Judging Varna based on Guna or birth (Janma)?
Damodara Dasa
Respected Vidvajjanas,
In pursuance to my reply on the thread subject - "ET Issues" I was
pending to give a detailed analysis of this topic clubbed with the
topic of exploitation in caste system. Sorry for very late reply to
this. In reply I am starting this separate thread and have attached a
paper in pdf format. Please have a look at it and comment or start
discussion.
Thankyou,
Hari Guru Vaisnava Das,
damodara das
--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com
S Saha
Do you have a link to that previous thread?
Damodara Dasa
Namaskaram prabhuji,
Do you have a link to that previous thread?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com
Nityanand Misra
On Saturday, 18 June 2016 22:53:37 UTC+5:30, S Saha wrote:
Namaskaram prabhuji,
Do you have a link to that previous thread?
Damodara Dasa
Respected Nityanandji and scholars,
The whole point of the article/paper is that the process of
designating varna of brahmana etc. based on birth is specifically
dependent on samskaras (not only ritualistic but also impressions due
to everyday acarana) being strictly followed. Following this will only
be able to ensure that a soul with purva-samskara of that of the
father (brahmana soul for brahmana father etc.) will take shelter of
the womb. This rule is so made by the creator of the universe as to
easily administer dharma in society. But in absence of proper
samskaras this rule cannot be applied and thus the sole method to
judge varna is based on qualities (guna or laksana).
why did Sanatana Gosvami in Hari Bhakti Vilasa advocate designating
varna based on birth?
He doesn't advocate it but is just following the already established
social ettiquette as per dharma sastras (as we already discussed) that
usually son of same varna will take birth. This is because about 500
years ago (time of Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis) the varnasrama system
was quite well in place and thus there was no need to unnecessarily
disturb the process of the well established society. Also the main
subject of Hari-bhakti-vilasa and Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu was not
social guidance (or guidance on varnasrama dharma) but to manifest and
emphasize the importance the process of pure devotional service (of
being supremely independent of social considerations for a sincere
follower) and thus social aspects are not discussed in toto.
Also if you read Haribhaktivilasa 1.38-58 with commentary then you
will find that the first condition is laksana for becoming guru; it is
mentioned avadAtaH zuddhaH pAtityadozarahitaH vaMzo yasya. Thus it is
clear that whatever follows takes this point in account. Brahmanatva
can be given by birth only when the vaMza is suddha and the person
himself is zuddha. Verses 1.47-50 describes the condition where such
zuddha brahmanas with told laksanas are not found -- to get initiation
from ksatriya or vaisya. Anyway it is a detail discussion for how and
why of this process.
Also it is not neo-gaudiya vaisnavism. Gaudiya vaisnavism cannot be
said to change by changing social structure. The Gaudiya vaisnavism's
main philosiphy that was propagated was the worship of Radha-Krishna
in parakiya bhava, that pure-bhakti is above all varnasrama
considerations, and that by the only process of kali-yuga: chanting of
Hare Krishna Mantra anyone, to the point of animals, can get
liberation from material bondage. None of the principles by which one
is known as Gaudiya Vaisnava (rupanuga) is violated herein and thus
this cannot be called neo-gaudiya vaisnavism. This (neo-gaudiya
vaisnavism) is a side point in the thread and it can be discussed
starting another thread if needed so as not to deviate from the topic
of this thread.
The point here is not to just bang based on scriptures but to try to
understand it properly.
Now the contemporary of Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis, Sri Vallabhacarya
did explain in his subodhini tikas (SB 2.1.37, 3.6.30-33, etc.) that
varna is actually based on laksana and not birth and thus this is not
a new concept introduced by Bhakti-vinoda-dhara but, as is established
both in the paper and book "brahmana and vaisnava", is a well
documented vedic fact found in almost all vedic literatures.
Usually whenever this topic is raised there is one mistake scholars
and others do is to take either the favor of judging exclusively by
birth consideration or take favor of judging exclusively by laksana
consideration leaving out the other consideration; then to bring
quotes from sastras in their favor. But proper procedure would be to
see all quotes and also apply intelligence to understand them in
proper principle. In my paper I have tried to accept both the
considerations and placed them in proper perspective so as to get a
clear principle out of it. This synchronizes the otherwise seemingly
opposite statements of sastras.
I would request scholars to give a commendable battle to this paper
not just by bringing quotes in favor of judging varna based on birth
but properly explaining why it should not be based on laksana or that
the prime consideration is the other way round and also supporting it
by logic (as I did by explaining how samskaras decide the next body
and the soul is placed accordingly in the suitable womb). This type of
challenges will really contribute to the in depth understanding of
this topic. (One thing to remember is that I fully accept that judging
varna primarily based on birth is an important requirement for varna
system's being easy to establish in society)
Thankyou,
Hari Guru Vaisnava Das,
damodara das
> Hare Krishna.
>
> Dear Vidvaj-janas,
> Nityanand Mishraji replied to this on another thread (started by
> mistake probably due to mistake in subject by Sreekara ji). Thus I am
> reproducing his reply in this thread in order to keep the discussion
> in one thread. My request to scholars or members is to keep the same
> subject title in replying so that it doesn't generate another thread.
>
> Below is Nityanandji's reply:
>
> ============
> had raised: that Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī in their
> commentaries on Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu and Haribhaktivilāsa have
> supported Brāhmaṇatva by birth (see the passages cited in the links
> above). I did not find this addressed in his paper.
>
> Nobody contests that the neo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement (in the lineage
> of Bhaktivinoda Thākura and Svāmī Prabhupāda) holds the view that
> varṇa is not by birth but by symptoms. But this appears to be a new
> view in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement, against the view expressed by
> Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī: two of the original gosvāmī-s of
> the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. How the neo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-s
> reconcile the new view with the old views expressed by Jīva Gosvāmī
> and Sanātana Gosvāmī is a moot question.
> +91 9737475085
> www.bvks.com
>
--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com
Damodara Dasa
Dear Vidvaj-janas,
Nityanand Mishraji replied to this on another thread (started by
mistake probably due to mistake in subject by Sreekara ji). Thus I am
reproducing his reply in this thread in order to keep the discussion
in one thread. My request to scholars or members is to keep the same
subject title in replying so that it doesn't generate another thread.
Below is Nityanandji's reply:
============
I believe Damodara Dasa Ji had said he would address the points that I
had raised: that Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī in their
commentaries on Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu and Haribhaktivilāsa have
supported Brāhmaṇatva by birth (see the passages cited in the links
above). I did not find this addressed in his paper.
Nobody contests that the neo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement (in the lineage
of Bhaktivinoda Thākura and Svāmī Prabhupāda) holds the view that
varṇa is not by birth but by symptoms. But this appears to be a new
view in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement, against the view expressed by
Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī: two of the original gosvāmī-s of
the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. How the neo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-s
reconcile the new view with the old views expressed by Jīva Gosvāmī
and Sanātana Gosvāmī is a moot question.
