What is scripture?

[Avinash]

You have written:-

<QUOTE>

P(x) = x is authored

Q(x) = x has the reputation of being unauthored

 

then we can state the above assertion as:

P(x) => ~Q(x), where ~ means "not" and => means "then"

</QUOTE>

 

What do you mean by "x has the reputation of being unauthored"? As I understand, it means that people believe x to be unauthored. If this is so, then I do not agree with your conclusion P(x) => ~Q(x), because this is the same as saying that if x is authored, then people cannot believe it to be unauthored. But, this is not so. It is possible for something to be authored but still there are people who believe that it is unauthored.

 

[Guest guest]

 

It amazes me that some people, in order to get around the objections to their faith-based beliefs, get in the habit of simply repeating these beliefs without any logical analysis, as if by mere repetition they suddenly validate what is being disputed in the first place.

 

 

Sorry.... In the rush I forgot to include the references to the statements. They are not my words, they are spoken by Prabhupada:

 

"The author of the Vedas is the Personality of Godhead Himself. Consequently, His Bhagavad-gita is the finest summary of all the teachings in the Vedas (the books of knowledge), and there is no doubt about it." from Message of Godhead by Srila Prabhupada

 

"According to the Vedanta-sutras (shastra-yonitvat), the Supreme Lord is the author of all revealed scriptures, and all revealed scriptures are for knowing the Supreme Lord." Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.15 purport by Srila Prabhupada

 

"Every living entity within this material world is subject to four deficiencies: he commits mistakes, he accepts one thing for another, he cheats, and he has imperfect senses. The Vedas, however, are not written by any living creature within this material world. Therefore they are said to be apaurusheya." Srimad Bhagavatam 4.2.31 purport by Srila Prabhupada

 

"All other systems of knowledge are defective because they have been written or spoken by men or demigods who are products of this material creation, but Bhagavad-gita is apaurusheya, for it was not spoken by any human being or any demigod of this material creation; it was spoken by Lord Krishna, who is beyond the material creation." Srimad Bhagavatam 4.2.31 purport by Srila Prabhupada

[Guest guest]

 

Sorry.... In the rush I forgot to include the references to the statements. They are not my words, they are spoken by Prabhupada:

 

 

The point remains that they are not spoken of in the Vedas. However, lest I be uncharitable in suggesting Prabhupada has made a mistake, allow me to suggest a more correct way to understand his statements which brings them in line with those of other bona fide Vaishnavas.

 

 

"The author of the Vedas is the Personality of Godhead Himself."

 

 

This contradicts what Prabhupada wrote earlier about nArAyaNa not being the manufacturer of dharma (quoted by Ghari). However, since I'm sure you aren't implying that Prabhupada contradicts himself, allow me to suggest that Prabhupada is trying to connote the relationship of "dependence" rather than literal "authorship" here. It is like saying, "God created the living beings." Factually, it is not so, cince jIvas are eternal (without beginning). But sometimes one speaks of one creating the other to explain the relationship of dependence of the latter on the former. It does not refer to literal creation by God, which would be contradicted by sAstric pramAnas familiar to everyone.

 

 

"According to the Vedanta-sutras (shastra-yonitvat), the Supreme Lord is the author of all revealed scriptures, and all revealed scriptures are for knowing the Supreme Lord." Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.15 purport by Srila Prabhupada

 

 

 

But this is NOT what vedAnta-sUtras say. Please refer to the commentary of your own baladeva vidyAbhUshana on that very sUtra "sAstra-yonitvat." He explains that this means that Lord can only be known by sAstra, not that Lord is creator of the sAstra.

 

Perhaps Prabhupada is taking the meaning of the sUtra as "sAstras are manifested by the Lord." However, that does not make sAstras as having beginning. Even in the Upanishads it is admitted that Vedas are manifested by the breathing of that Supreme Brahman. Bottom line is that Vedas have always existed in the past and saying that they have come into being is wrong.

 

 

"The Vedas, however, are not written by any living creature within this material world. Therefore they are said to be apaurusheya."

 

 

 

But if Vedas are written by the very person whom they declare to be God, and are thus considered authoritative on that basis, then you are guilty of circular logic. You say you will only accept that scripture which is written by God. But you only accept someone as God if they are confirmed as such by scripture. This is circular logic.

 

Furthermore, being written by nArAyaNa does not guarantee freedom from falsehood. As explaind previously, even Lord can deceive if He so chooses - He appeared as Buddha for instance and misled the atheists. So, ascribing authorship to nArAyaNa as the basis for pramAna requires additional assumptions not readily shared by others.

[Guest guest]

 

There is a history behind that. Anyway, not all reject Madhva. There are some differences mentioned by Baladev. But some of them have taken on the differences, perhaps feeding on an agenda of vendetta, to go as far as considering everything mentioned by Madhva and his sampradaya to be not worth their time and consideration.

 

 

 

Theirs is a different sampradAya. No doubt there are differences with respect to Madhva on a number of issues, and possibly similarity on others.

