Question on Srimad Bhagavatham

[Guest guest]

In the second verse of Srimad Bhagavatham, the words maha muni krte is translated by Srila Prabhupada as referring to Sri Vyasa. As we know Vyasa is the compiler of Srimad Bhagavatham. Given that it seems impolite for Vyasa to refer to Himself as mahamuni. Can some one clarify ?

[gHari]

Ram, perhaps your own earlier advice can sooth your frustrated mind:

<blockquote>"Or why Srila Prabhupada's comments should be relevant to us if he is not our authority ?

 

We have all given up his so called shelter and gone to higher authorities. There is no need to return to his teachings."

</blockquote>

Actually I am not sure that he would appreciate being in your mind anyway. I certainly didn't appreciate hearing about it. Again.

[tsaneladi]

"Or why Srila Prabhupada's comments should be relevant to us if he is not our authority ?

 

We have all given up his so called shelter and gone to higher authorities. There is no need to return to his teachings."

 

It is with much sadnes that I read these words from a devotee (or former devotee)

 

The answers are in his words and teachings

 

 

[shvu]

 

 

In the second verse of Srimad Bhagavatham, the words maha muni krte is translated by Srila Prabhupada as referring to Sri Vyasa. As we know Vyasa is the compiler of Srimad Bhagavatham. Given that it seems impolite for Vyasa to refer to Himself as mahamuni. Can some one clarify ?

 

 

While Vyaasa may have compiled Puraanaas, he was definitely not the one who wrote the SB in it's present form. According to the SB itself, Suta narrates the Bhagavatam to the Rishis in the forest, based on what he heard from Shuka, who in turn got it from his father. Thus it follows that the person who wrote the SB as a text, came after or during the time of Suta and therefore it is not Vyaasa refering to himself as Mahaamuni.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

[Avinash]

This seems to be the case with other Puranas too. May be that Ved Vyasa wrote a Purana. But the Purana that we read in its present form was written by someone else.

[shvu]

 

 

This seems to be the case with other Puranas too. May be that Ved Vyasa wrote a Purana. But the Purana that we read in its present form was written by someone else.

 

 

 

Very likely.

 

The Mahaabhaaratha itself refers to the Puraanaas as ancient material. So if Vyaasa had anything to do with the Puraanaas, he probably compiled existing material and perhaps classified them into 18 Puraanaas. But the versions that have come down to us have undergone several recasts over time, resulting in various different recensions around the country. While popular puraanaas like the Vishnu and the SB have been spared during the last 1000 years, there is no telling what changes they have undergone before that.

 

For instance, the Matsya lists the 18 Puraanaas with a brief description of each. The description of SB is that it describes the glories of the Gaayathri Mantra, the story of Vrita and the events of the Saraswata Kalpa. Clearly, this description does not match the present version of the SB, according to which, it's prime intent is to describe the glories of Vaasudeva. Now, either this desription in the Matsya is false or the SB has been rewritten. In fact, many believe the present SB was composed around 1000 AD, by a sanskrit scholar and owing to it's popularity has remained more or less intact, since then. It is one of the few puraanaas to have a jointed, organized structure, free of sloppy interpolations. Another curious instance is according to the descriptions in the Matsya and in the SB, the Vishnu Puraanaa contains 23000 verses. However, no manuscript of the VP has been discovered till date, that contains more than 7000 verses. Yet with only 6000+ verses, it appears to be a whole text, with no indications of missing material. No one knows what to make of this.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

"We have all given up his so called shelter and gone to higher authorities. There is no need to return to his teachings."

 

May i enquire why you have given up the shelter of Srila Prabhupada?

 

Love

 

Janardana Das

 

[Guest guest]

The statement was made by me in a debate with Raga in the thread niyamas of bhakti yoga. He was initiated by Srila Prabhupada but left the acharya's shelter. But he was using Srila Prabhupada's translation to establish conclusions that were contradictory to what Srila Prabhupada taught. So I made this point saying that we cannot use Srila Prabhupada's translation as an authority if we dont accept his authority.

 

I never took initiation in ISKCON but I have great appreciation for Srila Prabhupada's efforts in spreading sankirtan,cow protection, creating a world wide society where topics of bhakti are discussed and countless other achievements. My association with some of the great vaishnavas in ISKCON is a great fortune in my life. The bliss that comes out of devotion is a proof of the devotional merit of the acharyas in this sampradaya.

