Scriptural evidences about Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

[Guest guest]

Here you will find something about scriptural evidences about Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by Srila B.V. Tripurari Maharaj

 

Q. I believe that the scriptural predictions promoted by the followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu stem mostly from the writings of Sanatana Goswami. It appears to me that almost all of these scriptural references are not confirmed as to where exactly these verses are found in the scriptures and the context in which the individual verses have been taken. Are you aware of any scholarly research on the collection of various Vedic predictions centered on Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's appearance as the Yuga-avatara?

 

A. I am not aware of any academic research on this topic, but Gaudiya scholars agree that Sanatana Goswami was the first to write that he found a reference to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the pages of the Bhagavatam. Sanatana found the reference in a section of the Bhagavatam discussing the yuga-avataras and the two verses that follow it (SB 11.5.32-34):

 

krsna-varnam tvisakrsnam sangopangastra-parsadam/

yajnaih sankirtana-prayair yajanti hi su-medhasah//

 

"Intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of God who constantly sings the name of Krsna. Although his complexion is not blackish, he is Krsna himself who is accompanied by his servants, weapons, and confidential associates."

 

Sanatana also found him in Bhakta Prahlada's statement in the Bhagavatam concerning the Lord's covert appearance in Kali-yuga:

 

dharmam maha-purusa pasi yuganuvrttam/

channah kalau yad abhavas tri-yugo'tha sa tvam//

 

"The Supreme Lord is called Tri-Yuga, or one who appears in only three yugas. However, in the age of Kali he sometimes appears in a concealed form." (SB 7.9.38)

 

He also found Mahaprabhu in the Bhagavatam where it is mentioned that the Lord at times appears in golden color:

 

asan varnas trayo hy asya grhnatotnvyugam tanuh/

suklo raktas tatha pita idanim krmatam gatah//

 

"White, red, and yellow are three bodily colors which the Lord assumes respectively in three ages." (SB 10.8.13)

 

Sanatana Goswami's commentary on these verses is insightful to say the least. He was the most learned in Srimad-Bhagavatam of all the legendary Six Goswamis. It is likely that he also compiled the principal list of verses gathered from other scriptures that Gaudiya Vaisnavas consider to be forecasting the appearance of Sri Caitanya.

 

Many such verses are cited by Srila Prabhupada in his Caitanya-caritamrta commentary--verses from the Upanisads, Puranas, Atharva Veda, and so on. Some but not all of these verses may be questionable as to the context in which they appear, and others perhaps with regard to their absence in existing manuscripts of the texts they are said to be from. Understandably, this can be disconcerting for one who requires such evidence in order to support his faith, as well as to one of stronger faith, who, when calling on these verses while preaching to others, is challenged regarding their validity.

 

Still, some of these verses do serve as strong scriptural evidence. The above-mentioned verses from the Bhagavatam are particularly compelling. But how many of such verses does one need, and what will convince a person who does not want to be convinced? The spiritual reality of Mahaprabhu is the strongest possible evidence as to his divinity. This spirituality has been critically examined, and some of the conclusions reached even by those outside the Gaudiya tradition are heartening to his followers.

 

In my book Rasa: Love Relationships in Transcendence (http://swami.org/sanga/Books/pages/Rasa.html), I cited one example of this kind of critical analysis written by Christian theologian John Moffitt in his book Journey to Gorakhpur: An Encounter With Christ Beyond Christianity.

 

Moffitt concludes as follows: "If I were asked to choose one man in Indian religious history who best represents the pure spirit of devotional self-giving, I would choose the Vaisnavite saint Caitanya. Of all the saints in recorded history, East and West, he seems to me the supreme example of a soul carried away on a tide of ecstatic love of God. Though literally worshipped by thousands as Krsna himself, he led a simple and even austere life. His life in the holy town of Puri is the story of a man in a state of almost continuous spiritual intoxication. Illuminating discourses, deep contemplation, moods of loving communion with God, were daily occurrences."

 

Devotees who love Mahaprabhu may see him in scriptural references that others cannot. Thus certain scholars and critics may feel that his devotees' interpretations of these verses are unacceptable. If this is the case let those critics explain the spirituality of Mahaprabhu in another way. One may argue that Mahaprabhu is not Krsna or the yuga-avatar, but no open-minded religious person can deny the intense spirituality of Mahaprabhu and his intimate associates.

 

We must also remember that Mahaprabhu’s devotees consider him a concealed (channah) avatara of Krsna, that Mahaprabhu is Krsna disguising himself as his own devotee. And where have we ever seen such devotion as Mahaprabhu had for Krsna? Only in Radha herself. This is the spiritual logic of the sampradaya.

 

As a final word on predictions, chanting the holy name of Krsna has now spread to nearly every town and village, as Mahaprabhu himself predicted it would. Also over one hundred years ago Bhaktivinoda Thakura predicted that people from all over the world would come to worship Sri Caitanya at his birth site in Mayapura. This prediction, made when the birth site was almost inaccessible and Mayapura appeared to be little more than a jungle, has now come to pass as well.

Finding support for the reality of Mahaprabhu in scripture is either merely an academic exercise generously conducted for those in need of such support or an example of the very ecstasy that he himself came to distribute. Those who have this ecstasy see him everywhere. Pray that you will be so fortunate.

[Guest guest]

I honestly don't find many of Swami BV Tripurari's scholarly rejoinders to critics very convincing. Allow me to play "devil's advocate" here and point out a few things. This is not for the sake of provoking meaningless debate, but rather more for the sake of improving the standards of discourse as well as developing a little empathy for one's audience.

 

 

krsna-varnam tvisakrsnam sangopangastra-parsadam/

yajnaih sankirtana-prayair yajanti hi su-medhasah//

 

"Intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of God who constantly sings the name of Krsna. Although his complexion is not blackish, he is Krsna himself who is accompanied by his servants, weapons, and confidential associates."

 

 

 

The first problem is that BV Tripurari has automatically quoted Srila Prabhupada's translation, when the problem here is that no other Vaishnava sampradaaya accepts this translation of the above verse. Indeed, Srila Prabhupada himself has translated this verse in different ways depending on context, sometimes emphasizing the prediction of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu and at other times emphasizing simply its description of the Yuga dharma for Kali.

 

Thus, in order to prove that this verse is saying what Srila Prabhupada has said that it says, BV Tripurari should not simply quote Prabhupada's translation as if it is a given. Rather, he should analyze the verse and its context and show how only Srila Prabhupada's translation fully captures the essence of that verse.

 

Note that I am not saying that such a proof is not possible. All I am saying is that if one wants to prove Chaitanaya Mahaaprabhu's divinity to outsiders, one has to be prepared to go beyond logic like "this is correct because my guru said so." Thus far, BV Tripurari has not done this.

 

 

dharmam maha-purusa pasi yuganuvrttam/

channah kalau yad abhavas tri-yugo'tha sa tvam//

 

"The Supreme Lord is called Tri-Yuga, or one who appears in only three yugas. However, in the age of Kali he sometimes appears in a concealed form." (SB 7.9.38)

 

 

 

The second problem as I see it is that BV Tripurari is so far quoting the Bhaagavatam, which several generations of Vaishnava scholars have already studied and commented upon. This is a problem only because he doesn't seem to acknowledge this. He should come to terms with the fact that other Vaishnavas are also familiar with these verses. Rather than quoting these verses as if they obviously support his position, he should explain why this is so - even going so far as to compare and contrast with other possible interpretations that are likely to be put forward.

 

For example, Maadhvas do not translate the above as meaning that the Lord appears in a concealed form in Kali Yuga. They take it to mean rather that His form is not seen in Kali Yuga and hence He is known as Tri-Yuga. Personally, I don't find this interpretation very convincing, based on "yadaa yadaa hi dharmasya.... dharmasamsthaapanaarthaaya sambhavaami yuge yuge" but that's not the point. The point is that BVT has not given any further commentary on this point, when it is he who is trying to do the convincing.

 

 

asan varnas trayo hy asya grhnatotnvyugam tanuh/

suklo raktas tatha pita idanim krmatam gatah//

 

"White, red, and yellow are three bodily colors which the Lord assumes respectively in three ages." (SB 10.8.13)

 

 

 

 

Here now we have a verse that is more suggestive - explicitly giving a characteristic that is traditionally ascribed by Gaudiiyas to Lord Chaitanya. The problem here is that the above verse is not specific for Lord Chaitanya. The fact that the Lord appears in some age in a golden color does not preclude the possibility that it refers to some other form of the Lord. It is not obvious from reading the above verse that Lord Chaitanya is being referred to, objectively speaking. All that is obvious is that a golden-colored form of the Lord is being referred to.

 

 

Sanatana Goswami's commentary on these verses is insightful to say the least. He was the most learned in Srimad-Bhagavatam of all the legendary Six Goswamis.

 

 

Of course, Madhvaachaarya, Vedaanta-deshika, Sriidhar Swaamii, Viiraraaghavaachaarya, and many other Vaishnava commentators on the Bhaagavatam were also very learned. None of them embrace the idea that Mahaaprabhu's incarnation is predicted in Bhaagavatam. The point here is that such a discussion cannot be won by arguments over spiritual superiority.

