Guest guest Posted June 7, 2002 Report Share Posted June 7, 2002 Originally posted by shvu: 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, if a scripture contradicts the vedanta, then it can be said to be an interpolation. But just because an acharya does not comment on an upanishad does not bring into question its authenticity. If that logic were to be applied, then all the unavailable Vedas can be called dubious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 Even though some philosphical problems that we can point out, Gaudiyas have given the world hari nama. How can there be defect, where there is hari nama ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthik_v Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 Originally posted by ram: Even though some philosphical problems that we can point out, Gaudiyas have given the world hari nama. How can there be defect, where there is hari nama ? A very valid point. What ultimately matters is the name of the Lord and ISKCON has given that. Of course, I wouldn't credit to the entire GV for that - only ISKCON took this to the entire world. Others took roots only after ISKCON established and often by banking on ISKCON devotees. The only botheration is some kind of fanaticism that goes with GV. Talking of upanishads, just because Adi Sankara didn't comment on a particular upanishad doesn't mean it is bogus - provided some other acarya from any established school has commented on it. Has anyone commented on GTU before? So far as I know, most acaryas stuck to the 13 principal upanishads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 Originally posted by ram: Even though some philosphical problems that we can point out, Gaudiyas have given the world hari nama. How can there be defect, where there is hari nama ? We may consider if we wish to call varying interpretations "philosophical problems". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 Right. He can point to his wonderful brain. And move 'on to higher authorities' (in his mind's eye). But I know one authority that will stand clear of such arrogance - Sri Krsna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 Originally posted by karthik_v: Talking of upanishads, just because Adi Sankara didn't comment on a particular upanishad doesn't mean it is bogus - provided some other acarya from any established school has commented on it. Has anyone commented on GTU before? So far as I know, most acaryas stuck to the 13 principal upanishads. It is because Sankara commented on those verses they commented. In the pre-Muslim era, Sankara's influence was predominent. Even now his influence is very predominant but it is very diluted because his philosphical works are too rigourous for the modern mind. However his works of bhakti like Bhaja Govindam are still popular. But when the vaishnava acharyas came, they had to comment on these verses to convince people of their philosphy. As long as any revelation is in line with shruti, it is to be accepted as the pramana. Srimad Bhagavatham, for example even if it is not commented. Or any revelation of an acharya. In another thread, I have given reasons for accepting shruti. [This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-08-2002).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 Originally posted by gHari: Right. He can point to his wonderful brain. And move 'on to higher authorities' (in his mind's eye). But I know one authority that will stand clear of such arrogance - Sri Krsna. It is not a question of intelligence or arrogance. Raga was trying to use SP's commentary while not accepting his authority. I was just pointing out that if you move over to "higher authorities" within gaudiya line, I can theoretically go to a "higher authority" outside gaudiya line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 Karthik said : The only botheration is some kind of fanaticism that goes with GV. Response : I dont think gaudiya vaishnavism is fanatical. Sweetness is the essence of this sampradaya. The devotees in gaudiya line are not even supposed to argue. They simply purify themselves and others by their intense devotion. Narottama Dasa for example. Even Mahaprabhu, who "defeated Mayavadis" never abused Sankara or Mayavada the way you hear in ISKCON temples these days. He took sannyasa initiation from Sankara sampradaya and there was no question of fanaticism or sectarianism. He convinced them by his humility sitting in the place where they washed their feet and knowledge giving 32 different meanings for the atma rama verse. While Sankara's works are filled with unalloyed devotion, his philosophy of monism is misunderstood by foolish people as equivalent to saying I am God. And they had to be given a different philosphy to correct their lost intelligence. [This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-08-2002).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 No, arrogance was the exact word for such 'so-called' impertinence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 No, arrogance is the exact word to describe the mentality that typed 'so-called shelter'. This same arrogance has been betrayed over and over in these threads; it was as clear as the nose on the face. It was only a matter of time until until it brazenly revealed the great depth of its offensiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2002 Report Share Posted June 8, 2002 Originally posted by gHari: No, arrogance is the exact word to describe the mentality that typed 'so-called shelter'. This same arrogance has been betrayed over and over in these threads; it was as clear as the nose on the face. It was only a matter of time until until it brazenly revealed the great depth of its offensiveness. Let me apologize if my words offended any one. Srila Prabhupada has done the great service of giving the treasure of love of Godhead around the world. But for him, we wont be discussing these words and these forums would not exist. I did not word them properly. I was just questioning the logic of giving up his authority, while accepting his translation. If these threads are educating me about my anarthas, they are definitely serving the purpose for me. - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxvvii Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 I can't fully und. what you're arguing because I'm not an indian. To Vedas, Bg., & other scriptures, more & more interpretations imply the drain of ancient wisdom with the time's lapse. That's to say, as a part of God, you have the potential to comprehend all scriptures of God instinctively with your soul's resonance. If you are wise enough, even all scr.s are unneeded since you have reach the bank of enlightenment. Only at that moment you would realize what credible belief is & why you do believe in sth.. On the contrary, a scr. is a trash for you if you can't find its entry. Then you need some rafts to some rafts to the other bank. As for religious masters, I think gurus are necessary for devotees as live rafts unless you are a devotee with higher siddhi (chi.