==============
On 6/16/16, Damodara Dasa <damoda...@gmail.com> wrote:
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com
BVKSastry(Gmail)
The mute issue of 'Varna-tag' for an individual, by Samskara or by 'Birth' is discussed for centuries without coming to any decisive conclusions. The debaters on both sides have ammunition from the same sources and in the same language called 'Samskrutham' ! yet ' the best of the brains (rishayo vibhinnaH) are not able to come to one (eka-Vakyataa or Siddhanta) conclusion?!
Looking at this from another perspective, 'the best of the brains' have not been able to throw out the ' contentious' concept of 'Varna', the primary issue itself before adding the next level of deliberations and add criterion (like Birth or rites : Janmanaa -Samskarena) and on the top of it add 'Purificatory rites (Praayaschitta Vidhi) and privileges and obligations ( Varna-Adhikaara for Vedas and Samskara, Agama practice yet all).
In other words, the scriptural theory documents associated with 'Varna' tag, has a ' checkered 'history' allowing itself for flexible interpretation' and creating a 'Social implication' for the practice of 'Dharma' !
The primary introduction of the concept of 'Varna' comes in the grandiose of Purusha Sukta, where all Varnas are part of Divine Supreme, part of Vishwaroopa. And this text has been sufficnelty maligned and abused ! Later on the 'Rishi' status of many illustrious personalities (Valmiki, Vyasa, including Sri Krishna) does not fit snugly as one would expect to the 'later understanding of ' Varna' by birth and actions! Yet they are worshipped by 'Brahmana's'! It would be point for the non-brahmin community to think why they do not worship and practice 'Vyasa's teachings', who technically, in post colonial frame of interpretation, is a person with an identity by a cross parentage and ' non-standard, marriage mode' ?! And come to Gita, the criterion of 'Varna' by 'Guna-Karma-Swabhava' does not introduce the ' birth -parentage criterion'! Then does it take away the ' birth criterion' for 'Varna-identification'- ? Absolutely No! The parameters set for 'Brahma-Karma-Swabhava' demand a ' Brahmana parentage- lineage and social up-bringing mentoring and environment along with the other (75%) members of society practicing their ' Prescribed / suggested Dharma'. Some where in a side stream of 'Dharma-Shaastra'and 'Artha -Shaastra', the guidelines for human relations by marriage and parental responsibility for the off springs ( including Identity- inheritance) are debated. These do not overrule the Vedic Authority or Gita guidelines; but point out ' contextualized guidance for practice of 'Dharma' and carry a social identity by 'Varna'!
Come later the Buddhists and Jains bring in a new model of social identity and paradigms for social practice of a philosophical thought provided by the Masters. Neither Buddha or Mahaver Jain created or promulgated any new concept of 'Varna' ! Thought their teachings and social institutions created a flavored model of 'Varna-Ashrama practice'. The words like 'Brahmana-Shramanaka' come up leading to a debate of ' what is Brahmanatva? Can a dog loose its dogging 'dog-genus', when its tail is cut off? ' Later on 'Vedantacharya's introduce 'Vedanta-flavors in the practical formats of observing Varna-Ashrama and Pooja Paddhati ( by flavoring the worship of Gods with aagama and Puranas). Even this neither replaced, rejected or defined conclusively the 'Varna' identity in any better terms that it was for centuries before ! And Dharma Shaastra karas from Manu to Gautma, Yajnavalkya held the unified criterion of 'Birth and Samskara' for 'Varna' decision. The only loose end of this criterion being: How did the Parents maintain their 'own Varna-Status' by compliance to Samskara and Janma- criterion? OR dod they have any Prayaschotta system recommended right from earlier times of Manu to restore a 'Varna status- a reboot reset process' ? ( which suffered as an institutionalized practice of making ( sufficient ?!) money a substitute ( pratyaamnaaya) for ' sin-expiation and status restoration ? Very similar to club membership renewal by payment of dues and subscription for current period ? And this made 'Varna' almost similar to the practice of ' renewal of a lapsed policy' without asking the question of 'first fall' and ' exploring reason for it' ?
In this background, the question to ponder is the ' authority and competence ( with all due respects to the great Sri Krishna Devotees they were) of Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī in their commentaries on Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu and Haribhaktivilāsa to have supported Brāhmaṇatva by birth ? Were they blending the 'Gita thought and Social practices using 'Dharma-Shaastra' for a ' local need'? The post line < How the neo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-s reconcile the new view with the old views expressed by Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī is a moot question> needs an answer from the background explained above.
Looking for views of learned scholars.
Regards
BVK Sastry
sunil bhattacharjya
Venkata Sriram
Good article and balanced one. My two questions:
1) How & who will judge a person 'X" (belonging to 4th varna / dalit / harijan ???) is having the qualities of brAhmaNa
2) If such an 'X' is identified, then can he be invested with yajnopaveetam and be initiated with gAyatri mantra and make him study shruti-s (samhita, brAhmaNa, AraNyaka & upaniSad)
As for the 2nd one, several social reformers like Srirama Sharma Acharya (of gAyatri parivaar), Sri.Bankupalli Mallayya Sastry Garu (of Urlam Agraharam), Sri.Kavyakanta Ganapati Muni, to name a few, have initiated harijans into gAyatri japa.
Sri.Bankupalli Mallayya Sastry Garu was a great vedic scholar who a srividya upAsaka and lived in Urlam Agraharam of Srikakulam district in early 19th century. He was also a vedic scholar who translated sAyaNa bhASya of all 4 vedas into telugu. He championed for widow re-marriage and opposed child marriage. He also initiated several harijans into gAyatri mantra japa. The result is that he was ostracized from brahmin community in Urlam agraharam. He had to move out of the village. During his last days, he spent most of his time with harijans & dalits. When he passed away, none came for his antyESti except harijans who performed his last rites.
Similarly, Ganapati Muni also faced ire from orthodox brahmin community for his revolutionary ideas like widow remarriage, abolishing child marriage etc. He initiated "Indra Vidya" and invested couple of non-brahmins into vedic lore. His own wife Smt.Visalakshi used to worship "Agni".
So, these stray examples I have shown just to say that whether decision of varNa by jAti or guNa was a debatable issue among scholars also.
regs,
sriram
G S S Murthy
and also my Sanskrit blog :
http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/
Nagaraj Paturi
BVKSastry(Gmail)
Namaste Bhattacharya ji
( Personal note: Please do not take this response post in any other sense. This is a logical reasoned debate. I have highest respect to the ‘Brahmana-Achara and Sampradaya as a ‘faith –personal practice by conviction and respecting the statement – ‘asampradaayavit upekshaneeyah’. I am as much interested in the wellbeing of ‘Sanskrit in a healthy status on a global platform’. This does not stop me or any one from pursuing a reasoned deliberation and questioning the limitations of current model understanding of faith-basis and basics’. I am leaving the long thread as it is for readers benefit to see why and how this debate is steering itself in relation to Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha.).