 

 

Many such verses are cited by Srila Prabhupada in his Caitanya-caritamrta commentary--verses from the Upanisads, Puranas, Atharva Veda, and so on. Some but not all of these verses may be questionable as to the context in which they appear, and others perhaps with regard to their absence in existing manuscripts of the texts they are said to be from.

 

 

 

According to my research, almost every one of the above verses quoted, when explicitly mentioning Lord Chaitanya, either comes from a source that is virtually unheard of outiside the Gaudiiya sampradaaya (i.e. Ananta-Samhitaa, Chaitanyopanishad) or a non-extant recension of a mainstream source (like a Puraana). Hence the problem in proving His divinity. It isn't that only "some" of the evidence suffers from this problem.

 

 

Understandably, this can be disconcerting for one who requires such evidence in order to support his faith,

 

 

What I found disconcerting about this statement, and perhaps I am reading too much into it, is the idea that requesting scriptural evidence to support faith is optional. But I could be reading too much into it.

 

 

as well as to one of stronger faith, who, when calling on these verses while preaching to others, is challenged regarding their validity.

 

 

Here is the crux of the matter. Eventually, devotees will want to go beyond sentimentalism and defend their aachaarya's conclusions properly. No one wants outsiders to think that their aachaarya is a sentimentalist. Indeed, one glorifies one's aachaarya by showing the shaastric basis for his conclusions.

 

 

Still, some of these verses do serve as strong scriptural evidence. The above-mentioned verses from the Bhagavatam are particularly compelling.

 

 

 

Again, many Vaishnavas have read and commented upon those same verses, and none of them felt compelled to postulate the existence of a golden-colored avataara who appears in Kali Yuga. Please note that I am not taking their side; I only want BVT and others to understand how outsiders will likely think.

 

 

But how many of such verses does one need, and what will convince a person who does not want to be convinced?

 

 

 

Explicit evidence from a mainstream source will convince anyone, or at least silence them. The above statement almost seems to imply that the request for such evidence is unreasonable. If one feels it is worthwhile to present compelling evidence to convince critics, finding real or imaginary faults in the critic is neither appropriate nor warranted.

 

It may simply be that Lord Chaitanya's divinity cannot be proven to those whose concept of shaastra does not include those texts particular to our tradition. This does not mean that the texts themselves are not bona fide. Nor does it mean that the standards of pramaana embraced by critics are unreasonable. Recall also that the validity of Achintya Bheda Abheda Tattva does not require belief in Mahaaprabhu's divinity. As it is based on mainstream pramaanas like the Bhaagavatam, it is probably more constructive to preach the doctrine of Achintya Bheda Abheda before touching on the subject of Mahaaprabhu's divinity. At least, this seems to be the position that some devotees take.

 

 

The spiritual reality of Mahaprabhu is the strongest possible evidence as to his divinity. This spirituality has been critically examined, and some of the conclusions reached even by those outside the Gaudiya tradition are heartening to his followers.

 

 

 

But Mahaaprabhu's divinity cannot be proven by the opinion of any one Vaishnava, what to speak of those who are not Vaishnavas and probably aren't even following basic regulative principles. No doubt Chaitanaya Mahaaprabhu's spirituality is appreciated by many; but this does not prove that He is God any more than scholarly appreciation of Jesus proves that he is God. The fact that one has to even rely on this type of "evidence" will make outsiders think that the shaastric pramaana presented to date is weak.

 

If one wishes to prove Mahaaprabhu's divinity objectively, some possible avenues of research might include looking into such texts as Vaayu Puraana (Seshi-khaNDa), Chaitanya Upanishad, etc and trying to find 3rd-party evidence of their validity. It is not that one has to even find evidence of their use by other sampradaayas; rather, one should look for evidence that these manuscripts have been kept by non-Gaudiiya pandits, have existed prior to Chaitanya's appearance, and so on.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

[Guest guest]

are you practicing anything or speaking about religion is for you an hobby ?

[Guest guest]

One thing I forgot to add:

 

Maadhvas, I have learned, have this idea that Vishnu does not incarnate in Kali Yuga. I'm not clear on how they defend this view given Lord Kalki's predicted appearance at the end of Kali Yuga, as well as the fact that many of them do worship Lord Venkateshwara, whose appearance was at the beginning Kali Yuga. Anyway, that is another point. The point I wanted to make is, because Vishnu does not take avataara on Earth in Kali Yuga, He therefore sends His chief aide Mukhya Praana aka Vaayu to appear instead (as Madhvaachaarya).

 

This is why Maadhvas will never believe in the divinity of any alleged Krishna-avataara in Kali Yuga - it contradicts their own avatar theology.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

[Guest guest]

Please join,

www.achintya.org

 

Your arguing style is intellectually challenging and it will be nice to have you on that list bringing up points like these. Please do accept my invitation.

 

Humbly yours

[Guest guest]

 

Please join,

www.achintya.org

 

Your arguing style is intellectually challenging and it will be nice to have you on that list bringing up points like these. Please do accept my invitation.

 

Humbly yours

 

 

 

Umm, thanks for the compliment, but I'm the moderator of that list. LOL :-)

 

- K

 

(Krishna Susarla)

[Guest guest]

dear K.

 

Please read again the final statement from the above BVT article

 

"Finding support for the reality of Mahaprabhu in scripture is either merely an academic exercise generously conducted for those in need of such support or an example of the very ecstasy that he himself came to distribute. Those who have this ecstasy see him everywhere. Pray that you will be so fortunate."

 

And if you are interested in constructive debate with Srila Tripurari Maharaj, you are invited to www.swami.org/sanga/

 

MGD

[Guest guest]

 

dear K.

 

Please read again the final statement from the above BVT article

 

"Finding support for the reality of Mahaprabhu in scripture is either merely an academic exercise generously conducted for those in need of such support or an example of the very ecstasy that he himself came to distribute. Those who have this ecstasy see him everywhere. Pray that you will be so fortunate."

 

 

 

I agree that realization may be necessary in this case. I don't agree with the implicit premise that requesting such shaastric proof is somehow unreasonable. Especially if the conclusion is going to be that those who accept Lord Chaitanya's divinity do so because they have the "realization" while those who do not are somehow insincere.

 

The fact is, most people who come into the association of devotees accept Lord Chaitanya's divinity not because they have the realization, but because this is the guru's position. Peer pressure within the society rarely allows for this type of questioning to take place freely. One should not be deluded into thinking that because many are taking Lord Chaitanya's divinity based on faith in the guru, that it is therefore an obvious or unassailable position.

 

Every sampradaaya seems to have their avataara - but in every case belief in the doctrine does not rest on belief in that avataara's divinity. Ours is not an exception. Now, since I know some fanatic is going to jump in and misunderstand what I just said, let me clarify that. Chaitanaya Mahaaprabhu did not manufacture any philosophy. He merely delivered the purest Vedaanta possible by referring to Shrii Vedavyaasa's own commentary on the Vedaanta - Shriimad Bhaagavatam. Thus, His philosophy has merit not because He is Krishna, but because He has followed Vyaasa's position exactly. Hence, those who wish to understand Achintya Bheda Abheda Tattva should study Shriimad Bhaagavatam with the commentaries of our aachaaryas - determining Lord Chaitanya's identity with Krishna is not required for this, strictly speaking. So in that sense only, I agree that proving Mahaaprabhu's divinity may be academic.

 

Where it becomes important is in defending our sampradaaya and its aachaaryas from those outside of it. We don't want others to think that our aachaaryas have falsely deified a great devotee; they are all great scholars and would never make such a sentimental mistake. For this reason, then, we feel inclined to produce objective evidence to backup Mahaaprabhu's divinity. The problem of course, is that many texts used for this purpose may not be well known to others; this does not make them any less bona fide - it just means we need more research into them to substantiate their authority. An example of this is the Chaitanyopanishad. Currently, we accept its authority since Bhaktivinod Thaakura has spoken up for it - much as the Maadhvas accept the so-called Brahma Tarka. But the fact is that Chaitanya Upanishad is not one of the 108 Principle Upanishads and is not found in any other list of the same. This underscores the difficulty in getting others to accept it.

 

 

And if you are interested in constructive debate with Srila Tripurari Maharaj, you are invited to www.swami.org/sanga/

 

 

 

I try to keep an open mind, but to be very honest, I am a little turned off by H.H. Swami Tripurari's style of response. One member of the list I moderate (www.achintya.org), posted some questions and criticisms of a Sri Vaishnava devotee in regards to our Achintya Bheda Abheda. This was recent - maybe in the last 6 weeks. He also posted Swami Tripurari's response - which basically answered few of the Sri Vaishnava's questions but instead accused him of being disrespectful, insulting and so on. In reality, the Sri Vaishnava only made his criticisms in response to some writings by Swami Tripurari to the effect that Raamaanuja's philosophy was not logical in some areas. Despite this, Swami Tripurari responded that he had done nothing wrong and that the Sri Vaishnava devotee was the one who was disrespectful, and then pretty much ignored the questions posed by the latter, as if such allegations made them any less valid.

 

Frankly, I get tired of leaders who use accusations like this to conceal their lack of knowledge of a particular subject. If one has firm conviction in what he preaches, he need not resort to character attacks to try and disarm his opponent. I see this all the time in ISKCON, and I am disappointed to see that ISKCON's sister organizations are no different.

 

As it turns out, BVT was probably not aware that the SV devotee he was attacking was actually a very strict Brahmin, even by ISKCON standards of saadhana. I daresay the SV devotee he attacked is probably stricter in many ways than most Western Gaudiiya Vaishnavas.

 

yours,

 

- K

[theist]

Those of us who accept Caitanya as an avatar should be patient with those that don't.

 

 

Translation

 

The Muslim King ordered the magistrate, “Do not disturb this Hindu prophet out of jealousy. Let Him do His own will wherever He likes.”

 

PURPORT

Even a Muslim king could understand Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu’s transcendental position as a prophet; therefore he ordered the local magistrate not to disturb Him but to let Him do whatever He liked.

Madhya 1.170

 

 

Lord Caitanya took sannyasa for the benefit of those who would not offer respects in any other way.

 

So if someone is willing to accept Him on the level of an empowered prophet but not the Supreme Person Himself, that's ok. That level of respect and acceptance will surely be accepted by Him and he will reveal more of Himself to that person.

 

He is the concealed avatar and that veil can be lifted by He alone. He reveals Himself.

[Guest guest]

Your characterization of the exchange between Tripurari Swami and the Ramanuja follower is misleading to say the least.

 

Tripurari Maharaja initially responded to a question about whether or not the visistadvaita philosophy of Ramanuja and the achintya-bhedabheda philosophy of the Gaudiya's was the same, and if so - where is the achintya in visitadvaita?

 

His answer highligted the difference between the two philosophies but in no way denigrated Ramanuja or his followers. If someone thinks that saying acceptance of the term aprtak-siddhi really involves forgoing logic is in some way offensive then they really haven't understood the point. In his response he clarified this point as well.

 

When and ex-Gaudiya who had been involved in various camps within the Gaudiya tradition and had recently converted to Ramanuja's group read the article apparently he felt that it needed a response from someone amongst his group as they were being attaked by the Gaudiya's which was not at all the case. We can acknwoledge differences without disrespect. In fact the Gaudiya acharyas have the highest respect for Ramanuja. At any rate, the response that came out of the Ramanuja camp was offensive not just to Tripurari Maharaja but to the entire sampradaya. Did you read the response to the few words that Tripurari Maharaja spoke? Can you honestly sit there at your computer and type out a comment that what was published was scholarly and not offensive? Maybe you didn't read the response, otherwise you certainly could never make such a remark.

 

Tripurari Maharaja's article in response to what was published was yet again to explain in polite terms that we differ and that in doing so we don't disrespect Ramanuja or his followers.

 

Here is the small bit of text from the article that you apparently take exception to:

 

"I have read the entire article, and it borders on personal insult and involves flagrant disrespect for Gaudiya Vedanta. In this sense it demonstrates little if any actual realization of Vedanta, and thus it is hardly representative of Sripada Ramanujacarya. It also betrays, if not admits to, little understanding of the Gaudiya doctrine coined acintya-bhedabheda by our tattva acarya Sri Jiva Goswami in his Sarva-samvadini."

 

This is one very small paragraph in a fairly lengthy response which has much substance which seems to have missed it's mark with you as your comment only focused on this one statement and then concluded that Tripurari Maharaja used this remark to cover up for his lack of understanding. I would say that the criticism fits you perfectly rather than the one who you seek to criticize.

 

In the article Maharaja demonstrates a clear understanding of the doctrine of visistadvaita and he also demonstrates the need for a differnt metaphysic which expresses that which is beyond logic. That is, afterall, what our doctrine is - inconceivability.

 

I personally try to keep an open mind as well - but in fact I am a little bit turned off by your style of presentation.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

BTW, the single most important argument for acceptance of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the divinity of Mahaprabhu will be the character of his followers and their level of spiritual attainment which is, of course, observed by witnessing their character.

 

The three verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam that Tripurari Maharaja quoted and that Sanatana Goswami cited to support the revelation of the divinity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are very good evidence and sufficient for followers of Mahaprabhu. That there are different interpretations of these verses is a given and that not everyone will agree with us is a given. The Goswamis had the experience of Mahaprabhu's divinity and they saw backing for that revelation in the pages of scripture.

 

You can complain that there should be a more scholarly presention and that someone (you maybe?) should reseach different texts such as Chaitanya Upanisad so that they will be more universally accepted but the truth is that not everyone will accept no matter how good the argument or how much scripture you throw at them.

 

Jiva Goswami spent much energy showing that Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is the parivash sloka of the Srimad Bhagavatam and that it means that he is the source of all incarnations - the original supreme personality of godhead - but not everyone accepts that or the Gaudiya interpretation of that sloka.

 

The real point of scripture isn't to try to prove who is right and who is wrong and what interpretation is correct, but rather to follow it with the ideal of experiencing that which it speaks of. The ultimate pramana is our own experience in that regard.

 

[Guest guest]

I think if you read Krishna Sandarbha you will see that Jiva Goswami presented his position and then countered his position with his opponents position. And then he defended his position against his opponents either by showing how they can be reconciled or by showing that opponent is correct in limited sense only or by showing that opponent is wrong and what should be the correct interpretation. The end result is that his opponents are not able to refute Jiva goswamis position. So he safegaurds his claims through "logical interpretation/understanding of scripture".

 

In this way it is very scholarly established that Krishna is Original Form of God. Jiva Goswami doesn't says that Sri Chaitanya who is Krishna himself said this and so says bhagavatam, so Krishna is supremem person. Rather he took great pains to explain in great details why Krishna is Original Supreme Person. If you read the sandarbha you will see Jiva Goswamis' adept mind thought of all types of counter arguement that can be posed against our position - Krishna being Original Form. And after presenting them, he on a sastric basis logically refuted all those.

 

Same is needed for Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. We already have scriptural references just like we had Krsna tu bhagavan svayam for Lord Krishna being Orginal form. But what we don't have for Sri Chaitanya is the kind of defence Sri Jiva provided in support of Krsna tu bhagavan svayam.

 

Though himself being an exalted sage, though being in company of exalted sages like the Goswamis, though being follower of one of the greatest saints of India, Mahaprabhu who is identified with Sri Krishna himself, he never used the line "seeing the character and the level of spiritual attainment of Mahaprabhu and his follower [Goswamis and other] which is, of course, observed by witnessing their character and reading recorded biographies" hence Krishna tu bhagavan svayam should be accepted or for that matter achintya bheda abheda should be accepted.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In reply to:

--

 

 

Your characterization of the exchange between Tripurari Swami and the Ramanuja follower is misleading to say the least.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

I beg to differ. The questions from the SV devotee and Tripurari Swami's response were posted to Achintya, and I had access to both articles and reviewed both.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

Tripurari Maharaja initially responded to a question about whether or not the visistadvaita philosophy of Ramanuja and the achintya-bhedabheda philosophy of the Gaudiya's was the same, and if so - where is the achintya in visitadvaita?

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

Tripurari Swami had apparently posted something on his website to the effect that some aspects of Raamaanuja's doctrine were not logical:

 

"It appears that in reality Ramanuja finds it difficult to describe the relationship of identity and difference but accepts both of them. Indeed, according to Ramanuja himself (Sribhasya 2.2.12), aprthak-siddhi is not strictly a relation, although his followers such as Vedanta Desika sometimes speak of it as such. Thus through careful examination both scholars and acaryas of other sampradayas came to conclude that acceptance of Ramanuja's term aprthak-siddhi really involves forgoing logic."

 

This was picked up by a Sri Vaishnava devotee who forwarded that text to a Sri Vaishnava conference with a request for a response to it. The response did indeed come, from a young SV devotee named Anand.

 

Anyway, after being provoked by Tripurari Swami's comments, Anand wrote a response and then put the ball back in our court, asking among other things, where the "Achintya" was in our doctrine, what specifically it was describing. This was picked up a Gaudiiya devotee who reads that conference as well as Achintya, who then posted Anand's response to Achintya as well forwarded it to Sanga for a response. The response from BV Tripurari Swami was also posted to Achintya by the same devotee, in an attempt to clarify the matter for all those reading it.

 

I myself wrote a partial reply to Anand's question on Achintya as well as another list member. Neither of us sank to attacking Anand or questioning his motives; there was no need for it.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

His answer highligted the difference between the two philosophies but in no way denigrated Ramanuja or his followers.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

The point isn't that he denigrated Raamaanuja. He had already made a challenge earlier by suggesting that some of Raamaanuja's philosophy was not logical. In the response to Anand, he basically attacked Anand and suggested that Anand was insulting to the Gaudiiya sampradaaya and to his own sampradaaya. This type of behavior was not warranted at all.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

If someone thinks that saying acceptance of the term aprtak-siddhi really involves forgoing logic is in some way offensive then they really haven't understood the point. In his response he clarified this point as well.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

There is no need to distort the issue. To his credit, Anand didn't say it was offensive. He merely took it for what it was - a challenge to his own aachaarya's philosophy, and responded in kind. It was BV Tripurari who took the position that he was lecturing an offender.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

When and ex-Gaudiya who had been involved in various camps within the Gaudiya tradition and had recently converted to Ramanuja's group read the article apparently he felt that it needed a response from someone amongst his group as they were being attaked by the Gaudiya's which was not at all the case.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

I don't know how you define "attaked" (sic), but if anyone from the Raamaanuja camp had suggested that some concepts introduced by Lord Chaitanya "really involved forgoing logic," you can bet many Gaudiiyas including yourself would have been quite incensed. The difference is that Gaudiiyas would have performed character assasinations. Anand didn't do this. He stuck to the philosophy.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

We can acknwoledge differences without disrespect. In fact the Gaudiya acharyas have the highest respect for Ramanuja. At any rate, the response that came out of the Ramanuja camp was offensive not just to Tripurari Maharaja but to the entire sampradaya.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

I beg to differ. How was it offensive? Especially when put into the context of BVT challenging the logic of Raamanuja's explanations?

 

Anand wasn't offensive at all. The problem is that too many "Gaudiiya Vaishnavas" don't know their own philosophy well enough, and thus can only respond with accusations like this when challenged on philosophical grounds.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

Did you read the response to the few words that Tripurari Maharaja spoke? Can you honestly sit there at your computer and type out a comment that what was published was scholarly and not offensive? Maybe you didn't read the response, otherwise you certainly could never make such a remark.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

As I mentioned before, I read all of Anand's response. I didn't cry out that it was offensive. I simply responded to the points which I felt I could give an answer.

 

Whether Anand is offensive or not is ultimately not the point. The point is that the questions were perfectly reasonable and deserved a reasonable response.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

Tripurari Maharaja's article in response to what was published was yet again to explain in polite terms that we differ and that in doing so we don't disrespect Ramanuja or his followers.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see that Tripurari Swami was being very polite when he wrote, "In this sense it demonstrates little if any actual realization of Vedanta, and in this sense it is hardly representative of Sripada Ramanujacarya" in reference to Anand's comments.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

Here is the small bit of text from the article that you apparently take exception to:

 

"I have read the entire article, and it borders on personal insult and involves flagrant disrespect for Gaudiya Vedanta. In this sense it demonstrates little if any actual realization of Vedanta, and thus it is hardly representative of Sripada Ramanujacarya. It also betrays, if not admits to, little understanding of the Gaudiya doctrine coined acintya-bhedabheda by our tattva acarya Sri Jiva Goswami in his Sarva-samvadini."

 

This is one very small paragraph in a fairly lengthy response which has much substance which seems to have missed it's mark with you as your comment only focused on this one statement and then concluded that Tripurari Maharaja used this remark to cover up for his lack of understanding. I would say that the criticism fits you perfectly rather than the one who you seek to criticize.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

Well, what can I say? I didn't expect to change your opinion on this. As the guru does, so do the disciples. Since your style of argument is also to perform character assasinations when desperate, why should I be surprised to see that BVT does also? And I'm not surprised to see you downplaying it at all given all of the above.

 

Srila Prabhupada met thousands of offensive people, many of whom he later turned into his disciples. Had he lectured them and cried that their questions were offensive to him, refusing to answer their questions unless they changed their ways, history would have taken a very different turn indeed. Fortunately, he chose to stick to philosophy, and thus many seekers learned how to behave respectfully after realizing that Srila Prabhupada was a bona fide guru.

 

This is unlike the Gaudiiya Vaishnavism of today, where we require everyone to bow down to us and give us so much respect, otherwise we won't answer their questions. And when they ask us a question we cannot answer, we refuse to answer on the grounds that they are alleged to be "offensive."

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

In the article Maharaja demonstrates a clear understanding of the doctrine of visistadvaita and he also demonstrates the need for a differnt metaphysic which expresses that which is beyond logic. That is, afterall, what our doctrine is - inconceivability.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

I personally wasn't convinced that Tripurari Swami "demonstrates a clear understanding of the doctrine of visistadvaita" as he hiself admitted in that response that he was quoting the views of other scholars, including OBL Kapoor. Not that this is a crime. But if one is going to challenge the philosophy of another, venerated sampradaaya, it is only reasonable to request that they know what they are talking about and/or be responsible for the consequences of what they write.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

I personally try to keep an open mind as well - but in fact I am a little bit turned off by your style of presentation.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

Well I'm sorry to hear that. I guess I'm glad I'm not a guru leading an international society and representing a relatively new sampradaaya to members of a more established Vaishnava tradition. I'd expect more out of myself if that were the case.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

BTW, the single most important argument for acceptance of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the divinity of Mahaprabhu will be the character of his followers and their level of spiritual attainment which is, of course, observed by witnessing their character.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

I categorically reject this argument on the grounds that most Gaudiiya Vaishnavas I meet are no better than common, lay Hindus. They have a divorce rate that equals that of the United States national average. There are some in the Gaudiiya vaishnava community who have committed unspeakable crimes, including child abuse. There are ex-gurukulis who smoke and drink. There are "initiated devotees" who date, divorce, marry other people's wives, etc. There are "brahmins" whose idea of debate is to attack the character of anyone who questions them. Although there are high ideals in ISKCON, I know at most a handful of devotees who really live up to them.

 

The bad character of most of these people does not make Achintya Bheda Abheda any less correct, or Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's divinity any less real.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

The three verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam that Tripurari Maharaja quoted and that Sanatana Goswami cited to support the revelation of the divinity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are very good evidence and sufficient for followers of Mahaprabhu.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

As mentioned previously, evidence is meant to convince someone who doesn't accept our assumptions a priori. If one already accepts the guru's opinion on faith, then he does not need evidence to support such unqualified faith. And if one suggests that a critic must first become a follower of Chaitanya to appreciate the evidence, then why even bother with scripture? Might as well just take the guru's opinion as a given - a very Maayaavaadii argument that is actually rejected by Vaishnavas, because it subtly promotes the guru to a higher position than the shaastra.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

That there are different interpretations of these verses is a given and that not everyone will agree with us is a given. The Goswamis had the experience of Mahaprabhu's divinity and they saw backing for that revelation in the pages of scripture.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

As mentioned previously, the point is how to convince outsiders. Saying that different interpretations exist and this is given, is like a Sai Baba person saying "yes, you have your interpretation, I have my interpretation, anyway there are many ways..."

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

You can complain that there should be a more scholarly presention and that someone (you maybe?) should reseach

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

It was hardly a complaint. It was more like a suggestion. Anyway, why even defend myself? I can see you are in ISKCON character assasination mode. At this point, I could say that it is dark outside and you will find some way to read something offensive into it.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

different texts such as Chaitanya Upanisad so that they will be more universally accepted but the truth is that not everyone will accept no matter how good the argument or how much scripture you throw at them.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

The point isn't to convince those who do not want to be convinced. The point is to stop condemning those who aren't convinced as unreasonable, insincere, fanatical, etc; we need to take it upon ourselves to meet a certain reasonable standard of discussion, rather than assuming that our inability to prove a point is the result of someone else's character flaws.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

Jiva Goswami spent much energy showing that Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is the parivash sloka of the Srimad Bhagavatam and that it means that he is the source of all incarnations - the original supreme personality of godhead - but not everyone accepts that or the Gaudiya interpretation of that sloka.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

I also read Tattva-Sandarbha, but this is besides the point. The point is to meet a certain standard before expecting that one should agree with our conclusions. There is sufficient evidence to back up the Gaudiiya understanding of SB 1.3.28 because this is based on relatively mainstream scriptures (i.e. the Bhaagavatam) in recensions available to all. Such is not the case with proving Mahaaprabhu's divinity. Don't compare apples and oranges.

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

The real point of scripture isn't to try to prove who is right and who is wrong and what interpretation is correct, but rather to follow it with the ideal of experiencing that which it speaks of. The ultimate pramana is our own experience in that regard.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

So when we challenge someone else's philosophy, scripture is useful at that time. But when they respond and we find ourselves in trouble, then suddenly the point of scripture isn't to prove who is right and who is wrong.

 

For the record, Anand made many points in his posting that were completely unaddressed by BVT. Here is a short list:

 

1) That the oneness of a thing and its qualities is refuted by Vedaanta-suutra 2.2.12 (this one is easy to refute)

2) That recourse to Achintya shakti does not "logically" resolve the relationship between the two entities (BVT only sort of touched on this)

3) That Gaudiiyas referring to Achintyatva is like Advaitins defending maayaa as anirvachaniiya

4) That Achintya need not be used to describe the oneness and difference of Lord and living entities because this is already explained by reference to oneness of quality and difference of quantity

5) That Srila Prabhupada and Srila Baladeva have differing views of the relationship of the living entities to the Supreme Lord

6) That the Gaudiiya interpretation of SB 1.2.11 does not logically result in three different aspects of the Lord - Brahman, Paramaatmaa, Bhagavaan being discussed - only three different names.

7) that an attributeless Brahman cannot be part of the Lord who has attributes

 

In addition, he asks various straightforward questions about different things in Gaudiiya philosophy, all of which went unanswered in BVT's response - things such as, are all three features of the Lord real and eternal, does one require achintya-shakti to explain the relationship between these different features, what is the non-difference experienced by advanced devotees, what is the relationship between achintya-shakti and liberated living entities, etc.

 

 

yours,

 

- K

[Kishalaya]

 

1) That the oneness of a thing and its qualities is refuted by Vedaanta-suutra 2.2.12 (this one is easy to refute)

 

 

 

That depends on what the adhikarana is talking about. Baladeva seems to be refuting vaishesika here! BTW, it is not the difference in a thing and its qualities that is the problem with aprthak siddhi, but the oneness (i.e. the aprithak part). Dvaita has no problem at all by such an interpretation of aprithak whereby one thing is an (eternal) appendage to another. Descriptions like "sharira-shariri" bring this out more clearly. However achintya bhedaabheda tries to be verbally true to the situation.

 

 

2) That recourse to Achintya shakti does not "logically" resolve the relationship between the two entities (BVT only sort of touched on this)

 

 

 

There is nothing as "achintya shakti" -- some kind of glue that holds everything together. The relationship itself between Brahman, prakriti and jiva is not amenable to logical description. Any attempt will require quite some distortion of the whole of sruti, not just some parts of it. This is not something new, Brahma suutra builds up its philosophy by taking recourse to shaastra alone where logical interpretation opposes sruti vaakya (BS 2.1.27) - srutestu shabdamuulatvaat

 

 

3) That Gaudiiyas referring to Achintyatva is like Advaitins defending maayaa as anirvachaniiya

 

 

 

Anirvachaniiya is a quality of "something" which is sad-asad vilakshana (neither existing nor non-existing) whereas achintya has nothing to do with asat. For example, om puurnam adah puurnam idam ... tells us the relation between Brahman and prakriti where further explanation is futile (notwithstanding aprithak siddhi :-) Indeed that prakriti can be materially Brahman without its imperfections projecting on Brahman -- a mundane example follows -- as Oxygen and Hydrogen mix to form a third substance which is qualitatively different from either of the two material causes -- so Brahman being material cause of prakriti should not cause alarm in Vedaantists -- because puurnam evaavashishyate (thus difference) where sarvam khalu idam brahma still holds (thus oneness). If our dear friends find achintya and anirvachaniiya to be synonyms, then perhaps they need to do some more research into both schools of thought.

 

 

4) That Achintya need not be used to describe the oneness and difference of Lord and living entities because this is already explained by reference to oneness of quality and difference of quantity

 

 

 

That seems to be Dvaita in compromise and not achintya bhedaabheda (whatever the source). Achintya Bhedaabheda's fidelity to "abheda" part (advaita part) is straightforward, simple, elegant and without any unnecessary posturing.

 

 

5) That Srila Prabhupada and Srila Baladeva have differing views of the relationship of the living entities to the Supreme Lord

 

 

 

I would surely not go to Akshara-Dhaama for Vishishtaadvaita philosophy.

 

 

6) That the Gaudiiya interpretation of SB 1.2.11 does not logically result in three different aspects of the Lord - Brahman, Paramaatmaa, Bhagavaan being discussed - only three different names.

 

 

 

quite true!

 

 

7) that an attributeless Brahman cannot be part of the Lord who has attributes

 

 

 

Since the above is not refuted by shaastra (sruti), the logic applies. Points 4, 5, 6 and 7 have absolutely nothing to do with achintya bhedaabheda.

[Guest guest]

 

That depends on what the adhikarana is talking about. Baladeva seems to be refuting vaishesika here!

 

 

 

Exactly - that was how I responded to it. The fact that a material thing and its attributes are different, does not mean that the same holds true for spiritual things.

 

 

 

There is nothing as "achintya shakti" -- some kind of glue that holds everything together.

 

 

 

 

Now, this is news to me. Many times I heard of Gaudiiyas speaking of an "achintya shakti," although this is usually in regards to the Lord's achintyatva. The fact that He is inconceivable does not surely require that we postulate the existence of an "achintya shakti," does it? As far as I know, there is antaranga-shakti, bahiranga-shakti, and tatastha-shakti, and all of the Lord's diverse and infinite energies fall into one of these three categories.

 

 

 

The relationship itself between Brahman, prakriti and jiva is not amenable to logical description. Any attempt will require quite some distortion of the whole of sruti, not just some parts of it. This is not something new, Brahma suutra builds up its philosophy by taking recourse to shaastra alone where logical interpretation opposes sruti vaakya (BS 2.1.27) - srutestu shabdamuulatvaat

 

 

 

 

Hmm, this is interesting. Anand's point is that, when we say the oneness is in terms of quality while the difference is in terms of quantity, then we have explained the relationship clearly. So why resort to "achintya?" What is Achintya about it? The Lord may be achintya, but is His relationship with dependent entities so achintya?

 

You seem to be saying that other attempts to fully explain the relationshp do not fully resonate with all of the shruti. I would tend to agree. But when I see analogies like "sun vs. sun rays" used to explain the relationship of Lord and jiivas, I also wonder if the bheda and abheda taken together are truly so inconceivable. After all, the bheda is in regards to quantity, the abheda is in regards to quality - hence, nothing inconceivable here since both can logically coexist.

 

 

 

Anirvachaniiya is a quality of "something" which is sad-asad vilakshana (neither existing nor non-existing) whereas achintya has nothing to do with asat. For example, om puurnam adah puurnam idam ... tells us the relation between Brahman and prakriti where further explanation is futile (notwithstanding aprithak siddhi :-) Indeed that prakriti can be materially Brahman without its imperfections projecting on Brahman -- a mundane example follows -- as Oxygen and Hydrogen mix to form a third substance which is qualitatively different from either of the two material causes -- so Brahman being material cause of prakriti should not cause alarm in Vedaantists -- because puurnam evaavashishyate (thus difference) where sarvam khalu idam brahma still holds (thus oneness). If our dear friends find achintya and anirvachaniiya to be synonyms, then perhaps they need to do some more research into both schools of thought.

 

 

 

 

Yes, clearly they are not the same. The Advaitin concept of "anirvachaniiya" does not even have logical basis, what to speak of basis in shaastra. I more or less said the same thing. What Anand's point is, I think, is that too many people resort to "achintya" when asked to explain some relationship in Achintya Bheda Abheda. Granted, that some things aren't meant to be understood by us any more than is discussed in shaastra, but we shouldn't use "achintya" prematurely because we don't understand some relationship - perhaps we don't understand because no further understanding is possible with a conditioned mind, or it could be that more can be understood and we simply have not read enough to understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That seems to be Dvaita in compromise and not achintya bhedaabheda (whatever the source).

 

 

 

Could you please explain what you mean by this? Are you saying that the oneness (in Achintya Bheda Abheda) refers to something else besides having similar spiritual quality? I would be interested to know.

 

As far as I know, Dvaitins do not speak of any oneness at all, period, aside from perhaps, the oneness of a thing and its qualities which they describe as visesha.

 

 

 

Achintya Bhedaabheda's fidelity to "abheda" part (advaita part) is straightforward, simple, elegant and without any unnecessary posturing.

 

 

 

 

Which is why our Sri Vaishnava friend wants to know why we must resort to "Achintya" when it is otherwise straightforward.

 

 

 

 

quite true!

 

 

 

 

I see where they are coming from with this. But the gaudiiya understanding of three aspects of the Lord isn't based on this verse alone, but on other verses throughout the Vedic literature which, taken together, lead one to believe that these three manifestations exist. For example, brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham (BG 14.27) - what is this Brahman which is situated on Krishna? If the Gaudiiya explanation of a brahmajyoti effulgence is unacceptable, the Sri Vaishnava interpretation that it refers to jiivas is surely even more so. Furthermore, we have evidence in Bhaagavatam 10th Canto (the chapter where Arjuna meets Mahaa-Vishnu) as well as a similar section from the Hari-Vamsha, evidence that the effulgence of Lord Vishnu is nondifferent from Him. If Vishnu is Brahman, than the nondifferent effulgence emanating from Him is also Brahman. The Gaudiiya understanding of "brahmeti paramaatmeti bhagavaan iti shabdyate" is thus more sensible.

 

 

 

Since the above is not refuted by shaastra (sruti), the logic applies. Points 4, 5, 6 and 7 have absolutely nothing to do with achintya bhedaabheda.

 

 

 

My response was that the brahmajyoti does have some attributes, just not bodily form like Bhagavaan. I think his misunderstanding comes because we equate the brahmajyoti to Advaitin concept of Brahman - the latter holds that Brahman is absolutely devoid of any features (though they continue to assign features to it in their discussion). They aren't exactly the same, but the Hari-Vamsha does say that this brahmajyoti is the destination of those who follow Saankhya philosophy:

 

brahmatejomaya.m divya.m mahat yad dR^iShTavaan asi |

aha.m sa bharatashreShTha mattejas tat sanaatanam || HV 2.114.9 ||

 

The divine expanse of Brahman effulgence you have seen is none other than Myself, O best of the Bhaaratas. It is My own eternal effulgence (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.9).

 

prakR^itiH saa mama paraa vyaktaavyaktaa sanaatanii |

taa.m pravishya bhavantiiha muktaa yogaviduttamaaH || HV 2.114.10 ||

 

It comprises My eternal, spiritual energy, both manifest and unmanifest. The foremost yoga experts of this world enter within it and become liberated (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.10).

 

saa saa.nkhyaanaa.m gatiH paartha yoginaa.m cha tapasvinaam |

tat ..m parama.m brahma sarva.m vibhajate jagat || HV 2.114.11 ||

maameva tad ghana.m tejo j~naatum arhasi bhaarata || HV 2.114.12 ||

 

It is the supreme goal of the followers of Saa.nkhya, O Paartha, as well as that of the yogiis and ascetics. It is the Supreme Absolute Truth, manifesting the varieties of the entire created cosmos. You should understand this brahma-jyoti, O Bhaarata, to be My concentrated personal effulgence (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.11-12).

 

yours,

 

- K

[Kishalaya]

 

Exactly - that was how I responded to it. The fact that a material thing and its attributes are different, does not mean that the same holds true for spiritual things.

 

 

 

The problem with Vishisthaadvaita is not about postulating difference, but one-ess. Achintya bhedaabheda is simply resorting to Sruti, not some concept like aprthak siddhi, and says "I don't know how, but that's what shaastra says". While Advaita and Dvaita do not have much work except for rejecting or making gross re-interpretation of significant parts of Sruti, respectively. In this light, aprthak siddhi, seems to be a compromise towards achintya.

 

 

Many times I heard of Gaudiiyas speaking of an "achintya shakti,"

 

 

 

This refers to the Lord and His energies working in ways which cannot be fathomed by logic - paraasya shaktir vividhaiva sruyate, svabhaaviki gyaana bala kriyaa ca. This is their inherent nature.

 

 

when I see analogies like "sun vs. sun rays" used to explain the relationship of Lord and jiivas, I also wonder if the bheda and abheda taken together are truly so inconceivable.

 

 

 

These analogies are not necessarily built up for debate. Achintya bhedaabheda concept of abheda is far stronger. There is "material" abheda between jiva, prakriti and Brahman. That is a straightforward corollary of saravam khalu idam brahma. The jiva is made up of the Lord (loosely translated as the material of the Lord -- however this is still a compromise), however they are not qualitatively the same -- figure that out! om puuranam adah puurnam idam puurnaat puuram udacyate puurnasya puuranam aadaaya puuranam evaavashisyate.

 

The fact that achintya bhedaabheda does not have volumes upon volumes of philosophical works (commentary on a commentary on a commentary) speaks for its elegance.

 

 

The Advaitin concept of "anirvachaniiya" does not even have logical basis

 

 

 

Now, you can prove anything with logic, but how far is that concept in congruence with shaastra. The point is minimal interpretation of the whole body of shaastra, otherwise every school declares allegiance with sruti.

 

 

Could you please explain what you mean by this? Are you saying that the oneness (in Achintya Bheda Abheda) refers to something else besides having similar spiritual quality? I would be interested to know.

 

As far as I know, Dvaitins do not speak of any oneness at all, period, aside from perhaps, the oneness of a thing and its qualities which they describe as visesha.

 

 

 

Yes the one-ness is "Everything is the Lord" - sarvam khalu idam brahma. Loosely understood as everything is the material of the Lord.

 

 

Which is why our Sri Vaishnava friend wants to know why we must resort to "Achintya" when it is otherwise straightforward.

 

 

 

Because such a relationship is not amenable to logic, and doing so requires some posturing -- either postulating things like aprthak siddhi, rejecting sruti vaakyas or reinterpreting sruti vaakyas, which are opposed to the philosophy, to bring out the exactly opposite meaning, than what a simple reading would convey.

[Guest guest]

 

The fact that achintya bhedaabheda does not have volumes upon volumes of philosophical works (commentary on a commentary on a commentary) speaks for its elegance.

 

 

 

Well said. It's straightforward, yet comprehensive. It assumes less, yet explains more. These are ideal characteristics of any unifying theory.

 

 

 

Now, you can prove anything with logic, but how far is that concept in congruence with shaastra. The point is minimal interpretation of the whole body of shaastra, otherwise every school declares allegiance with sruti.

 

 

 

I'm still quite certain, however, that an entity which neither exists nor does not exist cannot be proven using logic. For that matter, there is no shaastric basis for "anirvachaniiya" that I am aware of.

 

But getting back to your other point, yes - clearly the most convincing school of Vedaanta is the one that minimizes interpretation. To this I would add that it should also be capable of explaining the greatest body of evidence (rather than categorizing some pramaanas as Mahaa-vakyas and others as lesser) and also acknowledge the unity of all Vedic scriptures.

 

 

 

Yes the one-ness is "Everything is the Lord" - sarvam khalu idam brahma. Loosely understood as everything is the material of the Lord.

 

 

 

"everything is the material of the Lord." I'm not clear on how that is different from saying that everything is one in quality with the Lord.

 

 

 

 

Because such a relationship is not amenable to logic, and doing so requires some posturing -- either postulating things like aprthak siddhi, rejecting sruti vaakyas or reinterpreting sruti vaakyas, which are opposed to the philosophy, to bring out the exactly opposite meaning, than what a simple reading would convey.

 

 

First of all, when speaking of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference, are you here discussing the oneness of a thing and its attributes, or the oneness of the Lord and His shakis? I was approaching it from the latter standpoint.

 

My point is, if the relationship of the Lord and His shaktis is as the sun to the sun-rays, or the ocean to a mere drop of water, etc, then this concept of the relationship is quite clear. How can we say such things as this and then go on to say that the relationship is not amenable to logic? Our aachaaryas have given very concise descriptions to explain this, so what is so achintya about it? Why is the relationship not amenable to logical understanding, when the analogies illustrate a clear and simple oneness and difference relationship?

 

If I'm not mistaken, OBL Kapoor touches on this when he compares Achintya Bheda Abheda and Dvaita-Advaita in his book _Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya_. But I don't have a copy of this with me at present.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Kishalaya]

 

 

I'm still quite certain, however, that an entity which neither exists nor does not exist cannot be proven using logic. For that matter, there is no shaastric basis for "anirvachaniiya" that I am aware of.

 

 

 

 

Philosophy is not just about repeating shaastra, but some inferences come about inevitably. To really go about whether something can be proven by "logic" or not, one has to undergo traditional study -- which can be quite a long time. Even then we see that the tradition of Advaita and its conclusions have not died and a variety of sub-schools have sprung up. The situation is not so simple as to be discarded in two sentences. The concept may "feel" absurd, but that doesn't count.

 

 

 

"everything is the material of the Lord." I'm not clear on how that is different from saying that everything is one in quality with the Lord.

 

First of all, when speaking of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference, are you here discussing the oneness of a thing and its attributes, or the oneness of the Lord and His shakis? I was approaching it from the latter standpoint.

 

My point is, if the relationship of the Lord and His shaktis is as the sun to the sun-rays, or the ocean to a mere drop of water, etc, then this concept of the relationship is quite clear. How can we say such things as this and then go on to say that the relationship is not amenable to logic? Our aachaaryas have given very concise descriptions to explain this, so what is so achintya about it? Why is the relationship not amenable to logical understanding, when the analogies illustrate a clear and simple oneness and difference relationship?

 

If I'm not mistaken, OBL Kapoor touches on this when he compares Achintya Bheda Abheda and Dvaita-Advaita in his book _Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caitanya_. But I don't have a copy of this with me at present.

 

[Guest guest]

K says:

 

 

"The first problem is that BV Tripurari has automatically quoted Srila Prabhupada's translation, when the problem here is that no other Vaishnava sampradaaya accepts this translation of the above verse. Indeed, Srila Prabhupada himself has translated this verse in different ways depending on context, sometimes emphasizing the prediction of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu and at other times emphasizing simply its description of the Yuga dharma for Kali.

 

Thus, in order to prove that this verse is saying what Srila Prabhupada has said that it says, BV Tripurari should not simply quote Prabhupada's translation as if it is a given. Rather, he should analyze the verse and its context and show how only Srila Prabhupada's translation fully captures the essence of that verse.

 

Note that I am not saying that such a proof is not possible. All I am saying is that if one wants to prove Chaitanaya Mahaaprabhu's divinity to outsiders, one has to be prepared to go beyond logic like "this is correct because my guru said so." Thus far, BV Tripurari has not done this."

 

....

 

What the Tripurari Swami has done is refer his reader to the commentary of Sanatana Goswami on this and the other verses he quotes. There you will find the kind of discussion you are interested in. You seem to miss this point and fault Tripurari Maharaja for lack of explanation. Furthermore, it is a given that other sampradayas have interpreted these verses differently and do not agree with our interpretation. However, the fact that they do not agree does not make them invalid. They will never agree, yet we have done our work by citing scripture in support of our realization about Lord Caitanya's divinity, and in fact the interpretaion of Sanatana Goswami on these verses is compelling for the objective, whom I belive Tripurari Maharaja is speaking to more than he is hardcore Madhvas or Ramanujas. Thus his article does not lack much audeince insensitivity.