 

However, my point was, I am now aware of any gaudIya AcAryas differing from Madhva with regards to his point of view on apaurusheyatva. Consequently, people in ISKCON should not disagree with him on this point, unless they think themselves more enlightened than their own pUrvAcAryas.

 

None of the Sat-gosvAmIs criticized Madhva's logic in viSNutattvavinirNaya, so we must assume they accept it by default, as they do share a paramparA and at least formal (if not doctrinal) allegiance.

 

My feeling is that the individuals here who assert authorship to Vedas are probably deviating from the gaudIya point of view, and probably even from their own guru bhaktivedAnta prabhupada.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ghari quotes the following from A.C. Bhaktivedanta's writings:

 

 

Dharma is not actually manufactured by NArAyaNa.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear here that ACBSP is saying what Madhva has said all along - that Lord is not the creator/author of Vedic dharma.

 

 

As stated in the Vedas, asya mahato bhUtasya nizvasitam etad yad Rg-vedaH iti: the injunctions of dharma emanate from the breathing of NArAyaNa, the supreme living entity. NArAyaNa exists eternally and breathes eternally, and therefore dharma, the injunctions of NArAyaNa, also exist eternally.

 

 

This is precisely the viewpoint of other Vaishnava AcAryas. That breathing emanates from nArAyaNa does not mean He created that breathing. It comes from Him, but it exists eternally. Thus, from Lord Vedas are manifested, but not that Lord created the Vedas.

 

 

SrIla MadhvAcArya, the original AcArya for those who belong to the MAdhva-GauDIya-sampradAya, says:

 

 

 

Again, if gaudIyas disagreed with Madhva regarding Veda-apaurusheyatva, when why do they quote from Madhva on this point? Apparently, gaudIyas do agree with him on this point. Theist and others who speak of "authorship of Vedas" are probably just talking their own misunderstandings.

 

[Guest guest]

 

I am now aware of any gaudIya AcAryas differing from Madhva with regards

 

 

I meant to say "I am NOT aware of any gaudIya AcAryas differing...."

 

[Guest guest]

The name of Krishna on the lips of the supreme Lord (Sri Caitanya) had the power

of making all persons, who heard it, realize the truth of whom they had been told

by the scriptures. This was a most marvelous experience.

 

In this Iron Age it is only the name of Krishna appearing on lips of a bona fide

sadhu who can lift the conditioned soul to the plane of the absolute. As a matter of

fact even the scriptures also can only faintly describe the personality Godhead. The

mere study of the scriptures can convey no full knowledge of the absolute as

substantive entity. The name Krishna has the power to put the person on the

absolute plane and endow the words of the revealed scriptures with their living

meaning.

 

On the plane of the absolute all entities serve Godhead in infinite variety of forms

and run harmoniously into, instead of clashing against, one another. Division of the

person who once hears the name of Krishna undergoes this marvelous change. He

can only then really believe in Godhead because he understands and sees whom he

is to serve. He becomes in the substantive sense a bona fide theist or Vaisnava. -

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

 

[Guest guest]

 

This contradicts what Prabhupada wrote earlier about nArAyaNa not being the manufacturer of dharma (quoted by Ghari). However, since I'm sure you aren't implying that Prabhupada contradicts himself, allow me to suggest that Prabhupada is trying to connote the relationship of "dependence" rather than literal "authorship" here.

 

 

Why don't you give the same benefit of the doubt to others who have used the word author here instead of trying to look for faults and ridicule them as fools. It has already been mention by several people in this thread that they accept Krishna to be the source of the Vedas, yet this is beyond time as the Vedas are eternal.

 

Instead of seeing what they wrote you want to jump up and down like a monkey any time you see someone even faintly suggest Krishna is the author of the Vedas. If Prabhupada has used the word, and you find no fault in it, then have the common decency to offer others the same benefit of doubt rather than ridiculing them as fools.

 

As Theist has pointed out above, one of the dictionary definitions of author is "Source". Krishna is the author of the Vedas, as he is the source of the Vedas. Learn to read what people are saying before launching your tirade about the foolishness of others. Do you think you are the only one who is smart enough to realize the Vedas are eternal?

 

Next time you see someone say Krishna is the author of the Vedas, you should think before you speak, unless you would be willing to ridicule Prabhupada for using the same words.

[Guest guest]

 

Why don't you give the same benefit of the doubt to others who have used the word author here instead of trying to look for faults and ridicule them as fools. It has already been mention by several people in this thread that they accept Krishna to be the source of the Vedas, yet this is beyond time as the Vedas are eternal.

 

 

 

I have not ridiculed anyone. The problem with you is that you want so strongly to believe in something, yet you have no interest in verifying the basis of what you believe, and on top of that you are hostile to anyone and everyone who differs with you, even if what they say is what you are supposed to accept based on what your own guru teaches.