- shen tong) level achieved in the past lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishnas Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Originally posted by raga: 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. Questioning is very much a part of the "path of practice." Krishna advises "tad viddhi pranipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa..." (BG 4.34). A saadhaka is expected to ask questions and address doubts, not follow blindly. It is a little dangerous, I think, to imply that any questioning is unwarranted or somehow represents a character flaw. This is not addressed to you specifically, but reflects a general observation I have noticed among neophyte devotees* who regard any question they cannot answer as insincere, unworthy of a response, etc. Secondly, it is all but impossible to prove anything to satisfy Academic standards. Even if you provide references for Krishna in the Rig Veda Samhitaa, they will just argue that these are later additions to the same. Indologists hold that the Rig Veda was developed over a period of time as an amalgamation of various sages' thoughts. Indologists actually don't mean the same thing as we do when they say "Rig Veda." By "Veda" they are usually referring to the Samhitaas, and they consider Upanishads, Braahmanas, Aaranyakas to be later. But Krishna Upanishad describes Lord Krishna in detail, and if memory serves, it is also part of the Rig Veda, traditionally speaking. The Naaraayana Upanishad is also one of the 108 principle Upanishads, and it mentions that the son of Devakii is the Supreme Brahman. As far as the Gopaala-taapanii is concerned, I am not aware of any specific objection to it. Because of its clearly devotional flavor, the Advaitins are the ones who are most likely to reject it as a "recent addition," but they obviously have not done so. Hence, I see no problem using it as pramaana. It's not like Chaitanya Upanishad or "Allah Upanishad" which no one has heard of. yours, K * (which is not to say that I am not a neophyte devotee) ------------------ www.achintya.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishnas Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Originally posted by shvu: 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 Are you sure Tattvavaada school does not know Muktika? I know Shrisha Rao claims this, but I would prefer to hear this from more mainstream authorities. Even then, how does this make the Muktika's authenticity doubtful? Keep in mind that Madhva quotes from numerous texts that no one has heard of, like Brahma Tarka, Vishnu Upanishad, etc. He uses this text Vishnu Upanishad to collect evidence for his concept of "vishesha," but not only has no one ever heard of it, but it is also not one of the 108 principle Upanishads. I don't think Tattvavaadiis are in any position to doubt the authenticity of the Muktika, unless they have something more solid to offer. I don't personally consider "we never heard of it" as an argument. yours, K ------------------ www.achintya.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishnas Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Originally posted by shvu: 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. There are a number of references in Bhaagavatam, other than the crystal-clear 1.3.28. There are also the Gopaala-taapani Upanishad, the Krishna Upanishad, and Bhagavad-giitaa. If you wish, we can perhaps start a separate thread on this. These are the references I can recall from memory; there may be others as well. With all due respect to Maadhvas and Shrii Vaishnavas, I found their explanations for SB 1.3.28 to be roundabout and not convincing (perhaps we can save this for a separate thread too). The Gaudiiyas' interpretation appears to be the most literal one. I have heard that other sampradaayas like those of Vallabha and Nimbaarka also accept a similar meaning as the Gaudiiyas, making the Maadhvas/Shriis the minority here. I have even checked 3rd party translations, such as that of the Gita Press, and they too translate the text more or less in the way the Gaudiiyas do. They (especially Dvaitins) do not differentiate between the different forms of the Lord. This is definitely not true. I have discovered years ago that members of the Cyber Maadhva Sangha only say things like this so as to give them reason to argue with ISKCON. A friend of mine showed me a posting from the Dvaita list archives in which Srisha Rao explained the Chatur-Vyuuha. He (Srisha) very explicitly said that each form was a partial manifestation/realization of the next higher one. It blew my mind. It made me wonder why he can say that, and yet object to the principle that some forms of Vishnu are regarded as partial manifestations of Krishna. Maadhvas do have a concept of "muula-ruupa." They just do not accept that the two-handed Krishna is that muula-ruupa. We discussed this issue some time back on the Achintya list, though I rather wished someone could have shown up and better represented the Maadhva side. yours, - K ------------------ www.achintya.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishnas Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Originally posted by ram: I dont think gaudiya vaishnavism is fanatical. Sweetness is the essence of this sampradaya. The devotees in gaudiya line are not even supposed to argue. They simply purify themselves and others by their intense devotion. Narottama Dasa for example. Even Mahaprabhu, who "defeated Mayavadis" never abused Sankara or Mayavada the way you hear in ISKCON temples these days. Nobody should abuse anyone, period. But where do you get this idea that Gaudiiya Vaishnavas are not supposed to argue? How do you define "argue?" There is no reason why Gaudiiya Vaishnavas cannot argue like gentlemen when a question of their philosophy's legitimacy arise. What about Baladeva's defense of the Gaudiiya sampradaaya against the Raamanandi's accusations? Why do you think Govinda bhaashya was written? Shrii Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu debated with and defeated several leading scholars of His day, using shaastra and logic, and remaining always a gentlemen throughout. This is the paradigm we should all follow. We should also develop those good qualities that Vaishnavas are supposed to have, and we should avoid arguing for the sake of arguing, or for trying to get mundane admiration, fame, etc. But arguing, like many other things, has its place when used in devotional service. [This message has been edited by krishnas (edited 06-10-2002).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2002 Report Share Posted June 9, 2002 Originally posted by krishnas: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishnas Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 Originally posted by ram: I agree with your points. Argument for the sake of name, fame etc. is what I was condemning. I think Mahaprabhu has an injunction against argument. Discussion or debate on the basis of sastras is good. Those injunctions that you are referring to are in regards to argument for the sake of purposes other than devotional service. They are not unique to Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. ------------------ www.achintya.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts