Some random observations !
Ramesh Raghav
I am submitting an article which may please be published at the
earliest.
Thanx
Ramesh
======================================================================
Some random observations ! :
Advaita is not considered a Vaishnava school but rather a
Monistic system of philosophy.
The other Vaishnava school not mentioned is that of Vallabha's.
Gaudiya may be considered as an extension of the Dvaita school
but prevalent more in the northern parts of India. Infact the
followers of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are called Gaudiya Madhvas
and many of their great saints and scholars have paid glowing
tributes to the stalwarts of the Madhva school like
Vyasatheertha, Raghavendratheertha etc. The Bheda Srutis are
expounded identically by both the schools and the doctrine of
'Panchabheda' is central to either of them.
Vaishnavism is going global thanx to the monumental efforts of an
awesome organization like ISCKON. But any Vaishnava also becomes
a Hindu as a natural corollary.
You had correctly pointed out that Vaishnavism is beyond the
barriers of caste, creed, color, sex, age, geo-political limits,
status etc. It has Universal appeal as is being proved amply now.
Ramesh Raghav
(Ramesh...@kellogg.com)
======================================================================
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.20, 11/28/95
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Shrisha Rao
Ramesh Raghav <Ramesh...@kellogg.com> wrote:
[*chomp*]
> Advaita is not considered a Vaishnava school but rather a
> Monistic system of philosophy.
Depends on whom you ask, I think. It is true that hardcore Advaita
such as GauDapaada's is not Vaishnava, but Shankara's and others' work
is often different. And there certainly are practicing Vaishnavas who
consider themselves Advaitis (and vice versa).
> The other Vaishnava school not mentioned is that of Vallabha's.
Not mentioned? Where?
> Gaudiya may be considered as an extension of the Dvaita school
> but prevalent more in the northern parts of India. Infact the
> followers of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are called Gaudiya Madhvas
I don't think the last is true; I have never heard anyone being called
a Gaudiya Maadhva. As re the Gaudiya tradition being an "extension of
the Dvaita school," it seems to me that the "extension" is more in
terms of tradition (a historical link with some scholar of that
school) than philosophy (close study of and/or adherence to said
school's works).
> and many of their great saints and scholars have paid glowing
> tributes to the stalwarts of the Madhva school like
> Vyasatheertha, Raghavendratheertha etc.
This I doubt very much. At least the adjective "many." Maybe one or a
few, perhaps. At most.
> The Bheda Srutis are
> expounded identically by both the schools and the doctrine of
> 'Panchabheda' is central to either of them.
So how are the abheda Shrutis expounded (differently) by them? :-)
Actually, although I'm not aware of the Gaudiya position, it is
claimed by Maadhvas that there is no such thing as an abheda Shruti --
"na hi kashchidapi abhedaagamaH; santi cha bhede sarvaagamaaH": all
Shrutis propound bheda only, which means "bheda" Shruti is a redundant
qualification. The terms "bheda Shruti" and "abheda Shruti" are used
by Advaita, and by Maadhvas while discussing Advaita positions.
It is true that the principle of "pancha-bheda" is central to
Tattvavaada; I have also heard it claimed that this does not conflict
with the Gaudiya position -- however, I am not aware that any Gaudiya
text states this as one of the tenets of their doctrine, much less the
central one. The acceptance of bhedaabheda is, from a Tattvavaada
perspective, incompatible with the acceptance of pancha-bheda.
> Vaishnavism is going global thanx to the monumental efforts of an
> awesome organization like ISCKON. But any Vaishnava also becomes
> a Hindu as a natural corollary.
I don't see how the last follows...
> You had correctly pointed out that Vaishnavism is beyond the
> barriers of caste, creed, color, sex, age, geo-political limits,
> status etc. It has Universal appeal as is being proved amply now.
Whom is the above addressed to, one wonders?
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Ramesh Raghav
>
> (Ramesh...@kellogg.com)
Vijay Sadananda Pai
Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>In article <4eocv8$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Ramesh Raghav <Ramesh...@kellogg.com> wrote:
>> Advaita is not considered a Vaishnava school but rather a
>> Monistic system of philosophy.
>Depends on whom you ask, I think. It is true that hardcore Advaita
>such as GauDapaada's is not Vaishnava, but Shankara's and others' work
>is often different.
>And there certainly are practicing Vaishnavas who
>consider themselves Advaitis (and vice versa).
Right, but I've seen a lot of Shankara's bhakti works (like
Lakshmi-Nrsimha stotra, Bhaja Govindam, GovindaaShTakam, etc)
classified separately from his advaita works; once again, I guess the
fundamental thing is "Depends on whom you ask"...
>> The other Vaishnava school not mentioned is that of Vallabha's.
>Not mentioned? Where?
"Not mentioned in the FAQ" is what I assume he meant -- neither Vallabha
nor Nimbaarka is mentioned, though each has a unique philosophical
and historical traditions. However, the FAQ does not _exclude_ these
traditions, it just fails to mention them for some reason or another.
Probably that's a flaw, but I haven't seen either group have any
presence on the Net, which would be very helpful in order to accurately
represent the group's position in the FAQ.
>> Gaudiya may be considered as an extension of the Dvaita school
>> but prevalent more in the northern parts of India. Infact the
>> followers of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are called Gaudiya Madhvas
>I don't think the last is true; I have never heard anyone being called
>a Gaudiya Maadhva.
Many Gaudiyas use the term Maadhva-Gaudiya. I have read that the term
"Gaudiya" was itself introduced by the followers of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu
to distinguish themselves from the Tattvavaadi segment of Madhva's
disciplic line.
>As re the Gaudiya tradition being an "extension of
>the Dvaita school," it seems to me that the "extension" is more in
>terms of tradition (a historical link with some scholar of that
>school) than philosophy (close study of and/or adherence to said
>school's works).
I have heard it explained this way too in the Gaudiya school -- there
is said to be bhedaabheda between the two schools (difference in
philosophy, similarity in parampara)
>> and many of their great saints and scholars have paid glowing
>> tributes to the stalwarts of the Madhva school like
>> Vyasatheertha, Raghavendratheertha etc.
>This I doubt very much. At least the adjective "many." Maybe one or a
>few, perhaps. At most.
As far as I know, all Gaudiyas would have a high opinion of Vyasatirtha,
Jayatirtha, and Sriman Madhva -- in particular, Baladeva Vidyabhusana
has explained the 9 tenets of dvaita-vaada as the fundamentals of
acintya-bhedaabheda-vaada as well, just in a different order.
>It is true that the principle of "pancha-bheda" is central to
>Tattvavaada; I have also heard it claimed that this does not conflict
>with the Gaudiya position -- however, I am not aware that any Gaudiya
>text states this as one of the tenets of their doctrine, much less the
>central one.
I've never seen it cited as the central one, either, but even on the WWW
I can find it as a tenet -- somewhere in the "World of Hare Krishna" in
the Philosophy section I just saw it today (without looking for it
specifically either)
The central messages of Srila Prabhupada and his ISKCON movement, though,
very concisely state at least 2 of those positions --
1) You are not this body
2) You are the servant of Krishna
-- the other 3 follow also from the books, but are not (to my knowledge)
as eloquently expressed.
>> You had correctly pointed out that Vaishnavism is beyond the
>> barriers of caste, creed, color, sex, age, geo-political limits,
>> status etc. It has Universal appeal as is being proved amply now.
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao
Yours,
Vijay
Shrisha Rao
Vijay Sadananda Pai <vija...@mandolin.rice.edu> wrote:
>In article <4etkqa$h...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
[*chomp*]
>>> The other Vaishnava school not mentioned is that of Vallabha's.
>
>>Not mentioned? Where?
>
>"Not mentioned in the FAQ" is what I assume he meant -- neither Vallabha
>nor Nimbaarka is mentioned, though each has a unique philosophical
>and historical traditions. However, the FAQ does not _exclude_ these
>traditions, it just fails to mention them for some reason or another.
Given that none of the people who worked on the FAQ is from the
Vallabha or the Nimbaaraka sampradaayas, it is quite possible that
those schools' perspectives have not been represented. However,
perhaps it would be as well to at least mention these sampradaayas by
name, along with the four already mentioned; that this has not been
done so far is due to oversight. A change will be made in the next
version.
>Probably that's a flaw, but I haven't seen either group have any
>presence on the Net, which would be very helpful in order to accurately
>represent the group's position in the FAQ.
Quite true. While working on the FAQ, one of our considerations was to
avoid conflicting with the tenets of any school; in some cases, where
a conflict was inevitable, the various positions were laid out in
brief.
If you would like to suggest any other changes or corrections to the
FAQ, please feel free to do so. However, as some of you who have been
in touch with me by e-mail know, I would much rather see any changes
or corrections being discussed on the newsgroup itself, before being
made. This is so that others besides you and I have a chance to
consider and (dis)approve of the changes before they are made. The FAQ
is a public document meant for the whole group, and it doesn't seem
right that it should be altered via a star-chamber discussion of a
select few. Some minor suggestions like modifications of the keyword
list, corrections of errors, etc., have been made after e-mail
discussion, but I have generally balked at correcting any of the
answers-to-questions-about-Vaishnavism unless the person suggesting is
willing to discuss it on the newsgroup.
michael tandy
>
>In article <4eocv8$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Ramesh Raghav <Ramesh...@kellogg.com> wrote:
>> Gaudiya may be considered as an extension of the Dvaita school
>> but prevalent more in the northern parts of India. Infact the
>> followers of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are called Gaudiya Madhvas
>
>I don't think the last is true; I have never heard anyone being called
>a Gaudiya Maadhva.
In most of the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Svami Prabhupada, one finds the term "Brahma-madhva-gaudiya
Vaisnava sampradaya", and the like. This is probably what
he was referring to.
>> and many of their great saints and scholars have paid glowing
>> tributes to the stalwarts of the Madhva school like
>> Vyasatheertha, Raghavendratheertha etc.
>
>This I doubt very much. At least the adjective "many." Maybe one or a
>few, perhaps.
In particular, there is Baladeva Vidyabhusana Thakura,
whose "Prameya-ratnavali" simply reiterates and advocates
the ten cardinal tenets of Dvaitavada, as expressed in
the famous "sriman-madhva-mate..." verse. I've pointed
this out before, but no one seemed interested in it. I
think it's really important, philosophically.
>It is true that the principle of "pancha-bheda" is central to
>Tattvavaada; I have also heard it claimed that this does not conflict
>with the Gaudiya position -- however, I am not aware that any Gaudiya
>text states this as one of the tenets of their doctrine, much less the
>central one.
See the above-mentioned book. Hare Krishna.
-m
Shrisha Rao
>In article <4etkqa$h...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Shrisha Rao
<sh...@nyx.net> says:
>>In article <4eocv8$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>>Ramesh Raghav <Ramesh...@kellogg.com> wrote:
[*chomp*]
>>> and many of their great saints and scholars have paid glowing
>>> tributes to the stalwarts of the Madhva school like
>>> Vyasatheertha, Raghavendratheertha etc.
>>This I doubt very much. At least the adjective "many." Maybe one or a
>>few, perhaps.
> In particular, there is Baladeva Vidyabhusana Thakura,
> whose "Prameya-ratnavali" simply reiterates and advocates
> the ten cardinal tenets of Dvaitavada, as expressed in
> the famous "sriman-madhva-mate..." verse. I've pointed
> this out before, but no one seemed interested in it. I
> think it's really important, philosophically.
Actually, there are nine tenets rather than ten, but more importantly, what
you are saying is different from what was previously said. The point
was not about the tenets, but about specific Maadhva scholars like
Vyaasa Tiirtha and Raghavendra Tiirtha being lauded by Gaudiya
scholars. I am not aware, even now, of this having happened.
About the Prameya-ratnaavaLi reiterating the tenets, that is of some
importance, yes; perhaps if someone could add some details about the
manner and extent of the reiteration given there, it would shed some
more light upon the subject.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
michael tandy
The point
>was not about the tenets, but about specific Maadhva scholars like
>Vyaasa Tiirtha and Raghavendra Tiirtha being lauded by Gaudiya
>scholars. I am not aware, even now, of this having happened.
Funny you should mention it; just last night I was reading a book
(Caitanya-mata Aur Braj Sahitya) which described the literature of the
Gaudiya-sampradaya in some detail. There was a list of Sanskrit works
as well, and this list began with Madhvacarya, and included
Padmanabhacarya, Naraharitirtha, Visnupuri, Vyasatirtha, Jayatirtha,
Trivikrama Pandita, Narayana Pandita, Vijayadhvaja, Vyasatirtha(2),
Vadirajatirtha, Raghavendratirtha, Visvapati, Padupatyacarya,
Ramacarya, Srinivasacarya, Laksmivara, Madhvendrapuri, Isvarapuri, and
Vidyaranyatirtha. I won't claim that the author (Prabhu Dayal Mital)
is a Gaudiya Vaisnava, but he clearly saw a connection with the
Gaudiya line important enough to mention all these acaryas.
-m
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.22, 2/6/96
Henry Groover
[*snip*]
>> In particular, there is Baladeva Vidyabhusana Thakura,
>> whose "Prameya-ratnavali" simply reiterates and advocates
>> the ten cardinal tenets of Dvaitavada, as expressed in
>> the famous "sriman-madhva-mate..." verse. I've pointed
>> this out before, but no one seemed interested in it. I
>> think it's really important, philosophically.
>
>Actually, there are nine tenets rather than ten, but more importantly, what
>was not about the tenets, but about specific Maadhva scholars like
>Vyaasa Tiirtha and Raghavendra Tiirtha being lauded by Gaudiya
>scholars. I am not aware, even now, of this having happened.
>
>importance, yes; perhaps if someone could add some details about the
>manner and extent of the reiteration given there, it would shed some
>more light upon the subject.
My apologies, first, for long ago having promised to begin posting
material from Prameya-ratnavali. I have in fact read through it;
it's not terribly long though it's rather concentrated.
Nine tenets or prameyas are discussed. Sri Haridas Shaastri, in his
scholarly Hindi commentary, mentions five out of these nine as
specific points of difference between Maadhva and Gaudiiya philosophy,
showing these tenets side by side as follows (and while I feel I
understand Sri Haridasa's mostly-Sanskrit Hindi pretty well,
I've included it here):
Sri Madhva's Philosophy Sri Chaitanya's philosophy
1. By 'Hari' is meant the By 'Hari' is meant Sri Krishna,
Lord of Vaikuntha etc. son of the King of Vraja.
sri hari-Sabda se vaikunthaadi sri hari-Sabda se sri-vrajendranandana
dhaamaadhi naayaka kaa bodha hii vaachya hai
hotaa hai
4. Lord Vishnu and the jiiva [They are] different yet inconceivably
(living entity) are at all non-different (?according to Sruti).
times separate (different).
Srii VishNu se jiiva sarvathaa bheda evaM ebheda-achintya hai
bhinna hai tarthaat Sruti pratipaadita hai
7. Attainment of the lotus Prema (ecstatic love) is the fifth
feet of Vishnu is liberation. goal of life (after dharma, artha,
kaama and moksha) and is [truly]
liberation.
vishNu paada-padma-laabha hii prema hii panchama purushaartha
moksha hai moksha hai
8. Devotion is the cause of That [most] pleasing worship of the
liberation. cowherd damsels of Vraja is the
true form of liberation and is
cause of ecstatic love (premaa).
bhakti hii moksha hetu vraja-vadhuu gaNakalpitaa ramyaa
upaasanaa hii moksharuupa premakaa
hetu hai
9. Sense perception, inference, The Vedas constitute Sabda-pramaana
and sound (Vedas) are (authority in sound) but are embodied
authoritative. in Sriimad-Bhaagavata-PuraaNa, which
is [thus] also authoritative.
pratyaksha, anumaana, Sabda Sabda-pramaaNa veda athavaa tat
pramaaNa, haiM svaruupa Sriimad-Bhaagavata PuraaNa
hii pramaaNa hai
A few quick notes:
- I know very little of Hindi, even basic prepositions, thus I've
quoted the original assuming I've gotten some of the translations
wrong.
- This is Sri Haridasa Shaastri's summary, not mine. I believe there
are a few questions raised by the above summary:
A. In identifying Krishna as "son of the king of Vraja,"
what is meant? This uniquely identifies Krishna,
and underscores His identity as Krishna in Vrindavan
rather than as NaaraayaNa, VishNu, etc. (though there
is no difference between Krishna and His expansions
and incarnations, nonetheless Krishna is worshipped
as the first). Also, it is in rasa or relationship
with His devotees like Nanda Maharaja that the Lord
revels, more than in hearing Vedic hymns and the
opulent majestic audarya worship of Vaikuntha.
B. In exalting the worship of the gopiis as topmost,
do you not accept the service of great bhaktas like
Hanumaan? There are many great devotees of the Lord
all attached to Him in His various forms and incarnations.
Some of the sages in DandakaaraNya took birth as cowherd
damsels in Vraja. Hanumaanji is the supreme example
of the servitude relationship with the Lord (daasya-
rasa). Gaudiya Vaishnavas consider the worship of
the gopis the best worship of Lord Krishna, but this
does not in any way slight the worship of others,
especially great bhaktas like Hanumaan.
- All Hindi quotations from Prameya-ratnaavali, published with
Sanskrit commentary of Sri Krishnadeva Saarvbhauma and Hindi
introduction and commentary of Sri Haridasa Shaastri, published
12/12/81 (not clear Saka or A.D., Gauraabda 485) by Gadaadhara-
Gaurahari Press, Kaaliidaha, Vrindavan, Mathuraa, U.P.
Hopefully this will clarify some of these issues.
OM vishnave namaH, OM Sarva-vaishNavebhyo namaH
Regards,
Agraahya daasa
HGro...@qualitas.com
>
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao
Shrisha Rao
[*chomp*]
>Nine tenets or prameyas are discussed. Sri Haridas Shaastri, in his
>scholarly Hindi commentary, mentions five out of these nine as
>specific points of difference between Maadhva and Gaudiiya philosophy,
>showing these tenets side by side as follows (and while I feel I
>understand Sri Haridasa's mostly-Sanskrit Hindi pretty well,
>I've included it here):
>
>Sri Madhva's Philosophy Sri Chaitanya's philosophy
>
>1. By 'Hari' is meant the By 'Hari' is meant Sri Krishna,
> Lord of Vaikuntha etc. son of the King of Vraja.
>
>sri hari-Sabda se vaikunthaadi sri hari-Sabda se sri-vrajendranandana
>dhaamaadhi naayaka kaa bodha hii vaachya hai
>hotaa hai
Here, I'd say the difference is that for Madhva, the 'Hari' of "Lord of
VaikunTha" fame is _exactly_ identical to 'Hari' of "Son of king of
Vraja" fame; if this point is to be considered one of difference, then
this must not be true of Chaitanya's doctrine; does he, in fact,
consider Krishna the "cowherd boy" to be different from Vishnu, the Lord
of Vaikuntha, in some subtle fashion perhaps?
>4. Lord Vishnu and the jiiva [They are] different yet inconceivably
>(living entity) are at all non-different (?according to Sruti).
>times separate (different).
>
>Srii VishNu se jiiva sarvathaa bheda evaM ebheda-achintya hai
>bhinna hai tarthaat Sruti pratipaadita hai
I'm not sure what 'tarthaat' in the second column, second line, is meant
to be; it has to be either 'tathaa' (and), or 'arthaat' (therefore); I'd
say 'tathaa' looks more likely. Anyway, one could modify the statement
of Madhva's position to say that according to him, Vishnu is eternally
distinct from the jiiva, and this fact is shown by Shruti, and even by
pratyaksha, because "na hi aham sarvagnyaH, sarveshvaro nirduhkho
nirdoshaH iti vaa kasyachidanubhavaH; asti cha tadviparyayeNaanubhavaH,"
i.e., no one experiences "I am omniscient, the Lord of all, free of
pain, free of flaw" -- thus; the opposite of this is the experience.
>7. Attainment of the lotus Prema (ecstatic love) is the fifth
>feet of Vishnu is liberation. goal of life (after dharma, artha,
> kaama and moksha) and is [truly]
> liberation.
>
>vishNu paada-padma-laabha hii prema hii panchama purushaartha
>moksha hai moksha hai
There seems to be a contradiction in the second column; how can 'prema'
be the fifth _after_ 'dharma', 'artha', 'kaama', and 'moksha' and yet be
the same as 'moksha'? That seems to violate the principle of
cardinality, according to which the same thing must not be counted
twice, and things counted twice must not be the same.
>8. Devotion is the cause of That [most] pleasing worship of the
>liberation. cowherd damsels of Vraja is the
> true form of liberation and is
> cause of ecstatic love (premaa).
>
>bhakti hii moksha hetu vraja-vadhuu gaNakalpitaa ramyaa
> upaasanaa hii moksharuupa premakaa
> hetu hai
I would translate the second column as:
That pleasing worship of the damsels of
Vraja is the cause of ecstatic love in
the form of moksha.
However, this leaves the thread hanging loose: it may be so for them,
but what about _us_? -- so you may be right after all, even though the
sentence does not mean that directly...
[*chomp*]
>- All Hindi quotations from Prameya-ratnaavali, published with
> Sanskrit commentary of Sri Krishnadeva Saarvbhauma and Hindi
> introduction and commentary of Sri Haridasa Shaastri, published
> 12/12/81 (not clear Saka or A.D., Gauraabda 485) by Gadaadhara-
> Gaurahari Press, Kaaliidaha, Vrindavan, Mathuraa, U.P.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>
>Hopefully this will clarify some of these issues.
>
>OM vishnave namaH, OM Sarva-vaishNavebhyo namaH
>Regards,
>Agraahya daasa
>HGro...@qualitas.com
Henry Groover
>
>Henry Groover <HGro...@Qualitas.com> wrote:
>
[*snip*]
>>Sri Madhva's Philosophy Sri Chaitanya's philosophy
>>
>>1. By 'Hari' is meant the By 'Hari' is meant Sri Krishna,
>> Lord of Vaikuntha etc. son of the King of Vraja.
>>
>>sri hari-Sabda se vaikunthaadi sri hari-Sabda se sri-vrajendranandana
>>dhaamaadhi naayaka kaa bodha hii vaachya hai
>>hotaa hai
>
>Here, I'd say the difference is that for Madhva, the 'Hari' of "Lord of
>VaikunTha" fame is _exactly_ identical to 'Hari' of "Son of king of
>Vraja" fame; if this point is to be considered one of difference, then
>this must not be true of Chaitanya's doctrine; does he, in fact,
>consider Krishna the "cowherd boy" to be different from Vishnu, the Lord
>of Vaikuntha, in some subtle fashion perhaps?
No; there is no difference, in Gaudiya siddhanta, between Krishna and
His various expansions and incarnations. One might say the difference
is that according to Srimad Aananda Tiirtha, all these forms are
abheda or non-different, whereas we Gaudiyas say they are all the same
in terms of Vishnu-ness (vishNutayaa vibhaati) yet Krishna is the original
form. Also Bhag. ete chaamSa-kalaa puMsaH krishNas tu bhagavaan svayam.
>>4. Lord Vishnu and the jiiva [They are] different yet inconceivably
>>(living entity) are at all non-different (?according to Sruti).
>>times separate (different).
>>
>>Srii VishNu se jiiva sarvathaa bheda evaM ebheda-achintya hai
>>bhinna hai tarthaat Sruti pratipaadita hai
>
>I'm not sure what 'tarthaat' in the second column, second line, is meant
>to be; it has to be either 'tathaa' (and), or 'arthaat' (therefore); I'd
>say 'tathaa' looks more likely.
Probably so; many of these publications are printed (still) on hand
set crank-down presses. Typos abound...
[*snip*]
>
>>7. Attainment of the lotus Prema (ecstatic love) is the fifth
>>feet of Vishnu is liberation. goal of life (after dharma, artha,
>> kaama and moksha) and is [truly]
>> liberation.
>>
>>vishNu paada-padma-laabha hii prema hii panchama purushaartha
>>moksha hai moksha hai
>
>There seems to be a contradiction in the second column; how can 'prema'
>be the fifth _after_ 'dharma', 'artha', 'kaama', and 'moksha' and yet be
>the same as 'moksha'? That seems to violate the principle of
>cardinality, according to which the same thing must not be counted
>twice, and things counted twice must not be the same.
Actually this very device is used in poetry, as in "he whose
birth brings fame to the family is truly born." Quite the same
thing here; "beyond liberation, attainment of premaa, is true
liberation." There is no concept of liberation _not_ being
liberation, but the idea of premaa as the fifth purushaartha
is quite common in Gaudiya literature. Interestingly, that is
not what Sri Baladeva says in his seventh prameya. It is quite
short, in fact, here's the whole thing:
atha Srii-krishNa-praapte mokshatvam
yathaa;
GYaatvaa devaM sarva-paaSaapahaanir ity aadi -SvetaaSvataropanishad
eko vaSii sarvagaH krishNa iiDhya ity aadi cha -Gopaala-taapanyupanishad
bahudhaa bahubhir veSair
bhaati krishNaH svayaM prabhuH
tam ishTvaa tat-pade nitye
sukhaM tishThanti mokshiNaH
"On attaining Sri Krishna as liberation:
'Knowing the Lord, all bonds are annihilated...' -SvetaaSvara Upanishad
'The one controller, Krishna, who is all-pervading, is
worshipable...' (need to look this one up, he's given
just enough to find it).
"In various ways and various forms, Lord Krishna personally
manifests Himself. Having worshipped Him, liberated souls
find happiness at His feet."
So it would seem Sri Baladeva, on this point, is more in
agreement with Srimad Aananda Tiirtha.
>
>>8. Devotion is the cause of That [most] pleasing worship of the
>>liberation. cowherd damsels of Vraja is the
>> true form of liberation and is
>> cause of ecstatic love (premaa).
>>
>>bhakti hii moksha hetu vraja-vadhuu gaNakalpitaa ramyaa
>> upaasanaa hii moksharuupa premakaa
>> hetu hai
>
>
>I would translate the second column as:
>
> That pleasing worship of the damsels of
> Vraja is the cause of ecstatic love in
> the form of moksha.
One day I'll sit down and learn Hindi grammar
so I don't have to grope with stuff like this...
>However, this leaves the thread hanging loose: it may be so for them,
>but what about _us_? -- so you may be right after all, even though the
>sentence does not mean that directly...
The idea is that there are many ways in which the Lord is worshipped,
and He appreciates them all, but the most pleasing worship is that
offered by the gopiis. I don't think Haridas Shastri meant to convey
that _only_ by worshipping Krishna in conjugal rasa can one achieve
premaa; certainly Mother YaSodaa and the cowherd boys and other such
devotees have this in abundance. One might say that the best
example of ecstatic love is exhibited by the gopiis; following
that path [of premaa] is the form of liberation (moksharuupa).
A Saastrika reference is Bhag. 10.87.??
nibhrita marun-mano 'ksha-driDha-yoga-yujo-hridi yan
munaya upaasate tad arayo 'pi yayuH smaraNaat
striya uragendra-bhoga-bhuja-daNDa-vishakta-dhiyo
vayam api te samaaH samadriSo 'nghri-saroja-sudhaaH
"Forcibly subjugating the vital airs, mind, and senses by
firm yoga vows, sages worship Him within the heart and attain
the same as enemies killed by Him due to remembering the Lord.
The ladies [of Vraja] were always distracted by thoughts of
being embraced by His arms, which are like the bodies of
serpents. We [the personified Sruti] wish to attain the
same by becoming as the nectarean dust particles of the
feet [of those damsels]." (lousy translation by Agraahya)
BTW, these prayers are an exceptionally long, beautiful
and complex meter or chandaH; can't remember the name
off the top of my head...
Obviously, we need to look at the prameyas themselves, as
it's apparent that Haridasa Shastri has summarized basic
differences between Gaudiya and Maadhva positions but was
not summarizing the prameyas here specifically.
[*snip*]
Regards,
Agraahya daasa
HGro...@Qualitas.com
Shrisha Rao
[*chomp*]
>No; there is no difference, in Gaudiya siddhanta, between Krishna and
>His various expansions and incarnations. One might say the difference
>is that according to Srimad Aananda Tiirtha, all these forms are
>abheda or non-different, whereas we Gaudiyas say they are all the same
>in terms of Vishnu-ness (vishNutayaa vibhaati) yet Krishna is the original
>form. Also Bhag. ete chaamSa-kalaa puMsaH krishNas tu bhagavaan svayam.
[*chomp*]
If there are different forms of Vishnu that have the common quality of
Vishnu-ness, and of them Krishna is the original, then:
1> Krishna must have occurred chronologically at an earlier time, and
subsequently given rise to the other forms (otherwise Krishna would not
be the original);
2> the quality of being Vishnu, which we call Vishnu-ness, must be
different from the quality of being the original form (otherwise all the
forms would be original simply for being Vishnu).
Of these, I would dismiss 1> as too absurd on the face of it; Shruti,
which is itself anaadi (without beginning in time), states that Vishnu
has an infinite number of forms; thus, these forms must have existed for
an infinite time, and it makes no sense to say one form came first and
produced the others.
The next point, 2>, tends to subtly run down Vishnu's nirdoshhatva; for
this, simply consider that while *Vishnu*, as that, is considered to be
the complete abode of all attributes, and to have no flaw, etc., it is
evident that He lacks one attribute -- originality of form. That is, any
form of Vishnu other than Krishna is unoriginal, and possesses the
shortcoming of being a mere copy.
In addition to these two reasons, also consider the following:
Assume that for whatever reason, Krishna was the original form, and then
expanded/multiplied/whatever into the other Vishnu-forms. Since this is
stated or assumed to have happened, it must have happened at some
specific instant within the finite past, else all forms must be coeval
in their infiniteness in the past, and it makes no sense to speak of any
one as the original. Anyhow, if one form is the original, an expansion
took place at some time, and for all time in the past before that,
Krishna alone was. Now, what caused this expansion? Was Krishna
unsatisfied being merely by Himself, and desired to make copies of
Himself? Did he act on mere whim, a sort of will-o'-the-wisp? Or was he
compelled to act by some agent or cause beyond His control? In any of
these cases, a flaw must be accepted in Krishna, and that also is
unacceptable.
For the reasons stated above, the thesis that Krishna is an (or the)
original form of Vishnu, is unacceptable.
>>>7. Attainment of the lotus Prema (ecstatic love) is the fifth
>>>feet of Vishnu is liberation. goal of life (after dharma, artha,
>>> kaama and moksha) and is [truly]
>>> liberation.
>>>
>>>vishNu paada-padma-laabha hii prema hii panchama purushaartha
>>>moksha hai moksha hai
>>
>>There seems to be a contradiction in the second column; how can 'prema'
>>be the fifth _after_ 'dharma', 'artha', 'kaama', and 'moksha' and yet be
>>the same as 'moksha'? That seems to violate the principle of
>>cardinality, according to which the same thing must not be counted
>>twice, and things counted twice must not be the same.
>
>Actually this very device is used in poetry, as in "he whose
>birth brings fame to the family is truly born." Quite the same
>thing here; "beyond liberation, attainment of premaa, is true
>liberation." There is no concept of liberation _not_ being
[*chomp*]
Aha! So this is just the Kuru-PaaNDava-nyaaya; although the PaaNDavas
were also Kurus, they were mentioned separately because of their
specialty. So also, while 'prema' is also 'moksha', it is mentioned
separately because of its specialty.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Mani Varadarajan
|> Anyway, one could modify the statement
|> of Madhva's position to say that according to him, Vishnu is eternally
|> distinct from the jiiva, and this fact is shown by Shruti, and even by
|> pratyaksha, because "na hi aham sarvagnyaH, sarveshvaro nirduhkho
|> nirdoshaH iti vaa kasyachidanubhavaH; asti cha tadviparyayeNaanubhavaH,"
|> i.e., no one experiences "I am omniscient, the Lord of all, free of
|> pain, free of flaw" -- thus; the opposite of this is the experience.
Perhaps you would like to read about the experience
of Sage Vamadeva of Vedic fame, repeated at the beginning
of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad:
The sage Vamadeva, seeing this (Brahman) as that
(his self), experienced ``I was Manu, and the sun.''
And to this day, whoever in like manner experiences
It as ``I am Brahman'' becomes all this. Even the
devas cannot prevail against him, for he becomes
their self. [I.iv.10]
Or the experience of that great lover of God, Prahlada,
documented in the Vishnu Purana:
I am none other than He (the Infinite One); all
things proceed from me, I am all things and all things
exist in me who am eternal. [I.xix.85]
Or in more recent times, the experience of our saint
Nammaazhvaar:
It was I that created the entire world,
It was I that became the entire world,
I am Learning itself,
It was I that lifted the big mountain (Govardhana) ...
[thiruvaaymozhi V.vi.1 - V.vi.10]
You see, the saints do experience the unity of themselves
and the Lord, and in doing so, experience themselves *as* the
Lord. Sometimes this is phrased statically, as by Vamadeva
and Prahlada, and other times existentially, as by Nammaazhvaar.
Those who detest ``mAyAvAda'', fear not! There is a solution
out of this apparent quandary. It lies in the quoted texts
themselves.
However, I doubt Dvaitists can offer a solution, nor will
they be happy with it once I present the hermeneutical
way out. Unless Shrisha or another Maadhva can interpret
the above texts (leaving out Nammaazhvaar) and correct me?
Mani
Mani Varadarajan
|> of Madhva's position to say that according to him, Vishnu is eternally
|> distinct from the jiiva, and this fact is shown by Shruti, and even by
|> pratyaksha, because "na hi aham sarvagnyaH, sarveshvaro nirduhkho
|> nirdoshaH iti vaa kasyachidanubhavaH; asti cha tadviparyayeNaanubhavaH,"
|> i.e., no one experiences "I am omniscient, the Lord of all, free of
|> pain, free of flaw" -- thus; the opposite of this is the experience.
Perhaps you would like to read about the experience
Mani
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Shrisha Rao
>In article <4fts4d$9...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
>|> Anyway, one could modify the statement
>|> of Madhva's position to say that according to him, Vishnu is eternally
>|> distinct from the jiiva, and this fact is shown by Shruti, and even by
>|> pratyaksha, because "na hi aham sarvagnyaH, sarveshvaro nirduhkho
>|> nirdoshaH iti vaa kasyachidanubhavaH; asti cha tadviparyayeNaanubhavaH,"
>|> i.e., no one experiences "I am omniscient, the Lord of all, free of
>|> pain, free of flaw" -- thus; the opposite of this is the experience.
>
>Perhaps you would like to read about the experience
>of Sage Vamadeva of Vedic fame, repeated at the beginning
>of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad:
>
> The sage Vamadeva, seeing this (Brahman) as that
> (his self), experienced ``I was Manu, and the sun.''
> And to this day, whoever in like manner experiences
> It as ``I am Brahman'' becomes all this. Even the
> devas cannot prevail against him, for he becomes
> their self. [I.iv.10]
First off the bat, I remark that the above quote does not constitute
a direct conflict; there is certainly no _experience_ one can speak of,
that shows "I am Omniscient, the Lord of all...," etc. The quote is
supposed to show that someone (allegedly) experienced something similar,
but this is not the same as direct experience; it is the _statement_
of something by an Agama that is opposed to experience.
Thus, the objection: "na chAnubhava virodhe Agamasya prAmANyam" --
scripture has no value if opposed to experience; i.e., translations of
scripture that oppose actual experience are to be discarded. (Because
of upajiivya virodha, etc.)
But does the quoted verse actually mean what is claimed? That remains to
be seen.
I'm not sure what edition/shaakhaa of the BrhadaaraNyaka you are
using, but the copies I have seen have only six shlokas in the
Prajaapatya BraahmaNa (the fourth) of the first adhyaaya; verse I.4.6
is the last, and I.4.10 does not exist. After I.4.6 starts the
Avyaakrtra BraahmaNa, with verses numbered I.5.1 onwards. Part of the
confusion at least would have been dispelled had you quoted the actual
verse(s) instead of just giving their translations according to you.
It took me a little while to figure out what exactly was being
referred to in the above instance; the verse I have is mantra I.5.4;
this falls in the Avyaakrtra BraahmaNa, the fifth of the first
chapter. I wonder if this is a difference between rescensions?
Anyhow, on with the topic --
brahma vA idamagra AsIt.h tadAtmAnamevAvedaham.h brahmAsmIti
tasmAttat.h sarvamabhavat.h tadyo yo devAnAm.h pratyabudhyat.h
sa eva tadabhavattatharshhINAm.h tathA manushhyANAm.h tad.hdhaitat.h
pashyan.hnR^ishhirvAmadevaH pratipede.aham.h manurabhavat.h sUryashcheti
tadidamapyetarhi ya evam vedAham.h brahmAsmIti sa idam.h sarvam.h
bhavati tasyaAha na devAshcha nAbhUtyA Ishate |
Mantra I.5.4 according to the KaaNva rescension.
The significant parts (considering your translation) are (i) "tadaa
aatmaanam eva avet aham brahma asmi iti tasmaat tat sarvam abhavat,"
(ii) "aham manurabhavat, suuryashcheti," and (iii) "ya evam vedaaham
brahma asmi iti sa idam sarvam bhavati tasyaaha na devaashcha
naabhuutyaa iishate."
Considering that the Lord is always possessed of complete knowledge,
why the terms 'avet' (he knew) and 'abhavat' (he became)? -- these seem
to indicate a beginning to His knowledge and abilities.
However, the past tense is used in scripture to denote *absence of*
beginning, rather than the fact of one: for example, in the Aitareya Up.
I.1 and in the Chhandogya Up. VI.2.1 --
AtmA vA idam eka eva agra AsIt.h ("Verily, the AtmA alone was, before
this."); sat.h eva somyedam.h agram.h AsIt.h ("The (ever) Existent
only was, before this.") As "this" can be any time, it follows that
"aasiit" is actually a condition without beginning.
Thus, the past tense employed in the text under discussion is meant to
indicate that Vishnu's knowledge and potency are without beginning or
cause, rather than to show that such started. This is similar to
denoting negative infinity as "the quantity lesser than any you might
name," or zero as "the non-negative quantity less than every positive
real."
This constitutes an answer to the previous passage in the Upanishad,
which is:
tadAhuryad.hbrahmavidyA sarvam.h bhavishhyanto manushhyA manyante
kimu tad.hbrahmA.avedyasmAttatsarvambhavaditi || V-3
Briefly, the passage says: if it is the case that Brahma-vidyaa is
responsible for the attainment of complete satisfaction, then is it
the case, some wonder, that Brahman Himself also had to learn
Brahma-vidyaa, in order to attain perfection?
To this, the verse already quoted is the answer given, where it is
made clear that because Brahman already *knew* and *was* at all times
past, He did not have to acquire knowledge and/or ability from another
source; He is thus self-dependent, and His qualities are without
beginning in time. Therefore, it is not the case that Vishnu also had
to learn Brahma-vidyaa to achieve bliss.
(i) 'aham brahmaasmi'
Now, the word 'aham' in "aham brahmaasmi" does not mean "I" -- it
means "aheyam" -- that which cannot be avoided, that which is not to
be given up. The word 'asmi' does not mean "I am" but is a compound of
"as" meaning existence, and "mi" meaning knowable. Thus, 'asmi' means
the following:
1> One whose Knowledge is (ever) Existing.
2> One who is knowable as (ever) Existing.
3. One who is always to be known as Existing, i.e., as Real,
non-illusory).
4> One who is to be known as responsible for (all) existence (i.e., is
the Lord of all that is seen to exist, including oneself).
... etc., etc.
In addition to this, the word 'a' (in Sanskrit, of course) denotes
Vishnu -- the familiar quotes "akaaro vai sarva vaak," "aksharaaNaam
akaaro'smi," "akaaro brahmaruupaH syaat," etc., come to mind. One
explanation for this is that 'a' is used as a prefix to denote the
negation of whatever adjective it is a prefix to (a-vyakta, a-graahya,
a-powrusheya, a-gnyaana, etc.) -- thus, 'a', as the name of the Lord,
denotes Negation of all qualities of everyday experience; that He is
*not* like the things we experience every day and apply adjectives in
reference to -- therefore, He is completely special. Similarly, it
also denotes that He is free of all flaw, and that He is the Driving
Force (even) behind those of base/negative tendencies. The letter 'ha'
is the last of the Sanskrit alphabet, while 'a' is the first; thus,
"aham" is also the Sanskrit equivalent of "[from] A [to] Z." Thus,
'aham' also denotes "He who is the complete repository of every good
quality from A to Z," and "He who is to be primarily known from all
the text-references from A to Z."