1. The ‘Varna’ issue is not simplistic to be dismissed with a quote from ‘Manu Smriti’ and listing < Firstly we must recognize .. ;Secondly, the earliest law-giver Manu tells us … ... Thirdly, one who is not brahman by birth can also become brahman through one's conduct and efforts coupled with the grace of a sadguru. These are the sort of guidelines one has to follow to understand the issue.>
These are the very issues that are challenged by the writers mounting ‘History and Social implication’ issues to explain what ‘Varna’ means and has done for Indian Society. The contrast of a grandeur of concept failing to yield ground result in practice is the malady that is being addressed.
It is in this concept, that ‘Varna’ concept and practice is a complex and highly misconstrued and misconstrued concept with a ‘historicity’ (? Of 4000 / 10,000 / manvantaras –scale being your choice) from ‘Vedic Tradition’ and a ‘Claimed- live continuity’ having social implications . There is a need to bring out the fuller understanding of ‘Varna concept’ –relevance and right guidelines for practice and administration, used across a plethora of texts and contexts of Vedic tradition, using Sanskrit as the medium of language, without any exception.
Translations and social abusive practices have spoiled the ‘Spiritual element and Yoga-Dimensions associated with this word ‘Varna’ - in Samskrutham. Especially for glory and convenience of ‘academic scholars constructing the history of Hinduism as a world-Religion’ and tagging it to the ‘aberrations of historic practices, oppressive and violating human dignity in Indian context, in a select period by ‘Brahman Varna holders’. The politics, power-play issue and motives have deep-scars and ‘ religion- links’ play a serious role in the preliminaries to shape the platform for ‘Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha’ debate.
2. The source texts of Indian traditions, in Sanskrit do show the dynamic movement of ‘Varna’ tags across life time of an individual. Varna is not an identity set in stone for the life term of an individual :Either socially or religiously ! And surely ‘Varna’ is not a ‘historic tribal group identity or a ‘faith identity anchored to a scripture or god-worship or ‘ Mandir –Master -Membership’?!
This is what I understand from the discussion related to the word ‘Brahmana-Shramanaka nyaya’- in traditional context of Six systems of Indian philosophy. The Sanskrit word means : Once this person was ‘tagged as a Brahman’ and now he is a Shramanaka, a Buddhist ( falling out of the Varna-identity class and tags !)
What does it point to?
Similarly the debate of ‘ Nishaada Sthapati’ and the like.
3. On the same tone and line, the administration of Praayaschitta by ‘Krucchra – Chaandrayana vrata rules ’ to restore the ‘ lost /lapsed /fallen - status of a Brahmana’ is also ‘kind of blemished thinking ’. This understanding of ‘Varna’ makes it a club membership with an effort for ‘ status maintained in a preferred ‘club and company’ ( which needs to be maintained and guarded, groomed for perpetuation ?! playing by the rules of the books whose content and interpretation is controlled by the club peers ?! ) The performance of certain orthodox rituals and duties in a culture-nation-tradition specific format (= Sampradyaa –Aachara- paddhati ) for keeping the ‘Varna-membership status Alive and Current is the ‘ heart of Sampradaaya –Aachaara’ (Yathaa te Tatra varteran, alookshaa Dharma kaamah syuh; Shishtaachara .. are related contextual concepts) .
In this frame of ‘Varna’ understanding, the prescribed path for ‘Varna’-status and compliance may be achieved by practice of daily rituals (Kuryaat anyat na vaa kuryaat, maitro braahmana uchyate) or by ‘karmaadhikaara –yogyataa siddhyartham pratyaamnaaya dakshinaa’ – a fine and fee paid to regain the membership privileges to perform the ritual Or by ‘Yoga-Tapas’. And all approved by Manu.
4. On the same tone and line, the inheritance of ‘Varna’ is not a guaranteed issue ! For, at what point does one want to put the tag of ‘Varna’ to the ‘ individual life’, which is marked by ‘Shudra Varna-status right at the time of birth’? ( Janmanaa jaayate Shudrah) ?- the child taking its first breath and making first cry after separation from the supporting umbilical tie? For no fault of the child, the zygote has to get the ‘social varna status’ from parents, like the gene- born qualities ?? When would this change and why ? How? When will one make progression of this ‘ birth stamp of Shudra-varna’? How long should this continue ?
And who on earth can guarantee the ‘Parental Status and maintenance of ‘Varna –Status’ – to the child ? Mother is a fact. Father is a belief. (Story of Satya-Kaama). ? The ‘Cross-Varna ’ marriage yields ‘ antar-jaati’s- even in Manu. Think Jati as a subcategory under ‘Varna’ ?? How is this connected to ‘Four Fold Varna’? dynamics in society and Samskara?
Till British Raj, in India, maximum ‘jati’s’ that were identified and listed in Dharma Shaastra was less than 200 (See History of Dharma Shaastra – MM P.V.Kane) ; and Independent India has exploded this list under Administrative Executive privilege to six-thousand plus , causing social implication and havoc to ‘ Vedic Varna lane locked specific community’- who seem to have found no glue to bond and overcome two key differences : one, by face marks sworn in the name of ‘Vedanta-Acharya –Varyas of Vedanta, held responsible for articulating Veda-Vyasa wisdom and Spirituality’ and two, ‘ culture –region specific ways of wrapping clothe on body’ ? ?
Has there been any deliberation on ‘Varna status of global humanity and people who migrated beyond India seeking ‘ economic well being’ over the ‘ compliance to stick to ‘Aryavartam Punya bhoomih, locked with the bounds of ‘Four Samudras’ and ‘Gotra lineage recollection’? Does it mean that ‘Vaidika-Varna ’ operational identity is limited to the equation ‘ India = Bharath minus Pakistan =Hindustan’? Surely the argument to shoot back would be ‘ kaliyuga’ expecting the ‘Avataar’ to descend, run around the world on a white horse with a sword to fight the ‘ terrorism using assault rifles and bombs’ ? Why are we to shift the responsibility of cleaning human mess to God, peacefully reclining on ‘Shesha-talpa’ for ‘sukha-nidraa’ ? Is it because HE is the Creator who made humans ? ‘Devaan bhaavayata anenana’ ??
The ‘Shudra’ identity has been played as a weapon to destroy, if not neutralize the ‘ Brahmana Varna identity’. Does the Vedic concept hold such internal conflict to be promoted in society ? Is one going to exclude ‘Shudra’ for life time from ‘Samskaras’ in a society ? Do we have history of such eternal damnation ? Why do we forget the upgrade of ‘Hakka –Bukka’, Sri Krishna Devaraya, even the Yadu dynasty kings of Mysore lineage, ‘Shivaji Maharaj’ – just to mention some select, not to speak of illustrious ‘Akbar Baadshaah’ worshipped as ‘ Vishnu, the King of the land?! In his time?? By the ‘ learned people of the period’ in the context ? Why should one be keen on invoking the ‘Devoted Saints authority to insist in restoring a ‘Brahmana’ status and compliance continuing by parental status, in a totally modified context ? Any document to disprove this view ? What was the ‘Kshatriyatva –parentage –Marriage –Dharma’ of Mughal Baadshah in Varna frame, which ‘Rajput kings desisted and fought?
On the same tone and line, Is ‘Varna’ a ‘ Shareera –Dharma, or is it always with ‘Jeeva-Deha association’ till ‘ death do part’ them ? Will Varna identity be different for Jeeva and Deha ? Where is the border and boundary Point of Varna? In which case, what is the ‘ Varna identity of Jeeva’?
5. We, under the umbrella of several Indian disciplines, have continued to carry the association of ‘For Varna model’ to Cosmic bodies and deified cosmic bodies ( -Nava-graha Devataas with a Varna identity), Animals ( certain animals carry Brahmana categorization), trees and metals not excluded ( Why Iron should be Shani and associated with Shudra category ? I don’t have any clue ! And if Iron is made to Stainless steel, does its jaati-varna change ? I don’t see any deliberations and upgrade thinking.
What if ‘Iron’ is a critical ingredient of medicine to treat anemia ? Would one call ‘ it a ‘ restoring optimized percentage of Shudra –Varna balancing in a brahmana body? How long would this birth tag ‘Shudra’ continue and how the ‘Samskara’ works to ‘alter- replace –remove-modify’ it ? and whose responsibility and authority rules this ?
It is this complexity on ‘Varna’ thought and concept to organize society and ‘ lifestyle of communities in society’ that needs to spring forth as a part of the ‘National governance (Rajya Shaastra /Artha Shaastra /Raja Dharma / Nyaya dispensation / Education System shaping the profession, Ethics and human relations part of upcoming society within the frame of ‘ Dharma-Yoga Spirituality’- The texts of which are all drawing the wisdom from ‘Vedas’ using ‘Samskrutham’ explained in ‘Sanskrit’? This essence, somehow seems to have remained dormant in the minds of the traditional scholars’ without reaching out to society at large. When the traditional scholars get themselves ‘pigeon-holed’ and more focused on ‘ guarding their Sampradaya’ for ‘ Personal Moksha, quoting Gita verse ( Uddharet Atmanaa atmaanam), I don’t think they are exercising their rightful ‘Datta –Swaatantraya’ for social or self-reform. It seems to be a personal preferential choice of ‘Brahmana’ between the ‘Personal Moksha ( coupled with saving the Pitrus :Cf. Arjuna vishada Yoga) and ‘Loka Sangraha/ Loka-Kalyana /Sarva-mangalam’ challenge articulated by Manu as ‘ etat Desha prasootasya, sakaashaad agra janmanah, Svam Svam charitram Shiksheran, Pruthivyaam Sarvamaanavaah’ : Brahman as an Iconic ideal for every one to learn and emulate their personal life , all over the world ??
Unless these issues are clearly addressed with a clear reasoning to prove ‘How colonial & oriental translations making a distorted presentation of Vedic Tradition documented in Samskrutham are off the mark’, the expectation of ‘Poorva-paksha /Parapaksha niraakarana’ part of discourse is not complete. It would simply be dismissed as last ditch ‘Brahmins effort’ to save their ‘historic language of scripture and their personal Gods’ , which gave them the power to ‘oppress and suppress Shudras for centuries’.
Do we have any inputs on understanding the aspect of ‘Varna-based Identity from this ‘Sanskrit Word’ for its Status, Concept, Translation and Historical practice with social implications ( in Pre- Independence India and Post Independent India, And Global Hinduism) .
The exercise of ‘Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha’ debate’ is a wonderful and relevant context-sensitive concept, And all appreciation for the work of Rajiv Malhotra for pushing this to the center stage. But without answering the specific point raised above, ( which is just one of many), the deliberation cannot grow any strength to run and address the ‘social implication and history part’ from its current clay feet ( ! ) borrowed from ‘Colonial and oriental thoughts ’ to explain Sanskrit word and concept of ‘Varna’.
Regards
BVK Sastry
sunil bhattacharjya
S Saha
Venkata Sriram
sunil bhattacharjya
sunil bhattacharjya
Sunil ji,could you actually bring out the verses/relevant sections about those incidents?Please? And not just vaguely pull out from memory?
--
Hari Parshad Das
On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 10:06:38 AM UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:
On Saturday, 18 June 2016 22:53:37 UTC+5:30, S Saha wrote:Namaskaram prabhuji,
Do you have a link to that previous thread?These are the linksI believe Damodara Dasa Ji had said he would address the points that I had raised: that Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī in their commentaries on Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu and Haribhaktivilāsa have supported Brāhmaṇatva by birth (see the passages cited in the links above). I did not find this addressed in his paper.
I will clarify here that Srila Jiva Goswami has definitely not supported brāhmaṇatva by birth:
tataś ca savana-yogyatva-pratikūla-durjāty-ārambhakaṁ prārabdham api gatam eva, kintu śiṣṭācārābhāvāt sāvitraṁ janma nāstīti brāhmaṇa-kumārāṇāṁ savana-yogyatvābhāvāvacchedaka-puṇya-viśeṣa-maya-sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā vartata iti bhāvaḥ |
Note: Sri Jiva says here that the cāṇḍāla has to take birth again just as the brahmana boys take birth again during sāvitra-janma. He says "sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā" and not "śaukra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā". Sri Jiva does not say that the Candala has to take a śaukra birth again. This misconception is prevalent in the smārta samāja that Sri Jiva has supported the smārta view. Sri Vishwanath Chakravarti has clarified in his commentary to the same verse of the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ that one who thinks that the cāṇḍāla is only "as worshipable" as a brahmana by birth and not actually deserving to be a brahmana is reading against the text and is overstretching his imagination (atra savanāya kalpate ity atra soma-yāga-kartṛvat pūjyo bhavatīti vyākhyāne granthasya kaṣṭa-kalpanāpatteḥ | prakṛta-granthasyāsaṅgateś ca). Sri Vishwanath has correctly understood the intention of Sri Rupa Goswami and Sri Jiva Goswami.
Also the commentary Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (5.453) by Srila Sanatana Goswami explicitly speaks against the smārta-brāhmaṇa view as follows:
vāyu-purāṇe—
ayācakaḥ pradātā syāt kṛṣiṁ vṛtty-artham ācaret |
purāṇaṁ śṛṇuyān nityaṁ śālagrāmaṁ ca pūjayet || iti |
evaṁ mahā-purāṇānāṁ vacanaiḥ saha—brāhmaṇasyaiva pūjyo’ham iti vacanasya virodhān mātsarya-paraiḥ smārtaiḥ kaiścit kalpitam iti mantavyam | yadi ca yuktyā siddhaṁ sa-mūlaṁ syāt tarhi cāvaiṣṇaviḥ śūdrais tādṛśībhiś ca strībhis tat-pūjā na kartavyā, yathā-vidhi gṛhīta-viṣṇu-dīkṣākaiś ca taiḥ kartvyeti vyavasthāpanīyam | yataḥ śūdreṣv antyajeṣv api madhye ye vaiṣṇavās te śūdrādayo na kilocyante | tathā ca nāradīye—
śvapaco’pi mahīpāla viṣṇor bhakto dvijodhikaḥ iti |
itihāsa-samuccaye—
na śūdrā bhagavad-bhaktaṁ niṣādaṁ śvapacaṁ tathā |
vīkṣate jāti-sāmānyāt sa yāti narakaṁ dhruvam || iti |
pādme ca—
na śūdrā bhagavad-bhaktās te tu bhāgavatā narāḥ |
sarva-varṇeṣu te śūdrā ye na bhaktā janārdane || iti |
etad-ādikaṁ cāgre vaiṣṇava-māhātmye vistareṇa vyaktaṁ bhāvi | kiṁ ca, bhagavad-dīkṣā-prabhāvena śūdrādīnām api vipra-sāmyaṁ siddham eva | tathā ca tatra—yathā kāñcanatāṁ yāti ity ādi | etac ca prāg-dīkṣā-māhātmye likhitam eva | ata eva tṛtīya-skandhe devahūti-vākyam [BhP 3.33.6]—
yan-nāma-dheya-śravaṇānukīrtanād
yat-prahvaṇād yat-smaraṇād api kvacit |
śvādo’pi sadyaḥ savanāya kalpate
kutaḥ punas te bhagavan nu darśanāt || iti |
savanāya yajanāya kalpate yogyo bhavatīty arthaḥ | ata eva vipraiḥ saha vaiṣṇavānām ekatraiva gaṇanā | tathā ca hari-bhakti-sudhodaye śrī-bhagavad-brahma-saṁvāde—
tīrthāny aśvattha-taravo gāvo viprās tathā svayam |
mad-bhaktāś ceti vijñeyāḥ pañca te tanavo mama || iti |
caturtha-skandhe [BhP 4.21.12] śrī-pṛthu-mahārāja-varṇane—
sarvatrāskhalitādeśaḥ sapta-dvīpaika-daṇḍa-dhṛk |
anyatra brāhmaṇa-kulād anyatrācyuta-gotrataḥ || iti |
īmahārājasyoktau [BhP 4.21.37]
mā jātu tejaḥ prabhaven maha-rddhibhis
titikṣayā tapasā vidyayā ca |
dedīpyamāne ñjita-devatānāṁ
kule svayaṁ rāja-kulād dvijānām || iti |
atra śrī-svāmi-pādānāṁ ṭīkā—mahatyaś ca tā ṛddhayaś ca tābhir yad-rāja-kulasya tejas tat tasmāt sakāśād dvijānāṁ viprāṇāṁ kule ajito devatā-pūjyo yeṣāṁ vaiṣṇavānāṁ, teṣāṁ kule mā jātu prabhavet | kadācid api prabhavaṁ na karotu | kathambhūte ? samṛddhibhir vināpi svayam eva titikṣādibhir dedīpyamāna iti |
purañjanoktau [BhP 3.26.24] ca—
tasmin dadhe damam ahaṁ tava vīra-patni
yo 'nyatra bhūsura-kulāt kṛta-kilbiṣas tam |
paśye na vīta-bhayam unmuditaṁ tri-lokyām
anyatra vai mura-ripor itaratra dāsāt || iti |
tatrāpi saiva ṭīkā—he vīra-patni ! yas te kṛtāparādhaḥ | tasminn ahaṁ brāhmaṇa-kulād anyatra anyasmin muraripu-dāsād itaratra ca damaṁ dadhe, daṇḍaṁ karomīty adi | īdṛśāni ca vacanāni śrī-bhāgavatādau bahūny eva santi | itthaṁ vaiṣṇavānāṁ brāhmaṇaiḥ saha sāmyam eva sidhyati | kiṁ ca—viprād dviṣaḍ-guṇa-yutāt [BhP 7.9.10] ity ādi-vacanair vaiṣṇava-brāhmaṇebhyo nīca-jāti-jātānām api vaiṣṇavānāṁ śraiṣṭhyaṁ nirdiśyatetarām | ata evoktaṁ śrī-bhagavatā śrī-hayagrīveṇa śrī-hayaśīrṣa-pañcarātre śrī-puruṣottama-pratiṣṭhānte—
mūrtipānāṁ tu dātavyā deśikārdhena dakṣiṇā |
tad-ardhaṁ vaiṣṇavānāṁ tu tad-ardhaṁ tad-dvijanmanām || iti |
ato yuktam eva likhita sarvair bhagavataḥ paraiḥ pūjya iti | tathā ca brahma-vaivarte priyavratopākhyāne dharma-vyādhasyāpi śrī-śālagrāma-śilā-pūjanam uktam—
tataḥ sa vismitaḥ śrutvā dharma-vyādhasya tad-vacaḥ |
tasthau sa ca samānīya darśayāmāsa tav ubhau ||
ninikta-vasanau vṛddhāvāsanasthau nijau gurū |
śālagrāma-śilāṁ caiva tat-samīpe supūjitam || iti |
atrācāraś ca—satāṁ madhya-deśe’smin viśeṣato dakṣiṇa-deśe ca mahattamānāṁ śrī-vaiṣṇavānāṁ pramāṇam iti dik | evaṁ śrī-bhāgavata-pāṭhaādāv apy adhikāro vaiṣṇavānāṁ draṣṭavyaḥ | yato vidhi-niṣedhā bhagavad-bhaktānāṁ na bhavantīti devarṣi-bhūtāpta-nṝṇāṁ pitṝṇām [BhP 11.5.41] ity ādi-vacanaiḥ | tathā karma-parityāgādināpi na kaścid doṣo ghaṭata iti tāvat karmāṇi kurvīta [BhP 11.20.9] iti, yadā yasyānugṛhṇāti bhagavān [BhP 4.29.46] ity ādi vacanaiś ca vyaktaṁ bodhitam evāsti | etat sarvam agre śrī-vaiṣṇava-māhātmye vistareṇa vyaktaṁ bhāvi ||454-455||
śvādatvam atra śva-bhakṣaka-jāti-viśeṣatvam eva śvānam attīti nirukter vartamāna-prayogāt kravyādavat tac-chīlatva-prāpteḥ | kādācitka-bhakṣaṇa-prāyaścitta-vivakṣāyāṁ tv atītaḥ prayogaḥ kriyeta | rūḍhir yogam apaharatīti nyāyena ca tad virudhyate | ataeva śvapaca iti tair vyākhyātam | savanaṁ cātra soma-yāga ucyate | tataś cāsya bhagavan-nāma-śravaṇādy-ekatarāt sadya eva savana-yogyatā-pratikūla-durjātitva-prārambhaka-prārabdha-pāpa-nāśaḥ pratipadyate | uddhavaṁ prati bhagavatā ca – tasmāt bhaktiḥ punāti man-niṣṭhā śvapākān api sambhavāt [BhP 11.14.20] iti kaimutyārtham eva proktam ity āyāti | kintu yogyatvam atra śvapacatva-prāpaka-prārabdha-pāpa-vicchinnatva-mātram ucyate | savanārthaṁ tu guṇāntarādhānam apekṣata eva | brāhmaṇa-kumārāṇāṁ śaukre janmani yogyatve saty api sāvitra-daiksya-janmāpekṣāvat | sāvitrādi-janmani tu sad-ācāra-prāpter iti savane pravṛttir na yujyate | tasmāt pūjyatva-mātre tātparyam ity abhipretya ṭīkā-kṛdbhir apy uktam anena pūjyatvaṁ lakṣyata iti | tathāpi jāti-doṣa-haratvena prārabdha-hāritvaṁ tu vyaktam evāyātam |
(End of Commentary)
Nobody contests that the neo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement (in the lineage of Bhaktivinoda Thākura and Svāmī Prabhupāda) holds the view that varṇa is not by birth but by symptoms. But this appears to be a new view in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement, against the view expressed by Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī: two of the original gosvāmī-s of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. How the neo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-s reconcile the new view with the old views expressed by Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī is a moot question.