 

K said that what we need is something like a Caitanya-sandarbha, which like Krsna-sandarbha definitively makes the sastric case for the divinity of Lord Caitanya. Obviously the Goswmais did not agree with this accessment. The fact that they have demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of Krsna's position as no other acaryas have is enough! If they then say that Lord Caitanya is Krsna, any sensible person will accept it. This is more or less the argument of Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami. It is also important to remember that the whole theory of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas is that Lord Caitanya, although Krsna, is a hidden or covered avatara.

 

I also thinkt hat your umbrage with Tripurari Swami regarding his reply to the Ramanuja sect is based on something other than any objective reading of his reply. You contend that he has not answered the questions posed and that he has succumbed to attacking his questioner instead when this was unwarranted. However, he clearly states that he does not think that the forum in which he is replying is the apropriate place to debate the entirte two philosophies, Gaudya and Sri Vaisnavism, nor would it be fruitful for niether school will be converted. Instead he has referred his challenger to the Sanadrbhas of Jiva Goswami where all of the answers can be found. He even explained which Sandarbhas to look in for which answers. I was apparent to me that the challenger had a axe to grind with the Gaudiya Vaisnavas and did not accept the validity of thier sampradaya. And those who followed the entire discussion would know that Maharaja never vilified Ramanuja nor questioned the validity of his sampradaya. At the same time he has offered a beautiful explanation of acintya bhedabheda to someone who had little if any appreciation of it.

 

Ramnam

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

What the Tripurari Swami has done is refer his reader to the commentary of Sanatana Goswami on this and the other verses he quotes. There you will find the kind of discussion you are interested in.

 

 

 

 

How can we refer to the commentary of Sanaatana Gosvaamii on these Bhaagavatam verses when said commentary has not even been published?

 

If he has access to the commentary, then BV Tripurari can certainly enlighten us as to what it says. Otherwise, all he has done is to quote Srila Prabhupada's translations as if their acceptance will be a given, when it is precisely the nature of those translations that is in dispute.

 

 

 

You seem to miss this point and fault Tripurari Maharaja for lack of explanation.

 

 

 

 

[sigh] And here we go again. I clearly stated that I was not interested in fault-finding but rather in taking the discussion to another level. But nevermind that. How dare I do anything but offer my most servile obeisances. How dare I question. How dare I think about things. I am indeed Offensive. Om.

 

 

 

Furthermore, it is a given that other sampradayas have interpreted these verses differently and do not agree with our interpretation. However, the fact that they do not agree does not make them invalid.

 

 

 

 

Precisely. So show the validity of our interpretations rather than requiring others to assume that because they are our interpretations they are therefore valid.

 

Why is this such a difficult concept? It was stated clearly many times, yet all we do is dance around this because some Tripurari disciples can't do anything other than fixate on their guru's honor.

 

 

They will never agree,

 

 

 

 

I see. So if we can't convince learned Vedaantists who know Sanskrit, at least we can convince spiritually uneducated people who don't know Sanskrit.

 

No need to be concerned that we can only convince the ones who are ignorant of Vedic culture and not the ones who understand pramaana.

 

Do you find anything at all wrong with that?

 

 

 

yet we have done our work by citing scripture in support of our realization about Lord Caitanya's divinity,

 

 

 

 

Scriptures whose interpretation no one shares with us, scriptures whom no one outside our sampradaya has ever heard of, scriptures whose verses don't exist in published editions....

 

 

 

and in fact the interpretaion of Sanatana Goswami on these verses is compelling for the objective,

 

 

 

 

And yet, no one can demonstrate why this is so. But they have plenty of time to fling accusations at anyone who has the audacity do doubt.

 

 

 

whom I belive Tripurari Maharaja is speaking to more than he is hardcore Madhvas or Ramanujas. Thus his article does not lack much audeince insensitivity.

 

 

 

 

I see. So if Maadhvas and Raamanuja followers object to Chaitanya's divinity, then they are "hardcore?"

 

My point is that neither you nor Tripurari have provided enough evidence to demonstrates Chaitanya's divinity to the satisfaction of any objective person using Vedas as a reference standard.

 

The fact that many Vaishnavas in the West accept Chaitanya's divinity does not prove that the evidence is reasonable; they will accept anything that Srila Prabhupada says based on faith. They also accept that Jesus and Mohammed are shaktyaavesha avataaras even though there is no evidence *anywhere* in shruti or smriti which substantiates this.

 

In fact, the average Gaudiya Vaishnava in the West can't even provide simple scriptural justification for anything he believes - including basic, mainstream beliefs. There is no dearth of twice-initiated devotees who never finished reading the Bhaagavatam, who don't know what "sarva dharmaan parityajya" means, who don't know what the four seed verses of the Bhaagavatam are, who don't know how to prove that the Bhaagavatam is the best Puraana, etc etc etc. These devotees accept all of these things on faith, seeing that their gurus appear to have scriptural basis for them but rarely learning and understanding what that scriptural basis is.

 

My point? I will state it here since you will likely misinterpret the above and fling more accusations at me. My point is that there is nothing great about convincing such people about Lord Chaitanya's divinity. They accept it on the strength of Srila Prabhupada's character, but not on the basis of objective evidence accepted by all.

 

 

 

K said that what we need is something like a Caitanya-sandarbha, which like Krsna-sandarbha definitively makes the sastric case for the divinity of Lord Caitanya.

 

 

 

 

No, I said no such thing. That was somebody else.

 

 

 

Obviously the Goswmais did not agree with this accessment.

 

 

 

 

They didn't agree or disagree with it. They simply didn't do it. One can draw one's own conclusions from this, but if it's going to be "anyone who does not accept Chaitanya's divinity is just unreasonable," then I'm afraid I must divorce myself from that sort of fanatical interpretation.

 

 

 

The fact that they have demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of Krsna's position as no other acaryas have is enough!

 

 

 

 

All Vaishnavas say that about their respective aachaaryas. You haven't provided anything that is convincing in any objective sense.

 

Vaishnava Vedaantins do not argue on the basis of spiritual superiority, but on the basis of "shruti, smriti, puraaNaadi..." Were it otherwise, there would have been no need for Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu to quote any pramaanas at all. He could have just said "I'm Krishna, accept everything I say because I said so and I'm God" and be done with it.

 

 

 

If they then say that Lord Caitanya is Krsna, any sensible person will accept it.

 

 

 

 

There are certain individuals in ISKCON who abused children and have caused ISKCON no shortage of legal problems. But all of them accepted that Chaitanya is Krishna. So are they sensible? There is a 55% divorce rate in ISKCON, but despite this, these individuals accept Chaitanya as Krishna. Are they sensible? Kirtananda Swami fell into mayavada and then created a cult centered around New Vrindavan and the idea that he was from the lost parampara of Jesus Christ. Through it all, he continued to accept Chaitanya as Krishna. Was he sensible? Hamsadutta dasa had a carful of guns, but he accepted that Chaitanya was Krishna. Was he sensible? Jayatirtha had his head chopped off by one of his own disciples and was involved in drug trafficin. But he accepted Chaitanya as Krishna. Was he sensible?

 

On the other hand, I know individuals from very strict, brahmin families who follow all regulative principles and then some, but who do not accept Chaitanya as Krishna even when pressed on the matter. Why are they not sensible even though they know shaastra, follow their own aachaaryas, and maintain stricter saadhana than most Chaitanya followers?

 

[Guest guest]

 

There are certain individuals in ISKCON who abused children and have caused ISKCON no shortage of legal problems. But all of them accepted that Chaitanya is Krishna. So are they sensible? There is a 55% divorce rate in ISKCON, but despite this, these individuals accept Chaitanya as Krishna. Are they sensible? Kirtananda Swami fell into mayavada and then created a cult centered around New Vrindavan and the idea that he was from the lost parampara of Jesus Christ. Through it all, he continued to accept Chaitanya as Krishna. Was he sensible? Hamsadutta dasa had a carful of guns, but he accepted that Chaitanya was Krishna. Was he sensible? Jayatirtha had his head chopped off by one of his own disciples and was involved in drug trafficin. But he accepted Chaitanya as Krishna. Was he sensible?

 

On the other hand, I know individuals from very strict, brahmin families who follow all regulative principles and then some, but who do not accept Chaitanya as Krishna even when pressed on the matter. Why are they not sensible even though they know shaastra, follow their own aachaaryas, and maintain stricter saadhana than most Chaitanya followers?

 

 

 

Obviously some fanatic is going to come along and completely misinterpret the above. So let me qualify it. I'm obviously not saying that all ISKCON devotees are not sensible. Nor am I saying that all non-ISKCON Hindu Vaishnavas are sensible.

 

All I am taking issue with is the logic that those who accept Chaitanya's divinity are therefore sensible, and those who do not are therefore not sensible. Obviously, there are many senseless people who accept Chaitanya's divinity, and many sensible people who do not.

 

Thus, the logic is rejected. There is no substitute for shaastric proofs.

 

 

[Guest guest]

You seem to base the credibility of Gaudiya Vaisnavism to a large extent on its ability to convert members of other schools of Vedanta to its fold, ie. to get them to accepet Caitanya's divinity. You also seem to play down its ability to encourage and bring within its fold the downtrodden sector of society.