Thus, "aham brahma asmi" means: "That Brahman which cannot be avoided
(i.e., is everywhere in time and space), who is completely unlike the
entities of one's understanding and experience (and is therefore
Special), is free of all flaws, is the complete repository of every
good quality that may be described, and is the primary entity
described in the scriptures -- He is of the nature of Ceaseless
Knowledge, is to be known as Real, always Existing, and as the Lord of
the entire universe."
Taking the converse case, had 'aham' meant "I" and had 'asmi' denoted
"I am," then the word 'aatmaanam' is superfluous usage and conveys no
extra meaning: "tadaa aatmaanam eva avet aham brahma asmi iti" means
"He knew His self only as I am Brahman, thus" which sounds a little odd;
why not just say "tadaa avet, aham (eva) brahma asmi iti" -- "He knew,
I (only) am Brahman, thus."
(ii) 'aham manurabhavat, suuryashcheti'
Now, "aham manurabhavat, suuryashcheti" says that since the
beginningless past, He has pervaded and dominated the devas such as
Manu and Suurya. The reason Manu and Suurya are mentioned is that Manu
is the person mentioned as having carried the knowledge of the Divine
to the world (refer Bhagavad Gita IV-1, for example); he is thus a
progenitor of shaastra knowledge in the world of humans; he, however,
did not invent or discover this for himself -- he got it from Suurya
(ibid.). Thus, "aham manurabhavat, suuryashcheti" tells us that the
Paramaatman was responsible for Manu acquiring and disseminating that
knowledge; that He was, in fact, even responsible for Suurya, who gave
it to Manu. Thus, this line speaks of the Paramaatman as the Giver of
Knowledge. Since earlier in the passage, "aham brahmaasmi" has said
something about the nature of the Lord, this later part also tells us
that the knowledge of His nature itself is owed to Him -- that we
learn of Him only by His own action and choice.
Since the passage I.5.3 raises the question of whether Brahman Himself
needed to acquire Brahma-vidyaa in order to attain bliss, the next,
under consideration, tells us that such is not the case; it is in fact
the case that Brahman's knowledge is beginningless, etc. Furthermore,
it also is seen that Brahma-vidyaa _in others_ arises *solely* by the
action of Brahman, the Independent Real; the agents who carry
Brahma-vidyaa are in fact acting for Brahman. Thus, Brahman did not
need to acquire Brahma-vidya, but others may only do so by His grace.
To take the converse case, "I was Manu, and also Suurya, thus" is not a
very meaningful or cogent interpretation -- it fails to cohere with the
rest of the passage, and gives rise to more questions than it answers:
Why did the speaker stop being Manu/Suurya? Why was he them in the first
place? How can one entity be the same as *two* other diverse others?
What is the significance of his having been _them_ rather than a zillion
other possibilities?
(iii) "ya evam veda aham brahma asmi iti sa idam sarvam bhavati tasyaaha
na devaashcha naabhuutyaa iishate."
The quote says "one who knows 'aham brahma asmi' -- thus, he obtains all
this; him, not the devas, and not the creatures of the world, are able
to harm."
The meaning of 'aham brahma asmi' has already been dealt with
previously; that 'bhavati' does not mean "become" in the way of
transformation involving merger of identities, is shown by the
illustration of 'sampuujya braahmaNam bhaktyaa shuudro'pi braahmaNo
bhavati' (even a shuudra becomes a braahmaNa upon worshipping a
braahmaNa with devotion) -- where the illustrative objection made is
'na hi braahmaNa-puujakaH sa eva braahmaNo bhavati' (the worshipper of
a braahmaNa does not become that very same braahmaNa).
>Or the experience of that great lover of God, Prahlada,
>documented in the Vishnu Purana:
>
> I am none other than He (the Infinite One); all
> things proceed from me, I am all things and all things
> exist in me who am eternal. [I.xix.85]
If Prahlaada had said this, he would be a model of delusion, and a lover
of himself over all else.
In any event, I don't know what the actual verse corresponding to the
translation offered is; such is not of any interest now, be as it may,
since the Shruti offered to support said interpretation has been shown
not to.
>Or in more recent times, the experience of our saint
>Nammaazhvaar:
>
> It was I that created the entire world,
> It was I that became the entire world,
> I am Learning itself,
> It was I that lifted the big mountain (Govardhana) ...
> [thiruvaaymozhi V.vi.1 - V.vi.10]
I refrain from commenting upon this, because it is local to Sri
Vaishnava doctrine, and of little significance to those outside its pale
(except insofar as this may indicate flaws in it).
>You see, the saints do experience the unity of themselves
>and the Lord, and in doing so, experience themselves *as* the
>Lord. Sometimes this is phrased statically, as by Vamadeva
>and Prahlada, and other times existentially, as by Nammaazhvaar.
Unity is right, but identity is not; the translations given seem to
indicate the latter rather than the former.
>Those who detest ``mAyAvAda'', fear not! There is a solution
>out of this apparent quandary. It lies in the quoted texts
>themselves.
At least in the Upanishad, there is no quandary worth speaking of.
>However, I doubt Dvaitists can offer a solution, nor will
>they be happy with it once I present the hermeneutical
>way out. Unless Shrisha or another Maadhva can interpret
>the above texts (leaving out Nammaazhvaar) and correct me?
On the contrary, it is not at all obvious to me that anyone has a
prayer of getting within a mile of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha, in the
matter of explaining the purport of the Shruti quoted...
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Mani