This question has been answered. The original Goswamis are theoretically in support of the new position.
sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,
hari parshad das.
Hari Parshad Das
sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,
hari parshad das.
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:45:28 PM UTC+5:30, Damodara Dasa wrote:
V Subrahmanian
It should also be noted that the "Veda-bhāṣya" of Sri Bhagavad-ācārya from the Rāmānandī-sampradāya also holds the view that śūdras should be given Vedic education. So there are other branches of vaishnavism too which support this viewpoint.
sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,
hari parshad das.
------------------------------------------
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:45:28 PM UTC+5:30, Damodara Dasa wrote:Hare Krishna.
Respected Vidvajjanas,
In pursuance to my reply on the thread subject - "ET Issues" I was
pending to give a detailed analysis of this topic clubbed with the
topic of exploitation in caste system. Sorry for very late reply to
this. In reply I am starting this separate thread and have attached a
paper in pdf format. Please have a look at it and comment or start
discussion.
Thankyou,
Hari Guru Vaisnava Das,
damodara das
--
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com
--
Hari Parshad Das
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/KobQl_OIHzM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
I will clarify here that Srila Jiva Goswami has definitely not supported brāhmaṇatva by birth:
www.lalitaalaalitah.com
Hari Parshad Das
2016-07-03 21:29 GMT+05:30 Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com>:I will clarify here that Srila Jiva Goswami has definitely not supported brāhmaṇatva by birth:उद्धृतानि वाक्यानि वैष्णवानां प्रशंसार्थानि ब्रह्मजातिप्रभववत् ; न तत्र जन्मप्रयुक्तश्रैष्ठ्यनिषेधः प्रतिपादितः । न वा जन्मना न ब्राह्मण इति गदितम् ।
किञ्च ब्राह्मणसाम्यं प्रतिपादयितुमपि ब्राह्मणाः स्वीकर्त्तव्या एव जन्मना । कथं हि अन्यथा तत्साम्यं वक्तुं शक्येत ।
śvapaco’pi mahīpāla viṣṇor bhakto dvijo 'dhikaḥ (iti hari-bhakti-vilāsa-ṭīkāyām)
sarva-varṇeṣu te śūdrā ye na bhaktā janārdane . iti.
अर्थवादा एते विष्णौ रतिं प्रयोजयन्ति इति समीचीना एव ।किञ्च पौराणिकधर्म्माणां वैदिकधर्म्माद्भेदेन निरूपणे कृतेऽधिकारभेदे चाङ्गीकृते कुत्र सङ्करोपि ।आगमरसिकानां वैष्णवानां शैवानाञ्च वैदिकधर्म्मचर्च्चैव व्यर्था , तेषां तत्रानिर्भरात् । किञ्च मीमांसाध्ययनाभावात् कस्य कुत्र तात्पर्य्यम् इत्यपि ज्ञातुं न तेषां सामर्थ्यम् इत्यपि बहुधा प्रकटीभवति ।
mīmāṁsā-rajasā malīmasa-dṛśāṁ tāvan na dhīr īśvare
garvodarka-kutarka-karkaśa-dhiyāṁ dūre'pi vārtā hareḥ
jānanto’pi na jānate śruti-sukhaṁ śrī-raṅgi-saṅgād ṛte
susvāduṁ pariveṣayanty api rasaṁ gurvī na darvī spṛśet
tāvat karmāṇi kurvīta na nirvidyeta yāvatā
mat-kathā-śravaṇādau vā śraddhā yāvan na jāyate (11.20.9)
yoginām api sarveṣāṁ mad-gatenāntarātmanā
śraddhāvān bhajate yo māṁ sa me yuktatamo mataḥ (6.47)
यदि हि वैदिकैः पौराणवचनानुकूलं शालग्रामार्च्चादि नानुमन्येत तदा तेपि श्रद्धाजडा एव भवेयुः ।
अत एव पुराणप्रामाण्याभ्युपगन्तृभिस्तैस्तावदनुमन्तव्यमेव ।
dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra
yo vedān api sannyasati kevalam avicchinnānurāgaṁ labhate | iti
yadā yasyānugṛhṇāti bhagavān ātma-bhāvitaḥ
sa jahāti matiṁ loke vede ca pariniṣṭhitām (4.29.46)
--
V Subrahmanian
Nityanand Misra
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 21:29:09 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
I will clarify here that Srila Jiva Goswami has definitely not supported brāhmaṇatva by birth:
tataś ca savana-yogyatva-pratikūla-durjāty-ārambhakaṁ prārabdham api gatam eva, kintu śiṣṭācārābhāvāt sāvitraṁ janma nāstīti brāhmaṇa-kumārāṇāṁ savana-yogyatvābhāvāvacchedaka-puṇya-viśeṣa-maya-sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā vartata iti bhāvaḥ |
Note: Sri Jiva says here that the cāṇḍāla has to take birth again just as the brahmana boys take birth again during sāvitra-janma. He says "sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā" and not "śaukra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā". Sri Jiva does not say that the Candala has to take a śaukra birth again. This misconception is prevalent in the smārta samāja that Sri Jiva has supported the smārta view.
Sri Vishwanath Chakravarti has clarified in his commentary to the same verse of the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ that one who thinks that the cāṇḍāla is only "as worshipable" as a brahmana by birth and not actually deserving to be a brahmana is reading against the text and is overstretching his imagination (atra savanāya kalpate ity atra soma-yāga-kartṛvat pūjyo bhavatīti vyākhyāne granthasya kaṣṭa-kalpanāpatteḥ | prakṛta-granthasyāsaṅgateś ca). Sri Vishwanath has correctly understood the intention of Sri Rupa Goswami and Sri Jiva Goswami.
Nityanand Misra
On Monday, 4 July 2016 11:26:37 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:
If Visvanatha Cakravarti has specifically commented on Durgamasangamini, it is not relevant in understanding or discussing the position of Jiva Gosvami.
Nityanand Misra
Another question worth considering is what is the view of varna based on janma in other traditions of Gaudiya Vaishnavism outside of Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON (both of which came up in the twentieth century). There would be many old and new parampara-s of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and I doubt if all of them have the same opinion on varna and birth as Gaudiya Matha/ISKCON do.