 

This thread only became this long because the "pro-authorship" vAdis insisted that this position was faith-based, and repeatedly made various pointless arguments to try and defend their position, which as it turns out, does not appear to be their guru's position after all. They should have the honesty to retract their statements, instead of crucifying those who have been trying to correct them all this time.

 

I don't need your respect, but I object to your villifying anyone simply because you have been proven wrong.

 

 

As Theist has pointed out above, one of the dictionary definitions of author is "Source". Krishna is the author of the Vedas, as he is the source of the Vedas. Learn to read what people are saying before launching your tirade about the foolishness of others. Do you think you are the only one who is smart enough to realize the Vedas are eternal?

 

 

No, now here you go again. Something that is "created" is not eternal. This is common sense. A thing cannot be "created" if it was already existing. This is common sense.

 

Vedas being eternal (existing always in past and always in future) logically precludes the possibility of their being created. Again - common sense. If you cannot agree on this point, then there is no scope for future discussion. There must be some mutual acceptance of basic, common sense before any dialogue proceeds.

 

Theist is confusing "source" in his dictionary definition with the concept of "source" from the discussion of nArAyaNa breathing out the Vedas. Someone who authors something is certainly its source; it does not follow that someone who is the source of a thing is therefore its creator. Here is a simple analogy, if you can shed your short temper long enough to try and understand it. If I have an apple in my hand and throw it, the person who caught it can correctly say that it came from me. I was the source of the thrown apple. Yet, it does not follow that I created that apple.

 

Similarly, nArAyaNa does not create the Vedas. He simply breathes out the Vedas so that they can be learned by others beginning with brahmA. That Vedas go into nArAyaNa does not mean that they cease to exist, anymore than jIvas cease to exist after being merged into body of nArAyaNa at the end of pralaya. All these things continue to exist, and with the beginning of the world's creation, they are sent forth again and again.

 

There is no sense in which the Lord is literally the "author" of the Vedas, because to literally be the author of the Vedas means to bring them into existence when they did not exist before. This contradicts the idea of Vedas being eternal. Similarly, the Lord is not literally the creator of the jIvas for the same reason.

 

Please note again, that the original question was why something is scripture, to which a response was given based on Vaishnava VedAnta principles (since this is presumably a Vaishnava forum, though seeing the indiscriminate hostility towards Vaishnava point of view, I'm beginning to wonder about that now) - Vedas are scripture because they are apaurusheya, not being authored by anyone. The logic of unauthoredness in this context was briefly discussed, along with the logical fallacies of contrary points of view holding that they are the authored works of Lord Vishnu. It was also pointed out that the Vedas themselves do not describe themselves as being the authored work of anyone.

 

Many of the arguments to the contrary have been poorly thought out or frankly evasive. The common denominator behind all of them, seems to be hostility to any view not immediately recognized as one's own or that of one's guru. These individuals have not considered the possibility that their understanding of their guru was incorrect in the first place, and furthermore are quite intolerant of anyone who differs from their guru. So, they have launched all kinds of assaults which have served to lengthen this thread, prompting further comments by them to the effect that we are being too argumentative, etc.

 

In fact, we have answered the original question of Theist and defended it with the same logical arguments given by Sri Madhva. If certain individuals would learn to think about what is written rather than sinking into cultish "us-them" mentality, it would be of benefit for all.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

No, now here you go again. Something that is "created" is not eternal. This is common sense. A thing cannot be "created" if it was already existing. This is common sense.

 

 

Krishna is the source of everything including Vishnu, Balarama, the Avatars, and the Vedas, and all of these things are eternal. Being the source has nothing to do with being the creator. Something that has no creator can still have a source

 

Krishna is the author of the Vedas, as Krishna is the source of the Vedas and the definition of author is "source". This has nothing to do with the Vedas being created.

 

The problem is your understanding of the word author is wrong. Your definition of author is in connection with creating something when this is not the only use of the word author. Author means "source", and Krishna is the source of the Vedas.

 

Yes, Krishna is the author of the Vedas, and the Vedas are eternal. Your criticism of people for using the word "author" in connection to the Vedas is a flaw on your part. Just as Prabhupada has described the Vedas in this way, others can describe them in this same way. I know it doesn't fit your one dimensional definition of authored, but thats a comprehension problem on your part.

[Guest guest]

 

The problem is your understanding of the word author is wrong. Your definition of author is in connection with creating something when this is not the only use of the word author. Author means "source", and Krishna is the source of the Vedas.

 

Yes, Krishna is the author of the Vedas, and the Vedas are eternal. Your criticism of people for using the word "author" in connection to the Vedas is a flaw on your part. Just as Prabhupada has described the Vedas in this way, others can describe them in this same way. I know it doesn't fit your one dimensional definition of authored, but thats a comprehension problem on your part.

 

 

 

To author something means to create it. This is the standard definition of the word, for those who speak English.

 

Webster's defines "author" as follow:

 

au·thor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôthr)

n.

1.

a. The writer of a book, article, or other text.

b. One who practices writing as a profession.

2. One who writes or constructs an electronic document or system, such as a website.

3. An originator or creator, as of a theory or plan.

 

 

Please note definition #1, the "writer" of a book. Webster's defines "write" as "To compose"

 

Please note in particular definition #3 - the sense of creating is implicit in the definition. I hope you are able to understand and read a dictionary - please don't again pull out "originator" out of context and suggest that this actually refers to a "noncreation origination." The sense of creation is clear within this definition.

 

Proposing that Vedas have an author, and then redefining the word "author" as you have done, is nothing more than a slippery attempt by you to insert your own idea while trying to save face.

 

It was explained that Vishnu was not the author of the Vedas, but was the origin from which the Vedas were manifest. Similarly, it was explained multiple times that Vishnu does not create the Vedas. Logical arguments were given explaining why this is the case. The pro-authorship vAdis were well aware of these explanations given by us. If they truly agree that Vishnu did not create the Vedas, then there would be no conflict. Instead, they tried to propose that He did create them, and when this idea was defeated, they then redefined the word and pretended that actually they meant "author" in some secondary sense all along. So in that case, why did they not agree with us in the first place that Vishnu clearly did not create Vedas?

 

The answer of course, is that they do not agree. They are still trying to propose that Vishnu is the creator of everything, just as God is creator of everything in Judeo-Christian religions. Only now that they have lost the argument, they are redefining "author" so as to give their argument credibility. But if we disappear, they will again revert to the primary sense of "author" and again propose that Vishnu composed the Vedas.

 

In the final analysis, these individuals need to stop applying foreign concepts of creation and origination to Vedas and VedAnta, and should instead learn about them on their own merits. It is understandable that, raised in a different religious tradition, one initially tries to apply those concepts to this one. But when one is informed of the correct position, one should stop arguing in such an obstinate manner and accept the vedAntic position as it is - without superimposing some non-vedAntic concept of "God is the composer of the Vedas" and other nonsense.

 

[Guest guest]

 

To author something means to create it. This is the standard definition of the word, for those who speak English.

 

 

No, this is only one definition of the word. Here are some other definitions for the word:

 

Main Entry: [1]au·thor

Pronunciation: 'o-th&r

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English auctour, from Old North French, from Latin auctor promoter, originator, author, from augEre to increase —more at EKE

14th century

1 a : one that originates or creates : SOURCE b : capitalized : GOD 1

2 : the writer of a literary work (as a book)

- au·tho·ri·al /o-'thOr-E-&l, -'thor-/ adjective

 

 

Definition: \Au"thor\ ([add]"th[~e]r), n. [OE. authour, autour, OF.

autor, F. auteur, fr. L. auctor, sometimes, but erroneously,

written autor or author, fr. augere to increase, to produce.

See {Auction}, n.]

 

1. The beginner, former, or first mover of anything; hence,

the efficient cause of a thing; a creator; an originator.

 

Eternal King; thee, Author of all being. --Milton.

 

2. One who composes or writes a book; a composer, as

distinguished from an editor, translator, or compiler.

 

The chief glory of every people arises from its

authors. --Johnson.

 

3. The editor of a periodical. [Obs.]

 

4. An informant. [Archaic] --Chaucer.

 

 

\Au"thor\ ([add]"th[~e]r), v. t.

1. To occasion; to originate. [Obs.]

 

Such an overthrow . . . I have authored. --Chapman.

 

2. To tell; to say; to declare. [Obs.]

 

More of him I dare not author. --Massinger.

 

Krishna is the source of everything, including the Vedas. I will have to agree with Prabhupada and say "The author of the Vedas is the Personality of Godhead Himself."

 

You may interpret that to mean I am saying Krishna wrote the Vedas at a particular time in history. That is your personal misunderstanding.

 

Krishna is the efficient cause of everything, including the incarnations, his expansions, the jivas and the Vedas.

[Guest guest]

 

You have written:-

 

P(x) = x is authored

Q(x) = x has the reputation of being unauthored

 

then we can state the above assertion as:

P(x) => ~Q(x), where ~ means "not" and => means "then"

 

 

What do you mean by "x has the reputation of being unauthored"? As I understand, it means that people believe x to be unauthored. If this is so, then I do not agree with your conclusion P(x) => ~Q(x), because this is the same as saying that if x is authored, then people cannot believe it to be unauthored. But, this is not so. It is possible for something to be authored but still there are people who believe that it is unauthored.

 

 

 

Q(x) is not based on belief. It is based on observation. The observation is that there are non-disputed oral traditions considering their shruti to be unauthored which can be verified independently by other paramparas. Because it is asking for too much that there will not be any dispute even when somebody has come up with a claim that a previously unknown work is shruti. Just look at what happened to "Chaitanya upanishad. To get a feel about what is being said, you should get up from your computer chair and go on foot in India to check out the details for yourself.

 

Therefore:-

 

It is possible for something to be authored but still there are people who believe that it is unauthored.

 

 

 

It is not possible for something to be authored but still there is a non-disputable inter-parampara reputation of the oral tradition's claim that their particular recitation is unauthored.

[Guest guest]

 

It is not possible for something to be authored but still there is a non-disputable inter-parampara reputation of the oral tradition's claim that their particular recitation is unauthored.

 

 

 

To continue further. If you still want to contest the implication P(x) => ~Q(x)

 

Take a work that has a author, and try to establish its reputation amongst the other traditions that your particular work is unauthored. What the above implication is saying, is that based on empirical data, you will *always* fail in your effort just like you will *always* fail in finding a rabbit with a horn.

[Guest guest]

 

Theirs is a different sampradAya. No doubt there are differences with respect to Madhva on a number of issues, and possibly similarity on others.

 

However, my point was, I am now aware of any gaudIya AcAryas differing from Madhva with regards to his point of view on apaurusheyatva. Consequently, people in ISKCON should not disagree with him on this point, unless they think themselves more enlightened than their own pUrvAcAryas.

 

None of the Sat-gosvAmIs criticized Madhva's logic in viSNutattvavinirNaya, so we must assume they accept it by default, as they do share a paramparA and at least formal (if not doctrinal) allegiance.

 

My feeling is that the individuals here who assert authorship to Vedas are probably deviating from the gaudIya point of view, and probably even from their own guru bhaktivedAnta prabhupada.

 

 

 

Actually the gaudiya scenario is a more complicated than that. ISKCON is a small part of the gaudiya family. There are a number of factions who do not accept any connection with Madhva. Persons who have recent affiliations to these *other* factions claim with impunity that "Belief in God has to be based on (blind) faith; there is no other way." This is not to say that the gurus in these other lineages concur with such assertions, however it is quite clear that "apaurusheytva of the veda" is not discussed at all leaving the field open for all kinds of speculation to float around in recent times.

 

Of course, if one is not knowledgeable about certain things, one is expected to withhold one's opinion before he has conducted a through research about the subject matter, however, it seems that this methodology is applicable only in the case where it benefits their own beliefs and other things are left to casual judgement.

[Guest guest]

 

Actually the gaudiya scenario is a more complicated than that. ISKCON is a small part of the gaudiya family. There are a number of factions who do not accept any connection with Madhva.

 

 

I'm not exactly clear on what these "other factions" have to offer in justification of their view. Baladeva vidyAbhUSana is the vedAnta AcArya of the sect, and he claims in his Prameya RatnAvali that their sampradAya is in the same line as Madhva. The same sampradAya listing is given by Sri Kavi Karnapura in his Gaurangganodesha dIpika.

 

 

Persons who have recent affiliations to these *other* factions claim with impunity that "Belief in God has to be based on (blind) faith; there is no other way."

 

 

And similarly, they make strange arguments like, "well, how do you know this world is real and not a dream?" Just see the "How do I know all this is true?" thread. No doubt there are some basic misconceptions they have with respect to epistemology and logic. However, I think you do them too much credit in suggesting that this is due to allegiance with the so-called "other factions." In fact, I suspect these individuals are simply rank-and-file ISKCON devotees who don't bother to think about what they read. In many cases, I notice that ISKCON devotees are quite uncomfortable with scrutinizing their beliefs, almost as if by doing so they will find faults they do not want to see.

 

 

This is not to say that the gurus in these other lineages concur with such assertions, however it is quite clear that "apaurusheytva of the veda" is not discussed at all leaving the field open for all kinds of speculation to float around in recent times.

 

 

Well, when Madhva has stated the case so clearly, why is there any need for gaudIyas to say it again? I do not believe gaudIyas have discussed the case in depth, and based on their formal allegiance to Madhva I would conclude that they would agree with him except in all matters where they have explicitly disagreed in their writings. Perhaps there are many disagreements (i.e. "kRSNas tu bhagavAn svayaM" etc) but I can't see why they would disagree on such a basic point as Veda-apaurusheyatva.

 

I don't think it's their fault that the GaudIya-Gosvamis didn't forsee the misconceptions people in ISKCON would promote in their name.

 

 

Of course, if one is not knowledgeable about certain things, one is expected to withhold one's opinion before he has conducted a through research about the subject matter, however, it seems that this methodology is applicable only in the case where it benefits their own beliefs and other things are left to casual judgement.

 

 

 

Quite true. Unfortunately, the mentality of "I'm a devotee of Krishna, my guru is so-and-so, therefore I can say and do whatever I want" is quite prevalent. Equally prevalent is the idea that, "because I'm a devotee of Krishna, the regulations of sAstra don't apply to me." How can we even begin to pierce this? It seems that some people are just hell bent on bringing a bad name to their guru.

 

 

 

[ancient_paztriot]

"And similarly, they make strange arguments like, "well, how do you know this world is real and not a dream?" Just see the "How do I know all this is true?" thread. No doubt there are some basic misconceptions they have with respect to epistemology and logic. "

 

Well, what are the basic misconceptions? And "why" is it blind faith? You can't say.

 

You have ignored my many posts before. You don't directly debate. All you do is name call and chant you're right. Obviously, you're perfecting this Vedic prediction: one who is audacious will be accepted as truthful (SB 12.2.6)… or trying too. I think that political trash works with the ignorant public. It doesn't work here. You're like a blind man telling us there's no sun.

 

You've been invited to offer a 'sober' view. Instead, you opt to act like a child under the cloak of adult language, albiet superficial with no substance. You can't really say why you know, just that I'm so "Knooooowwwinnngg". I mean we don't brainwash so easy.

 

I personally think your consciousness is no better than a dog's visiting a church. You're blindly serving a useless agenda.

 

I am going to expose such lowly creatures as you with a website full of spiritual perspectives. And I'm going to do it with deadly precision. Stop me if you can.

 

What did Prabhupada say? …The problem with a fool is he thinks everyone is like himself.

[Guest guest]

 

"And similarly, they make strange arguments like, "well, how do you know this world is real and not a dream?" Just see the "How do I know all this is true?" thread. No doubt there are some basic misconceptions they have with respect to epistemology and logic. "

 

Well, what are the basic misconceptions? And "why" is it blind faith? You can't say.

 

 

 

Madhva has written in viSNutattvavinirNaya (20):

 

aduSTamindriyaM tvakSaM tarko'duSTastathAnumA

 

"The senses eye, ear etc., free from the defects constitute Pratyaksha, Tarka i.e. AnumAna free from the fallacies is inference."

 

The idea that one cannot trust one's own senses is very much a mAyAvAdi idea. Vaishnavas, by contrast, use both the senses and logic to get at the correct understanding of shruti, and in so doing they refute many mAyAvAdi misconceptions which are based on either inappropriately literal interpreations or inappropriately indirect interpretations, both of which fly in the fact of experience.

 

The reality of the world requires no specific proof to establish. One can accept one's own reality and the reality of what he perceives. How to interpret that reality (that is, what is it all meant for?) is another matter. But its basic reality is not to be contested, unless of course, one is a mAyAvAdi.

 

 

You have ignored my many posts before. You don't directly debate. All you do is name call and chant you're right.

 

 

So I name call do I? Not that you have quoted a specific example of my alleged name-calling. On the other hand, let's see what lovely adjectives you have reserved for me:

 

 

Obviously, you're perfecting this Vedic prediction: one who is audacious will be accepted as truthful (SB 12.2.6)… or trying too. I think that political trash works with the ignorant public. It doesn't work here. You're like a blind man tellisn us there's no sun.

 

I personally think your consciousness is no better than a dog's visiting a church.

 

I am going to expose such lowly creatures as you with a website full of spiritual perspectives. And I'm going to do it with deadly precision.

 

What did Prabhupada say? …The problem with a fool is he thinks everyone is like himself.

 

 

The above sadly supports what I have always observed about ISKCON devotees - they are so quick to attack that they will even lash out at anyone and everyone, even Vaishnavas, with whom they claim to share common ground.

 

Of course, the mere fact that I have dared to disagree with an ISKCON devotee automatically means that I am not a Vaishnava, that I am envious or offensive, this or that, etc. It's easier to label than it is to think. The problem with the latter is that one might realize one has misunderstood his own guru, and propagated his misunderstandings as truth. And we can't have that now can we? Because then we would have to apologize to those whom we have ostracized on the basis of such misunderstandings, and we can't let anyone see us do that.... no siree.... we are ISKCON devotees! Everything we say is Veda!

 

[ancient_paztriot]

As far as my name calling, you've earned it with your duplicitious behavior. II've been honestly stating your postion - or lack of one. You say, I say. The evidence is here. People can turn back and look for their own summation.

 

I'm not going to get sucked into this argument on a personal level. It is useless to do so and I don't feel threatened enough to bother. Besides, when the dialogue degenerates, no one learns anything and ultimately one is satisfied beyond the cheap thrill of watching a fight.

 

We all know the position of this impersonal gibberish and the hypocrites who expouse it. I personally don't care much what envious snakes think.

 

To persist in this is simply to indulge in the false-ego. When these battles become personal, it is about ego and not the knowledge or positions.

 

By the way, I'm not intimidated by impersonal phylosophy at all. I simply discarded that option many years ago. It is the useless philosophy of fools.

 

You're not gonna change me or any Krsna devotee here with an impersonal agenda. But you already know that. After all, most of us are just those arrogant Hare Krsnas

 

I feel you have not been earnest in really preaching your philosophy. You don't have the passion to preach such philosophy. I suspect you don't even know it. So what are you doing here? …Just another pretext to play your foolish game.

 

Right or wrong, I'll keep my faith and attitudes I can better explain. Now that doesn't really matter to you, does it?

[Guest guest]

Ancient Paztriot,

 

Instead of calling me names and then lying about who said what to whom, please answer me this basic question:

 

Do you agree with MadhvAcArya or not?

 

 

 

[ancient_paztriot]

I am not interested in the conversation.

 

You don't address my points, I don't care for yours.

 

If someone wants to debate it with you. Fine. I won't cause trouble.

[Guest guest]

 

I'm not exactly clear on what these "other factions" have to offer in justification of their view. Baladeva vidyAbhUSana is the vedAnta AcArya of the sect, and he claims in his Prameya RatnAvali that their sampradAya is in the same line as Madhva. The same sampradAya listing is given by Sri Kavi Karnapura in his Gaurangganodesha dIpika.

 

 

 

Actually ISKCON represents a section of gaudiya vaishnavas who do give a clear prominence to baladeva vidyAbhUSana, at least formally, even if not knowing what he said. There is another conglomerate, calling themselves "orthodox" who, it seems (to me), are not very enthusiastic about the vedAnta teachings of the sampradaya. Vedanta is pursued as far as it is of some value to their primary objective of rasa theology. Some recent intellectuals have joined that camp. Infact, they have rationalized all references which state gaudiya sampradaya being a part of madhva sampradaya, to have a common source which is somewhat problematic and hence, in all probabilities, not true.

 

 

And similarly, they make strange arguments like, "well, how do you know this world is real and not a dream?" Just see the "How do I know all this is true?" thread. No doubt there are some basic misconceptions they have with respect to epistemology and logic. However, I think you do them too much credit in suggesting that this is due to allegiance with the so-called "other factions." In fact, I suspect these individuals are simply rank-and-file ISKCON devotees who don't bother to think about what they read. In many cases, I notice that ISKCON devotees are quite uncomfortable with scrutinizing their beliefs, almost as if by doing so they will find faults they do not want to see.

 

 

 

And this was what I was trying to say, that, ISKCON devotees can be more easily convinced about madhva's arguments, because they are convinced about their formal connection to madhva. About the behaviour pattern of the rank-and-file devotees in ISKCON, I consider it to be an initial display of (over) enthusiasm on finding a new conception of God.

 

What is actually of concern is that the "other camp" has presented its support to things such as dating of veda, man from monkey, russian invasion forming basis of aryan society etc. In fact, they are of the view that anybody having a contrary opinion is a "religious zealot". And they stamp their opinion as having come from persons decorated with PhDs and D Litts. It was very surprising to me that they can promote the above ideas on one hand and pursue such an intricate theology on the other. It dawned on me, however, that such an approach was an easy escape route for rationalizing one's (and thus everybody's) beliefs to have basis in nothing other than faith. Then you have no one questioning you. When the need occurs, they will go as far as challenging their own pUrvAchAryas with arguments from speculative disciplines. However, as I stated, this is a recent phenomenon, with a large number of intellectuals joining that brigade.

 

 

Well, when Madhva has stated the case so clearly, why is there any need for gaudIyas to say it again? I do not believe gaudIyas have discussed the case in depth, and based on their formal allegiance to Madhva I would conclude that they would agree with him except in all matters where they have explicitly disagreed in their writings. Perhaps there are many disagreements (i.e. "kRSNas tu bhagavAn svayaM" etc) but I can't see why they would disagree on such a basic point as Veda-apaurusheyatva.

 

I don't think it's their fault that the GaudIya-Gosvamis didn't forsee the misconceptions people in ISKCON would promote in their name.

 

 

 

During the time of the Sad-gosvAmis, veda apaurusheytva was an unstated axiom, thus there was no need for any explicit mention by anybody. (However since madhva was starting from the first principles, he made it explicit.) In fact, this is not a requirement if one goes one generation up. However, because of the recent *large* inflow of western preconceptions, things are changing.

 

 

Quite true. Unfortunately, the mentality of "I'm a devotee of Krishna, my guru is so-and-so, therefore I can say and do whatever I want" is quite prevalent. Equally prevalent is the idea that, "because I'm a devotee of Krishna, the regulations of sAstra don't apply to me." How can we even begin to pierce this? It seems that some people are just hell bent on bringing a bad name to their guru.

 

 

 

Another argument, is that, beliefs have to be *necessarily* based on (blind) faith. Once this is established, one is relieved from being answerable for one's beliefs.

[Guest guest]

 

And this was what I was trying to say, that, ISKCON devotees can be more easily convinced about madhva's arguments, because they are convinced about their formal connection to madhva. About the behaviour pattern of the rank-and-file devotees in ISKCON, I consider it to be an initial display of (over) enthusiasm on finding a new conception of God.

 

 

 

Just now, I quoted in several instances Madhva's views on Veda-apaurusheyatva. In response to this, "Ancient_Paztriot," an obvious ISKCON devotee by his tone and demeanor, ignored all such references and merely accused me of not saying anything in response to his "arguments." When I again requested him to state clearly whether or not he agreed with Madhva, he again ignored the evidence I quoted from viSNutattvavinirNaya.

 

So if ISKCON devotees are supposed to accept Madhva and Baladeva vidyAbhUSana, then why do they go out of their way to disagree with the ideas promoted by these two exalted scholars? Either they are disagreeing, or they are evasive about the fact that they disagree.