 

You ask if Hamsadutta, etc. are examples of sensible people in comparison to your brahman friends. I belive that Srila Prabhupada, while disaproving of some of his and other's behavior, has demonstrated by his own actions that he felt Hamsadutta, etc. were more sensible to have acepted Lord Caitanya's dvinity than those from brahman fmailies and other sampradayas who did not. Is it worse to be vegetarin and not belive in Lord Caitanya's divinity or to be non vegetarian and believe in it? Both are deffective, but the believer is actually in a better position, api ced sudaracaro . . .

 

The learned Sri Vaisnavas, etc. do not accept the divinity of Lord Caitanya. They are learned enough to read the commentaries of Sanatana Goswami in their original language, yet they do not find his arguments compelling. They can and do read Sat-sandarbha and remain unconvinced about the scriptural validity of Lord Caintaya and his enitre teaching. What will it take to convert them? You have no answer. You criticize Tripurari Maharaja by comparing him to Gaudiya Vaisnava leaders who do not know and merely insult their questioners or cite verses translated by Prabhupada as if they were definitive without explaining exactly how the verse cited with Prabhupada's translation is more accurate than how others have explained it. Referring to a previous commentator's commentary is not enough. However, as I have explained, evenan explanation of the commentary will not be enough becasue it has not been enough for the many acaryas of Sri and other Vaisnava schools for centuries. There are many, many learned people affiliated with other Vaisnava sampradayas that are more learned in Gaudiya Vaisnavism and thier own schools than you or I, but they do not accpet our position This will not change. Yet we will go on accepting whomever we can convince, and at least I will call them more sensible regardless of their shortcommings in other areas.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

You seem to base the credibility of Gaudiya Vaisnavism to a large extent on its ability to convert members of other schools of Vedanta to its fold, ie. to get them to accepet Caitanya's divinity.

 

 

 

No, I base the credibility of any belief, Gaudiiya Vaishnva or other, on the presence of supporting evidence from mainstream Vedic scriptures.

 

 

You also seem to play down its ability to encourage and bring within its fold the downtrodden sector of society.

 

 

 

On the contrary, I have nothing but the greatest respect for the upliftment of the spiritually downtrodden and those who are responsible for it. All I am saying is that uplifting the downtrodden does not equal doctrinal correctness.

 

 

You ask if Hamsadutta, etc. are examples of sensible people in comparison to your brahman friends.

 

 

What makes you think they are necessarily brahmins? What makes you think they are friends?

 

 

I belive that Srila Prabhupada, while disaproving of some of his and other's behavior, has demonstrated by his own actions that he felt Hamsadutta, etc. were more sensible to have acepted Lord Caitanya's dvinity than those from brahman fmailies and other sampradayas who did not.

 

 

What an admission!

 

Never mind brahminical culture. Just accept Chaitanya as Krishna. All those dumb Hindoos who follow their varnaashrama are just deluded. Duh.

 

 

The learned Sri Vaisnavas, etc. do not accept the divinity of Lord Caitanya. They are learned enough to read the commentaries of Sanatana Goswami in their original language, yet they do not find his arguments compelling. They can and do read Sat-sandarbha and remain unconvinced about the scriptural validity of Lord Caintaya and his enitre teaching.

 

 

Sat-sandarbhas don't say anything about trying to prove Chaitanya's divinity, so no wonder one can't be convinced of it simply be reading them.

 

 

What will it take to convert them? You have no answer.

 

 

 

I'm not the guru preaching to the masses, though, am I? We have such standards for those who take such a position, not for just any saadhaka.

 

 

You criticize Tripurari Maharaja by comparing him to Gaudiya Vaisnava leaders who do not know

 

 

When have I done that? Isn't it a fact that you just make things like this up to cover up for your lack of any substantive response?

 

 

and merely insult their questioners

 

 

 

when? how?

 

 

or cite verses translated by Prabhupada as if they were definitive without explaining exactly how the verse cited with Prabhupada's translation is more accurate than how others have explained it.

 

 

Right. That's what BVT does. Your point?

 

 

Referring to a previous commentator's commentary is not enough. However, as I have explained, evenan explanation of the commentary will not be enough becasue it has not been enough for the many acaryas of Sri and other Vaisnava schools for centuries. There are many, many learned people affiliated with other Vaisnava sampradayas that are more learned in Gaudiya Vaisnavism and thier own schools than you or I, but they do not accpet our position This will not change. Yet we will go on accepting whomever we can convince, and at least I will call them more sensible regardless of their shortcommings in other areas.

 

 

 

So on one hand, if they don't accept Chaitanya's divinity, then are not sensible.

 

But on the other hand, there is no way they are going to accept Chaitanya's divinity, because there is no way to prove that our commentators have got it right and theirs do not.

 

Consequently, we won't try to convince anyone who knows the scripture. We can only convince those who do not.

 

Some philosophy this.

 

[Guest guest]

This from K is a bit humourous and telling:

 

Srila Prabhupada met thousands of offensive people, many of whom he later turned into his disciples. Had he lectured them and cried that their questions were offensive to him, refusing to answer their questions unless they changed their ways, history would have taken a very different turn indeed. Fortunately, he chose to stick to philosophy, and thus many seekers learned how to behave respectfully after realizing that Srila Prabhupada was a bona fide guru.

 

This is unlike the Gaudiiya Vaishnavism of today, where we require everyone to bow down to us and give us so much respect, otherwise we won't answer their questions. And when they ask us a question we cannot answer, we refuse to answer on the grounds that they are alleged to be "offensive."

 

When, that is, we put it together with this from another stated on this forum in relation to the disparity bewtween Prabhpada’s acintyabhedabheda and Baladeva’s:

 

“I would surely not go to Akshara-Dhaama for Vishishtaadvaita philosophy. “

 

Apparently some people do not think that Prabhupada was beyond insulting people’s intelligence or that he answered everyone’s questions so authoritatively. Yet when some of his followers are polite by comparison and take the time to answer questions often in greater detail in support of the Guadiya Vaisnava philosophy, fanatic followers of Prabhupada simply go on glorifying Prabhupada often at the expense of these preachers.

 

I am not a follower of Tripurari Maharaja, but he is certainly polite, often much more so than Prabhupada was. He also answers plenty of questions with as much authority as did Prabhupada, sometimes more.

 

I do understand and appreciate Prabhupada’s style, the so called “chopping technique,” and I think it has its place, but one who uses it might not fit that well into into the above description of Prabhupada as a role model guru.

 

I really do not understand how one can glorify Prabhupada’s overall presentation and then find Tripurari Maharaja’s particular article about the divinity of Lord Caitanya unconvincing unless you find Prabhupada’s presentation unconvincing as well, and for that matter the presentation of all the previous Gaudiya acaryas. Were they then also not sensitive to their audience when they more than any one today were talking largely to these other sampradayas?

 

It is true that when arguing with other Vedantists one must try to find texts that they will accept or explain verses in ways that they will agree with if we are to convince them of Lord Caitanya’s divinity. To understand this is hardly a stroke of genius. However, as K himself admits, Madhvas for one will never accept our arguments because this blows their entire take on avatars that leads to the importance of Madhva. I suspect this is the case in some sense for the pious Ramaujas as well.

 

Meanwhile many sincere people are developing faith in Lord Caitnaya through the preaching of the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta, some of who chop, some of whom do not.

 

[Guest guest]

I think that your faith in Caitnaya bhakti is lacking. Yes, in fact it is the claim of the Gaudiya acaryas that one is better off beliving in Lord Caitnaya even if one is sinful than not beliving in him while being pious by other standards. Sound like Christianity? Maybe the two have more in common that you realize. Read Visvantha on api ced sudaracaro, aho bata svpaco, etc.

[Guest guest]

K says;

 

"So on one hand, if they don't accept Chaitanya's divinity, then are not sensible.

 

But on the other hand, there is no way they are going to accept Chaitanya's divinity, because there is no way to prove that our commentators have got it right and theirs do not.

 

Consequently, we won't try to convince anyone who knows the scripture. We can only convince those who do not.

 

Some philosophy this."

 

 

Well let's put it like this, if they do not accept the divinity of Lord Caitanya based on the arguments already given by our acaryas, we will conclude that they do not accept becasue they have not received the mercy of God. This was Gopinatha acarya's opinion when he quoted what have become standard Gaudiya Vaisnava verses proving the divnity of Lord Caitanya and Sarvabhauma did not accept them. Sarvabhauma was not converted by citing scripture. He was converted by the mercy of Gopinatha who created his sukriti and Lord Caintaya's manifestation of divinity in the form of doing something inhuman. He explainned the atmarama verse in 60 some different ways. It was not even the conclusion of his scriptural discourse, but his divine oppulence that converted Sarvabhauma.

 

So we do try to convionce the scripturally learned but we have no new special presntation that will be more effective than that which or acaryas have already given. When it does not work or they complain our quotes are out of context or do not represent what we say they do, we conclude they are not senisble in that they do not have sumedhasa accquired from bhakti umukhi sukriti. Thus we try to engage them or move on.