrong signals.

[karthik_v]

Also, it is evident that she is wearing a saree. Look right above where is holding that fabric. You can see the pallu right across the bosom. ghagra is never worn that way.

[raga]

<center>At any rate, Srimati has now complied with

your wishes to help you avoid misunderstandings.

 

She changed the red upper garment to a blue one.

 

<a href="http://www.raganuga.com" target="_blank">

 

 

 

</a>

[raga]

Also, it is evident that she is wearing a saree. Look right above where is holding that fabric. You can see the pallu right across the bosom. ghagra is never worn that way.

My wife often uses a so-called "gopi dress" (whatever you call it), which has a separate bottom part and an upper garment, which goes around the bosom just like a sari (as in the picture). At any rate, the one in the picture not a part of either sari or the gopidress, but a separate garment she holds. It should be obvious enough from the picture above.

[karthik_v]

Now it looks very nice. Kudos for the responsiveness. Jai Shri Ram! Har Har Mahadev!

[theist]

We will see what we want to see in that picture.

 

But I'm sure we are all amazed at how She cares for Her loving devotees, always desiring to shelter them.

 

Jai Radhe!

[raga]

Ram, you asked in another thread about the legitimacy of siddha pranali in the view of shruti shastra. You may now wish to view what I posted into the Siddha Pranali-thread: http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001200-9.html . I hope it sheds some light on the matter.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

<center>At any rate, Srimati has now complied with

your wishes to help you avoid misunderstandings.

 

She changed the red upper garment to a blue one.

 

<a href="http://www.raganuga.com" target="_blank">

 

 

 

</a>

Hari Hari Bol!!! Thanks for helping me do a personal service to Srimati Radharani.

 

By the way, one lasting shot on this issue : There are double sided dresses which have zari on both sides. But you may be right. These poor vrajavasis may not be able to afford that.

 

 

[bhaktajoy]

The story says Raghunatha dasa Gosvami cried like a child.It all looks like motherly affection to me...Divine mother protecting her child

[gHari]

Originally posted by ram:

[...] In the different schools of gaudiya vaishnavism, the works of gosvamis and later day saints are given more importance than shruti itself. [...]

Ram,

 

It is more accurate to say that the Gaudiyas place more faith in the Goswamis' understanding of the Vedas than their own minds' wrestling with the complexities of the unknowable labyrinth in the Vedas.

 

It is not seen as an intellectual puzzle of unravelling the Vedic verses to discover the Ultimate Truth. The Ultimate Truth is seen as a Person who can be realized only through His own mercy - not by any amount of intellectual gymnastics. Therefore more emphasis is placed on the heart organ than the head organ.

 

Of course, we all have our attachments, and the best way to deal with an attachment to being clever is to engage the mind and its cleverness in debating the Vedic conclusions, thereby at least focusing the mind on Sri Krsna, the object of the Vedas.

 

Only if we see it all as an intellectual game can we call this 'cheating'. Real cheating entails thriving on the words of the scriptures instead of the Person whom they describe. Gaudiyas have no doubt that Sri Caitanya and His Goswamis have strained the nectar of the Vedas perfectly into an ambrosial elixir, which when consumed constantly in large amounts leads one to perfection. That's all.

 

The proof lies in the drinking of the elixir, not in the dissection of its origin.

 

gHari

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

It is more accurate to say that the Gaudiyas place more faith in the Goswamis' understanding of the Vedas than their own minds' wrestling with the complexities of the unknowable labyrinth in the Vedas.

For a disciple of their path that may be a sufficient answer, but for those who follow other paths, such an answer appears to be blind following. Thus it is natural they will question on what scriptural basis do the Goswami's establish each of their principles. We would do this for any other school of thought (i.e. Shankara, Sai Baba, etc.), thus it is only fair to allow others to do the same.

 

[paul108]

Are we talking about a piece of material cloth or a portion of Srimati Radharani's clothing? Why can't Her clothing serve two purposes, even if it does not obey the laws of material nature? Who can say that Her cloth cannot cover Her body as much as She requires even while she is lifting a portion of it? Can a spiritual tree not produce apples, pears, oranges, and mangos at the same time? Why then must Radharani's clothing expose Her form when She lifts it to shade Her devotee? If we remember that Krishna supplied an unlimited length of cloth for Draupadi, why is it difficult to imagine Radharani lifting her clothing without even exposing Her toes?