As for historical Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Sekhar Bandyopadhyay has extensively written on the subject in “Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal” (2004: SAGE, ISBN 9780761998495, pp. 83–86, URL retrieved today). Bandyopadhyay writes that the followers of Advaita Acharya were orthodox and more dominant (as against the more egalitarian followers of Nityananda), and that the Haribhaktivilasa by Gopala Bhatta Gosvami ‘bore a close resemblance to ritualism, Brahminism, and varnashram dharma.’
Hari Parshad Das
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 21:29:09 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
I will clarify here that Srila Jiva Goswami has definitely not supported brāhmaṇatva by birth:
tataś ca savana-yogyatva-pratikūla-durjāty-ārambhakaṁ prārabdham api gatam eva, kintu śiṣṭācārābhāvāt sāvitraṁ janma nāstīti brāhmaṇa-kumārāṇāṁ savana-yogyatvābhāvāvacchedaka-puṇya-viśeṣa-maya-sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā vartata iti bhāvaḥ |
Note: Sri Jiva says here that the cāṇḍāla has to take birth again just as the brahmana boys take birth again during sāvitra-janma. He says "sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā" and not "śaukra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā". Sri Jiva does not say that the Candala has to take a śaukra birth again. This misconception is prevalent in the smārta samāja that Sri Jiva has supported the smārta view.This may be your opinion, but is certainly not what the commentary by Jiva Gosvami seems to suggest. In the absence of any qualifier like ‘sāvitra’, the term ‘janma’ in itself means physical birth and ‘janmāntara’ means ‘another birth’ (‘janmāntara’ is a common term used for rebirth). The natural and straightforward interpretation of ‘janmāntarāpekṣā vartate’ by Jiva Gosvami is ‘there is an expectation of another birth’. To interpret ‘janmāntarāpekṣā vartate’ otherwise would be a far stretch. Moreover, your comment on the ‘upamāna’ is irrelevant.I have attached images of Hindi translation of Durgamasangamini published by Achyuta Granthamala, Kashi.Perhaps you want to translate the commentary word-by-word or cite a translation (preferably an unbiased translation) in support of your interpretation.
Sri Vishwanath Chakravarti has clarified in his commentary to the same verse of the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ that one who thinks that the cāṇḍāla is only "as worshipable" as a brahmana by birth and not actually deserving to be a brahmana is reading against the text and is overstretching his imagination (atra savanāya kalpate ity atra soma-yāga-kartṛvat pūjyo bhavatīti vyākhyāne granthasya kaṣṭa-kalpanāpatteḥ | prakṛta-granthasyāsaṅgateś ca). Sri Vishwanath has correctly understood the intention of Sri Rupa Goswami and Sri Jiva Goswami.
It is not uncommon for commentators in the same tradition to differ on one topic. We are better of sticking to the Durgamasangamini. If Visvanatha Cakravarti has specifically commented on Durgamasangamini, it is not relevant in understanding or discussing the position of Jiva Gosvami.
Please read: Unless Visvanatha Cakravarti has specifically commented on Durgamasangamini, it is not relevant in understanding or discussing the position of Jiva Gosvami.
śvādo yato’nyo nīco nāsti so’pi kalpate samartho bhavati sadyas tasminn eva kṣaṇe vaidharmye brāhmaṇasya surāpāne sadyaḥ pātityavan nāticitram idam
Another question worth considering is what is the view of varna based on janma in other traditions of Gaudiya Vaishnavism outside of Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON (both of which came up in the twentieth century). There would be many old and new parampara-s of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and I doubt if all of them have the same opinion on varna and birth as Gaudiya Matha/ISKCON do.
I have quoted Mukunda Das Goswami above who is not from the ISKCON/Gaudiya Math tradition. That should be sufficient proof enough. Also the fact that none of the Sanskrit commentators have spoken against these commentaries.
As for historical Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Sekhar Bandyopadhyay has extensively written on the subject in “Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal” (2004: SAGE, ISBN 9780761998495, pp. 83–86, URL retrieved today). Bandyopadhyay writes that the followers of Advaita Acharya were orthodox and more dominant (as against the more egalitarian followers of Nityananda), and that the Haribhaktivilasa by Gopala Bhatta Gosvami ‘bore a close resemblance to ritualism, Brahminism, and varnashram dharma.’
This opinion that the followers of Advaita Acharya were orthodox and more dominant is incorrectly derived without giving any reference. The truth is that such followers who supported orthodoxy were rejected during the very presence of Sri Jiva and Sri Krishnadas Kaviraj (author of Caitanya-caritamrita). You can see CC Adi 12.71 for the same. Advaita Acharya himself invited Haridasa Thakur (a yavana by birth but a pure vaishnava) at the sraddha of his father instead of inviting smarta-brahmanas, most of whom were not favorable to the vaishnavas.
I had a question on how the modern Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-s (not using the prefix ‘neo-‘ as it was objected to) reconcile the view of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati/Svami Prabhupadawith with the views of Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī. The view of Damodara Dasa Ji is that things changed in 500 years: the varnashram system was “well in place” when Sanatana Gosvami followed the “already established social etiquette” and this changed over the next centuries. One may agree or disagree with this view, but at least it is less problematic than saying that Jiva Gosvami/Sanatana Gosvami have not supported varna by birth when they indicate exactly the opposite at some places in their works.
Nityanand Misra
On Monday, 4 July 2016 13:16:52 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 3 July 2016 21:29:09 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
I will clarify here that Srila Jiva Goswami has definitely not supported brāhmaṇatva by birth:
tataś ca savana-yogyatva-pratikūla-durjāty-ārambhakaṁ prārabdham api gatam eva, kintu śiṣṭācārābhāvāt sāvitraṁ janma nāstīti brāhmaṇa-kumārāṇāṁ savana-yogyatvābhāvāvacchedaka-puṇya-viśeṣa-maya-sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā vartata iti bhāvaḥ |
Note: Sri Jiva says here that the cāṇḍāla has to take birth again just as the brahmana boys take birth again during sāvitra-janma. He says "sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā" and not "śaukra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā". Sri Jiva does not say that the Candala has to take a śaukra birth again. This misconception is prevalent in the smārta samāja that Sri Jiva has supported the smārta view.This may be your opinion, but is certainly not what the commentary by Jiva Gosvami seems to suggest. In the absence of any qualifier like ‘sāvitra’, the term ‘janma’ in itself means physical birth and ‘janmāntara’ means ‘another birth’ (‘janmāntara’ is a common term used for rebirth). The natural and straightforward interpretation of ‘janmāntarāpekṣā vartate’ by Jiva Gosvami is ‘there is an expectation of another birth’. To interpret ‘janmāntarāpekṣā vartate’ otherwise would be a far stretch. Moreover, your comment on the ‘upamāna’ is irrelevant.I have attached images of Hindi translation of Durgamasangamini published by Achyuta Granthamala, Kashi.Perhaps you want to translate the commentary word-by-word or cite a translation (preferably an unbiased translation) in support of your interpretation.You have written three separate emails. I will answer them all in one here.I have written there clearly that Sri Jiva Goswami has said "sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvad asya janmāntarāpekṣā" — His janmāntara is expected just as sāvitra-janmāntara is expected for the boys. I do not think it gets clearer than this. The very term "sāvitra-janmāpekṣāvat" indicates that the cāṇḍāla does not have to take another physical body. It is not simply "janmāntara". It is "sāvitra-janmā-vaj janmāntara". Therefore the translation published by Achyuta-granthamālā is not correct here. The translation given there has overstretched the meaning of "janmāntara" as "śaukra-sāvitra-janmāntara", which is not what Sri Jiva is saying there. Moreover, such an overstretched translation also assumes that Sri Jiva has a view opposing to Srila Sanatana Goswami (his own guru). This is something not acceptable to those who are faithful to the sampradāya. Scholars who are unaffiliated to the paramparā may say that Sri Jiva is speaking against what Sri Sanatana wrote in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa but such opinions are not taken seriously by the active practitioners of the sampradāya.