 

Paztriot and others like him still believe Vishnu created the Vedas, even though they have no evidence to support this position. Indeed, Ghari quoted their own guru showing that he considered Vedas to be unauthored by Vishnu, and still in spite of this they continue to promote the "authored-Veda" idea.

 

Basically, they ended up disagreeing with their own guru. But rather than consider this, they instead attack anyone who disagrees with them. I really am unclear as to how this sort of behavior is accepted as "bona fide, Krishna-consciousness." Basically yell at anyone who disagrees, and by so doing, feel self-righteous and holy.

 

If these are the supposedly "real" gaudIya vaiSNavas, then I shudder to think about the alternative - the self-proclaimed orthodoxy you referred to. I assume you are referring to the likes of Raga and Gaurachandra, whose arguments I have also seen, and who frankly seem confused and inconsistent to me. For example, it was requested of them to clarify whether their connection with Madhva was real or not. Gaurachandra brushed aside the mAdhva connection because to admit otherwise would be to acknowledge that their pUrvAcAryas have listed a paramparA without all dIkSa connections as he claims is the norm for his sampradAya. But then when it was pointed out the gaudIya view that one should come in one of the four cardinal sampradAyas or else his mantras were useless, he was strangely silent on the matter. Nor did Raga have anything further to say on it. So, on one hand, the listing of a connection to Madhva is not important in determining precedent of guru-shishya succession. But it is important in determining legitimacy of one's received mantras? This is an example of the kind of confused and inconsistent thinking (or lack thereof) that seems to characterize the modern-day gaudIya sampradAya, in which no one agrees with each other, nor do they have any idea what it is they want to believe.

 

My question is, did I read the Gosvamis wrong in thinking that they actually had a more intelligent and thoughtful religious tradition to begin with, or is the soppy sentimentalism of people like Ancient_Paztriot, Gaurachandra, etc really the bottom line when it comes to GaudIya VaiSNavism? Are thinking and Gaudiya Vaishnavism mutually exclusive as Paztriot and others lead me to believe?

 

 

During the time of the Sad-gosvAmis, veda apaurusheytva was an unstated axiom, thus there was no need for any explicit mention by anybody. (However since madhva was starting from the first principles, he made it explicit.) In fact, this is not a requirement if one goes one generation up. However, because of the recent *large* inflow of western preconceptions, things are changing.

 

 

I wonder if Ancient_Paztriot also thinks, like a certain scholar on the internet, that Vedas originally existed in a pre-Sanskrit Indo-European language. I wonder why he is so reluctant to state his views on this matter, and I am beginning to think this might be why.

 

It makes me wonder what else the iskcon devotees believe. Certainly we have seen many imaginative ideas here. Such as for example:

1) Jesus is an incarnation of Krishna

2) Cow-protection is a Hindu principle, there is nothing wrong with people from other religions killing and eating cows.

3) The only parts of the Vedas which are acceptable as authority are those parts which my guru has accepted

4) Because my guru has said something, everyone else should automatically accept it, no attempt to present evidence is required.

5) You have to come in my paramparA, which has an unbroken line of connection to Krishna, in order to be "bona fide." But actually many of the connections in the paramparA don't matter when it come to determining what is acceptable in our paramparA.

 

etc etc

 

 

Another argument, is that, beliefs have to be *necessarily* based on (blind) faith. Once this is established, one is relieved from being answerable for one's beliefs.

 

 

 

This is a distinctly ISKCON-flavored argument. "My beliefs are based on faith, so I don't have to justify them with evidence. The fact that I have faith in them makes them true." Sounds like Christianity to me.

 

 

[gHari]

<blockquote>"My beliefs are based on faith, so I don't have to justify them with evidence. The fact that I have faith in them makes them true." </blockquote>

 

I know I should give a damn about what everybody else thinks, but really, bottom line, what I know and how I know it are my own affair. I know I should feel compassion for others, but sometimes it's just too gritty to juggle words back and forth; the evil emotions on the screen are just not part of my life. Sometimes I feel inclined to give hints, but most times I'm inclined to just walk away. Like now.

 

If someone doesn't like what I believe in or think I know, then that's okay, but it's not my concern. I know I should not be so damn independent and arrogant, but life is short, and it is mine. If you want some of what I got, fine; if not, fine too. Let's just not waste a lot of time and good times worrying about my mind.

 

As I die, the bickering will be farthest from my mind. That which I know will be with me always, hopefully at that point and beyond. Both my fans and my critics are just passing through. My truth, my heart are mine and I'll be damned if anyone is going to demand that I syllogize the whole damn thing to accomodate their obsession for words.

 

gHari

[Guest guest]

 

My truth, my heart are mine and I'll be damned if anyone is going to demand that I syllogize the whole damn thing to accomodate their obsession for words.

 

 

 

That's all right if its your private affair. But if somebody comes up with a why, isn't it better to be truthful and say "I don't know!". And for those who do have an answer, why denounce them as "obsessed with words"!!!