 

 

[sha]

Originally posted by paul108:

Are we talking about a piece of material cloth or a portion of Srimati Radharani's clothing? Why can't Her clothing serve two purposes, even if it does not obey the laws of material nature? Who can say that Her cloth cannot cover Her body as much as She requires even while she is lifting a portion of it? Can a spiritual tree not produce apples, pears, oranges, and mangos at the same time? Why then must Radharani's clothing expose Her form when She lifts it to shade Her devotee? If we remember that Krishna supplied an unlimited length of cloth for Draupadi, why is it difficult to imagine Radharani lifting her clothing without even exposing Her toes?

 

 

You have said some thing very special and sweet!

May Sri Radhikaji bless your heart with more and more Divine Love!

 

Don't they say beauty lies in the beholders eyes?

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by paul108:

Are we talking about a piece of material cloth or a portion of Srimati Radharani's clothing? Why can't Her clothing serve two purposes, even if it does not obey the laws of material nature? Who can say that Her cloth cannot cover Her body as much as She requires even while she is lifting a portion of it? Can a spiritual tree not produce apples, pears, oranges, and mangos at the same time? Why then must Radharani's clothing expose Her form when She lifts it to shade Her devotee? If we remember that Krishna supplied an unlimited length of cloth for Draupadi, why is it difficult to imagine Radharani lifting her clothing without even exposing Her toes?

 

 

Haribol. Nice to see your sweet thought. Why should I care to disagree with some one who can hold such a nice thought ?

 

[gHari]

Originally posted by jndas:

For a disciple of their path that may be a sufficient answer, but for those who follow other paths, such an answer appears to be blind following. [...]

And if they met Krsna face-to-face they would ask Him for shastric proof that He is God. Are not such described by the Lord as 'mudha'?

[paul108]

Thanks I really liked looking at the picture, and I like to remember that Radha and Krishna can do whatever they want.

 

Wow, what a great feeling to know that I've written something that's appreciated by Radha-Krishna's devotees! Hari bol!

[raga]

Originally posted by gHari:

And if they met Krsna face-to-face they would ask Him for shastric proof that He is God.

May I remind, the shruti has only a few references to Krishna, which are subject to interpretation. That Gopal Tapani is a recent Upanishad. If he appears, he'd better have a bunch of clear statements from the Rig Veda. We'll not accept his interpretations.

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by ram:

Of all Gaudiya Vaishnavism is very explicit in the rejection of Vedas as the highest pramana.

 

 

If we define Gaudiiya Vaishnavism as that which is taught by Shrii Chaitanya and the six Gosvaamiis, then Gaudiiya Vaishnavas do NOT *reject* the Vedas as the highest pramaana. They simply emphasize Shriimad Bhaagavatam as the means by which to understand the Vedas. In Shrii Tattva-sandarbha, Jiiva Gosvaamii starts his whole argument by writing that one has to turn to the Vedas for spiritual understanding, then uses evidence from shruti and smriti to show that the Vedas are best understood from the Puraanas, and that Shriimad Bhaagavatam is best means by which to understand the Vedas, Upanishads, Vedaanta-suutras, etc.

 

Shriimad Bhaagavatam has the advantage of being complete in and of itself for God-realization (SB 1.1.2), being a commentary on the Vedaanta suutra (Garuda Puraana quoted by Shrii Madhva), being the last word on Vedaanta as it was compiled after the Vedaanta-suutra, and being enjoyable even by the aatma-raamas.

 

If someone rejects the Vedas, then this thinking is not in line with the standard of the Gosvaamiis. At the same time, realize that because one emphasizes the Bhaagavatam, it is not tantamount to rejecting the Vedas. The Gaudiiya position is that the Vedas, Upanishads, Puraanas, and Itihaasas represent a contiguous tradition. Nevertheless, even the Gosvaamiis have quoted from shruti wherever necessary for preaching.

 

In the different schools of gaudiya vaishnavism, the works of gosvamis and later day saints are given more importance than shruti itself.

 

 

That's not true, but then again, it also depends on what you actually mean behind the words you write. Any guru's writings will rightfully be given more importance than the Vedas, in the sense that one must approach the Vedas through the medium of a guru, and not directly.

 

On the other hand, it is not tradition to quote the guru's writings as stand-alone evidence in a debate. Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu defeated many maayaavaadii scholars of his day, but never once have I read of Him presenting Iishvara Puri's teachings as evidence.

 

 

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 ?

Once a Shrii Vaishnava friend of mine explained to me that the Gaudiiya Vaishnava concept of Krishna as Svayam Bhagavaan was wrong. I quoted all kinds of evidence, including Bhaagavatam 1.3.28, to support the Gaudiiya position. His response? He had no counter for anything I brought up, admitting that he could not explain away my shaastric evidence, and saying that he was simply going to follow his aachaaryas' opinion.

 

What should I have said? This Shrii Vaishnava did not want to substantiate anything he believed based on shaastras. Perhaps Shrii Vaishnavism is a form cheating religion which exploits the saintly nature of Raamaanuja.

 

Or maybe Shrii Vaishnavism, like all other Vaishnava schools, has its share of followers whose understanding of the philosophy they claim to follow is not so well developed. We should remember this, before we presume to criticize any sampradaaya, whether we are actually criticizing the tradition itself, or simply assuming that an immature follower is properly representing that tradition.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

[krishnas]

Originally posted by raga:

May I remind, the shruti has only a few references to Krishna, which are subject to interpretation. That Gopal Tapani is a recent Upanishad. If he appears, he'd better have a bunch of clear statements from the Rig Veda. We'll not accept his interpretations.

Why is Gopaala Taapani a "recent Upanishad?" This is news to me.

 

The GTU, along with the Krishna Upanishad, are in the listing of 108 Upanishads given in the Muktika Upanishad. We had this discussion on the now defunct soc.religion.vaishnava some years back, and at that time I distinctly remember that Vidyasankar Sundaresan (now the maintainer of the Advaita website), stated that Sri Brahmendra Yogin of the Shankara sampradaaya actually commented on this Upanishad, along with many others. In fact, I remember that Vidya also gave a listing of 108 principle Upanishads that was identical to the listing given in Srila Prabhupada's CC purport (which was supposed to have been taken from the Muktika Upanishad).

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

[raga]

Why is Gopaala Taapani a "recent Upanishad?" This is news to me.

 

The GTU, along with the Krishna Upanishad, are in the listing of 108 Upanishads given in the Muktika Upanishad. We had this discussion on the now defunct soc.religion.vaishnava some years back, and at that time I distinctly remember that Vidyasankar Sundaresan (now the maintainer of the Advaita website), stated that Sri Brahmendra Yogin of the Shankara sampradaaya actually commented on this Upanishad, along with many others. In fact, I remember that Vidya also gave a listing of 108 principle Upanishads that was identical to the listing given in Srila Prabhupada's CC purport (which was supposed to have been taken from the Muktika Upanishad).

Here I am presenting a common academic view, according to which Gopala Tapani is among the later Upanishads, dating to 13th-14th century. Muktikopanisad itself is undated, so it does not validate much.

 

Please note that I merely made the point that one may question until the end of his life if he wishes to pursue the path of questioning instead of the path of practice and realization.

 

[shvu]

 

The GTU, along with the Krishna Upanishad, are in the listing of 108 Upanishads given in the Muktika Upanishad. We had this discussion on the now defunct soc.religion.vaishnava some years back, and at that time I distinctly remember that Vidyasankar Sundaresan (now the maintainer of the Advaita website), stated that Sri Brahmendra Yogin of the Shankara sampradaaya actually commented on this Upanishad, along with many others.

There was one Upanishad Brahmendra who commented on the 108 Upanishads listed in the Muktika. I guess you are referring to him. This person lived in the 18th century, which is pretty recent.

 

If the Muktika was a well recognized ancient Upanishad, it would have been recognized by all the Vedaantic schools. However the tattvavaada school does not know the Muktika, which makes it's authenticity dubious. I don't recall Shankara mentioning it either.

 

Cheers

 

 

[shvu]

 

Once a Shrii Vaishnava friend of mine explained to me that the Gaudiiya Vaishnava concept of Krishna as Svayam Bhagavaan was wrong. I quoted all kinds of evidence, including Bhaagavatam 1.3.28, to support the Gaudiiya position...

I am not aware of any evidence other than the Bhaagavatam verse in support of the Gaudiya position. Krishna is swayaM Bhagavaan, of course. No one will deny that. However with the exception of Gaudiyas, others hold that, Krishna is an avatar of Naaraayana, along with the other avatars. They (especially Dvaitins) do not differentiate between the different forms of the Lord. Maadhva gives quite a long analysis of how to interpret the Bhaagavatam verse.

 

Cheers