 

But Srila Prabhupada's stand on Sri Adi Sankara seems wrong to me. Sankara does teach worship of personal forms of God. He Himself composed bhaja govindam, govindashtakam and His commentaries are full of devotion and knowledge. Impersonalism has no place in advaitam. There are many places where I think Srila Prabhupada transalates wrongly or circumvents to defeat Sankara. Inspite of all attempts by vaishnava acharyas, Sankara's philosophy remains indefeatable as you can see even this forum - see the threads "niyamas of bhakti yoga", "is advaita a genuine vedic tradition ? ".

 

Secondly, there are many philosophical problems like the falling down of the jiva, consistency with Madwa's teachings, incosnistencies within the parampara - what SP taught vs Visvanath's, inability to explain upanishads that glorify Siva or Ganesh as brahman and supreme as well, introduction of new upanishads and texts like caitanyopanishad brahma samhita as topmost authorities and so on.

 

Thirdly, there are many organizational problems in mainstream ISKCON like jetsetting sannyasis, brahmacharis driving great cars and so on. Yukta Vairagya seems to be exploited so much with the approval and participation of GBC.

 

Fourthly, the ancient temples in India need to be renovated. Veda parayanam and scrutinizing study of vedas need to be revived so that this eternal truth is passed on. But due to the fact that ISKCON would focus on the works of Srila Prabhupada and other later day saints, they will not have time for protection of Vedas.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't believe Raga was ever initiated by Srila Prabhupada. Perhaps, by an ISKCON guru and then Narayan Maharaja.

[raga]

 

The statement was made by me in a debate with Raga in the thread niyamas of bhakti yoga. He was initiated by Srila Prabhupada but left the acharya's shelter. But he was using Srila Prabhupada's translation to establish conclusions that were contradictory to what Srila Prabhupada taught. So I made this point saying that we cannot use Srila Prabhupada's translation as an authority if we dont accept his authority.

 

 

1. I was never initiated by Bhaktivedanta Swami. In fact, I never even met him. As for how I see him, I clarified my stand in that thread:

 

"I do not know to which authorities Ram has gone, but personally I respect the views of Swami Prabhupada, being a scholar and a teacher of the Vaishnava tradition. I may not take every word he says with the same absolute authority as his dedicated followers do, but this is certainly not tantamount to my disregarding his views."

 

2. The translation (of BG 3.27) I quoted is consistent with several commentaries of Bhaktivedanta Swami.

 

3. If we are to reject the translations of everyone whom we don't fully accept as our authorities, we're left with the original Sanskrit text. Then, why should I accept your translations or interpretations of the same? I do not accept you as complete authority on scriptural matters either.

[Guest guest]

I made those statements under the impression that he was initiated by SP and then left him and then Raga clarified. Sorry for quoting the context incompletely.

 

Until 20th century, I dont know if any acharya translated the verses. Acharyas like Sankara only write commentary - that too in sanskrit only. If we see Srila Prabhupada's translation, we definitely see that he loads the translation with his purport. So unless you accept his purport it is difficult to accept his translation except as a reference. To accept his purport, you have to accept him as your authority.

[raga]

 

I made those statements under the impression that he was initiated by SP and then left him and then Raga clarified.

 

 

I wonder how such an impression came about. Anyway.

 

 

Until 20th century, I dont know if any acharya translated the verses.

 

 

Definitely. Many translations of Gita are there, by acaryas and by non-acaryas.

 

 

If we see Srila Prabhupada's translation, we definitely see that he loads the translation with his purport. So unless you accept his purport it is difficult to accept his translation except as a reference.

 

 

Yeah, I presented it as a reference. "See, he translates like this." That's all.

[Guest guest]

Here is an argument why Vyasadeva could have spoken those verses :

 

 

concerning this bhurijana asked ekanatha in sweden about it. he replied thus:

 

Sridhara Svami, commenting on SB 1.1.2 explains that the word 'mah&#8364;-muni'

refers to Lord Narayana with reference to the catuh-sloki incident. Vyasadeva would then not refer to himself, even though he is an incarnation of Narayana.

 

There is a standard for how invocation and mangalacarana in Sanskrit literature should look. The first three verses of the Bhagavatam would perfectly fit that standard: obeisances to the personal Deity of the author, something about the content of the book, something about the qualifications of the speaker and about the qualifications of the listener, result of

hearing the book, auspicious blessings to the listeners.

 

Considering this, as well as the absence of statements by previous acaryas explicitly attributing the second and third verse to other speakers, it seems reasonable to assume that Vyasadeva spoke them.

 

[Guest guest]

But Srila Prabhupada's stand on Sri Adi Sankara seems wrong to me.

 

Hare Krishna!

All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

I remember one time going to watch Buddy Rich, the legendary jazz drummer. As i am a drummer, i thought, this is the perfect opportunity to learn some new techniques. But you know what, even though i was right behing him and could see all that he was doing, i didn't learn a thing, because he was just too good, and way out of my league He was so immersed in his ability, he could do anything, nothing he did was wrong or out of time (from my perpective).

 

My point is, how can you say His Divine Grace is wrong, surely it would take (at least) someone on his level, someone with his spiritual knowledge and devotion to Krishna, to question his authority.

 

How is it possible to measure the breadth and depth of this?

 

Janardana das.

 

 

[shvu]

 

 

There is a standard for how invocation and mangalacarana in Sanskrit literature should look. The first three verses of the Bhagavatam would perfectly fit that standard: obeisances to the personal Deity of the author, something about the content of the book, something about the qualifications of the speaker and about the qualifications of the listener, result of

hearing the book, auspicious blessings to the listeners.

 

 

How is the third verse interpreted, this way? Does it say Vyaasa wrote about Shukha being the speaker [a future occurence]?

 

I have the translation of Tapasyaananda, and he translates Mahaamuni as Vyaasa. The first verse praises the Supreme truth, the second describes the subject of Vyaasa's Bhaagavata and the third is on the same lines of the second and also praises Shuka.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

 

My point is, how can you say His Divine Grace is wrong, surely it would take (at least) someone on his level, someone with his spiritual knowledge and devotion to Krishna, to question his authority.

 

 

What happens when a gentleman says, man did not go to the moon because the moon is farther away than thought by the scientists (because the Bhaagavatam says so)? By your logic, no one should disagree because they are not on the 'level' of this gentleman, as you put it. How does one determine the 'level' of anybody, in the first place?

 

To criticize a teaching, the prerequisite is to know something about it. From what one observes about Advaita in iskcon literature, it is plain that the writer has no knowledge of Advaita. All that is required to see this, is some basic knowledge of Advaita and an unbaised view. As long as one has biases such as "the writer is on a different 'level'", "he can say nothing wrong" etc, obviously any criticsm will seem unfair.

 

If you need further clarification, I can pick up an iskcon article titled "What is mayavada?" and analyze it line by line.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Point : My point is, how can you say His Divine Grace is wrong, surely it would take (at least) someone on his level, someone with his spiritual knowledge and devotion to Krishna, to question his authority.

 

 

How can Srila Prabhupada say anything about Sankara ? Sankara is Lord Siva Himself. Even by GVV, a jiva is not on the same platform as Siva. So why would you not apply this logic when Srila Prabhupada comments on Sri Sankara ?

 

An ordinary ISKCON devotee who is still on the platform of material modes also blasts "mayavada" - based on the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. One even goes to the extent of calling Sri Sankara as a word juggler. The reason they say is we are teaching what is correct sastrically and it does not matter how imperfect I am.

 

Now, why cannot a Sankarite - based on the teachings of Sankara and sastras defeat Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta ? Ofcourse, we have to respect the devotional merit. There is no locus standi to apply "level" logic in this case alone.

 

 

[gHari]

Excerpt from the Sri Krsna Samhita by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura:

<blockquote>

Satvata-dharma, or nonsectarian Vaisnava-dharma, is the living entity's constitutional, or eternal, religious principles. The Vaisnava principles that are found in the Mayavada-sampradaya are only indirect imitations of those principles.

 

When such sectarian Vaisnava principles become transcendental, that is, when they are free of impersonalism, then they become Satvata-dharma, or religious principles related to the Supreme Truth. The different sampradayas, namely:

<BLOCKQUOTE>

dvaita (dualism),

 

dvaitAdvaita (simultaneous oneness and difference),

 

suddhAdvaita (purified oneness),

 

and visistadvaita (specific monism)

</BLOCKQUOTE>

that are found in satvata-dharma are nothing but wonderful varieties of sentiments within the Vaisnava science. Actually the various sampradayas are not the result of differences in the basic truth.

 

Impersonalism is diametrically opposite to the science of bhakti. Those Vaisnavas who

have accepted impersonalism are not pure Vaisnavas.

</blockquote>

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna. With due respects to Srila Bhakti Vinod Thakur, Sankara's exposition of advaitam is not at all impersonalism. Ofcourse every one knows Sankara's position on Narayana - as being avyakto paro. Sri Sankara clearly talks about eternal living entities who devote themselves to the Lord. Sri Sankara is completely aware of the existence of eternal personalities with attributes and so He cannot be charged for teaching impersonalism. What He did is He shared with us the understanding of underlying unity of the Self between all personalities that constitute the sadguna brahman. We all understand that Rama, Krishna are but One Person even though they are different in name, form, qualities, and pastimes because they are all vishnu tattva. Sri Adi Sankara points out that all the different tattvas that consitute sadguna brahman have underlying unity in the same way. He says that jivas exist as they constitute the higher energy of the Lord but their existence is similar to existence of matter - maya, albeit higher. That the truth is aham - jiva - brahmasmi, non different from brahman.

 

Sankara's is the most direct way to explain upanishadic statements calling Siva, Ganesh etc. also as Supreme or Hanuman telling Rama that our Self is the same. Or sastric statements that Siva and Vishnu are the same, aham brahamasmi, tat tvam asi etc. Vaishnavas are rejecting "lower" puranas glorifying Siva etc. saying that they are for people in lower modes. But they do not have a basis to reject the upanishads because they are for sattvic brahmanas. And puranas cannot contradict upanishadic conclusions which unequivocally state that Siva, Vishnu, Ganesh and even Agni are Supreme.

 

Vedas themselves do not teach philosophy. Philosophies are taught by acharyas to help us grasp the essence of Vedas as per their realization and our ability. Bhakti is not dependent on philosophical understanding. Sabari, Guhan or Gopas did not say that they to a particular philosophy. To say that one's tradition or philosophical conclusion determines one's bhakti is not correct. One can understsand Krishna is the Supreme and love Him thinking oneself as an eternal servant. One can understand that Krishna is one's own Self and forget all the bodily identifications and love Him as one loves oneself.

 

Sankara's talks of the illusory self (material personality formed due to ahankara) - self (jivas - maya because it is separated but higher energy of the Lord) - Lord or the Self. The Lord - Siva, Vishnu etc. are non-different from the Self (nirguna). The eternal devotees Sudarshana, for example, are aspects of sadguna brahman and non-different from nirguna brahman.

 

 

 

[gHari]

If there is only one person, Sri Krsna, then can there be any interpersonal relationships? With whom? This may be the other aspect of the impersonalist pidgeon-hole. One impersonalist says that there is no person, God; it's just a force. The other type of impersonalist says that God is a person, but there is no one else but Him - our separate identities are all illusion.

 

What is Krsna's take on all this?

[Guest guest]

Brahman is One but not Alone. This is difficult to understand. The manifestations of brahman are eternal and non-different from brahman. Thus Vasudeva, Krishna, Rama and Siva are non-different from brahman. That is why Vedanta sUtrAs say that these are but the names of brahman.

 

Brahman is without attributes but is non-different from God, who is full of attributes. As there are attibutes, relationships are eternally existing. Relationship is not excluded in advaitam except that the related entities realize their underlying unity of the Self and are Self situated. Thus Sudarshana serves Vishnu, Narasimha etc. with full realization that the Self is the same.

 

[theist]

...why then do Vaisnava's consider sayuja as hell instead of a desired state of liberation?

[Guest guest]

salokya-sarsti-samipya-sarupyaikatvam apy

uta diyamanam na grhnanti vina mat-sevanam janah

Srimad Bhagavatham--3.29.13

 

Ekatvam cannot be considered as merging in to brahma jyoti because oneness (ekatvam) is not attained there. We may still argue that a jIvA in the brahma jyoti "thinks" that he is one with the Lord while he is in reality not. But the verse talks about oneness not pseudo-oneness. If you agree that this is real oneness, then what happened to the vaishnava notion that jIvAs are real and eternally separate ?

 

Anyway, please note that there is no special emphasis in the verse itself that the devotees shun only ekatvam but are okay with going back home - salokya.

 

But why wont a devotee accept these ? Suppose you are given a cheque for 1 billion dollars in favor of nobody would you accept it ? No, because it is of no value. A devotee understands that his own self as separate from the Lord is but an illusion. With this knowledge, he understands there is no point accepting anything for himself - it is like a cheque for an illusory person. Even without this jnana, a devotee does not do business with the Lord. So he would accept any thing for his welfare. The devotees are glorious.