Hari Parshad Das
Anyway, can you cite a source to back your interpretation? Any other authentic translation?The other arguments of going against Guru and all and active practitioners are besides the point.
Regarding Sri Jiva, what better source than Sri Jiva himself, who while commenting on the same verse in the Bhakti-sandarbha drops the term "janmāntara" and instead says, ”savanārthaṁ tu guṇāntarādhānam apekṣata eva." — "For performing a yajña the acquisition of good qualities is expected". He does not say that the cāṇḍāla has to wait another life (śaukra-janmāntara) to acquire these qualities. Therefore i said that those who have translated Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ to interpret brahminism by birth have not studied the entirety of the texts of the tradition.
Nityanand Misra
On Monday, 4 July 2016 14:45:58 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
Sāvitra itself is janmāntara (a new birth) after śaukra-janma. Otherwise there is no point in calling someone a dvi-ja. There are three types of births— śaukra— sāvitra— yājñikaSo sāvitra is a janmāntara from śaukra and yājñika is a janmāntara from śaukra and sāvitra.
Regarding Sri Jiva, what better source than Sri Jiva himself, who while commenting on the same verse in the Bhakti-sandarbha drops the term "janmāntara" and instead says, ”savanārthaṁ tu guṇāntarādhānam apekṣata eva." — "For performing a yajña the acquisition of good qualities is expected". He does not say that the cāṇḍāla has to wait another life (śaukra-janmāntara) to acquire these qualities. Therefore i said that those who have translated Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ to interpret brahminism by birth have not studied the entirety of the texts of the tradition.
Hari Parshad Das
On Monday, 4 July 2016 14:45:58 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:Sāvitra itself is janmāntara (a new birth) after śaukra-janma. Otherwise there is no point in calling someone a dvi-ja. There are three types of births— śaukra— sāvitra— yājñikaSo sāvitra is a janmāntara from śaukra and yājñika is a janmāntara from śaukra and sāvitra.The difference is one is birth in the literal sense and other two in the metaphoric sense. In itself and without any qualification, the word janmāntara is used in the sense of next/future/another physical birth and not for upanayana.
Just like even though the sāvitra janma is [like] a birth, but in itself and without any qualification the word janma is used for physical birth. In a context where Jiva Gosami is careful to qualify janma with sāvitra at some places, for him to not qualify it in janmāntarāpekṣā vartate speaks a lot. IMHO, to forego the literal and obvious meaning and search for the metaphorical meaning in a context where the commentator takes pains to clearly distinguish the metaphorical meaning as sāvitra janma would be stretching, not the other way round.
It would help your argument and this discussion if some sources can be cited. For example, any other scholarly translations of the Durgamasangamini which translate the passage attributed to Jiva Gosvami differently. I would like to see how they translate it and how they justify their translation.
Regarding Sri Jiva, what better source than Sri Jiva himself, who while commenting on the same verse in the Bhakti-sandarbha drops the term "janmāntara" and instead says, ”savanārthaṁ tu guṇāntarādhānam apekṣata eva." — "For performing a yajña the acquisition of good qualities is expected". He does not say that the cāṇḍāla has to wait another life (śaukra-janmāntara) to acquire these qualities. Therefore i said that those who have translated Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ to interpret brahminism by birth have not studied the entirety of the texts of the tradition.It is easy to say a translator has overstretched the meaning or has not studied the entirety of the texts. But are we also not guilty of jumping to this conclusion based on only three pages of the translation of Durgamasangamini? Unless we have seen the whole translation and other works by the same translator, is it fair to say this?
Similarly, a source to contradict the claim by Bandyopadhyay on Advaita Acharya, for which he cites a source (The Place of the Hidden Moon by Dimock) would be helpful.
The Caitanya-caritamrita, like the various Digivijaya works in Shankara and Madhva traditions, is a hagiographical work and events described therein are to be taken with a pinch of salt. I am not even sure if CC 12.71 is referring to the same set of followers which Bandyopadhyay has in mind.
Nityanand Misra
On Monday, 4 July 2016 15:42:54 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
Please go through all meanings of 'janmāntara' from Shabda-kalpa-druma.
It seems that you have not read all the meanings of the term 'janmāntara'. You can refer to the Shabda-kalpadruma for the same.
It would help your argument and this discussion if some sources can be cited. For example, any other scholarly translations of the Durgamasangamini which translate the passage attributed to Jiva Gosvami differently. I would like to see how they translate it and how they justify their translation.I have attached Dr. Nagendra's translation and interpretation which is based on the commentary of Sri Jiva.
In my reading of Sri Jiva Goswami's works i have never seen him say anywhere that a vaishnava is unqualified to be a brahmana if he is not born in a specific kula. If you have any such evidence i will be glad to have a look at it.
It is referring to the descendants of Advaita Acharya himself (The Shantipur Goswamis) who are mentioned in Dimock's book on page number 68. Let me know if it is referring to someone else.
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
2016-07-03 22:42 GMT+05:30 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@gmail.com>:2016-07-03 21:29 GMT+05:30 Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com>:I will clarify here that Srila Jiva Goswami has definitely not supported brāhmaṇatva by birth:उद्धृतानि वाक्यानि वैष्णवानां प्रशंसार्थानि ब्रह्मजातिप्रभववत् ; न तत्र जन्मप्रयुक्तश्रैष्ठ्यनिषेधः प्रतिपादितः । न वा जन्मना न ब्राह्मण इति गदितम् ।किञ्च ब्राह्मणसाम्यं प्रतिपादयितुमपि ब्राह्मणाः स्वीकर्त्तव्या एव जन्मना । कथं हि अन्यथा तत्साम्यं वक्तुं शक्येत ।tad-ādhikyaṁ tatra gaditaṁ na tu tat-sāmyaṁ:
śvapaco’pi mahīpāla viṣṇor bhakto dvijo 'dhikaḥ (iti hari-bhakti-vilāsa-ṭīkāyām)
tathā ca hari-bhakti-vihīna-janmanā nāsti brāhmaṇatvam ity api tatraiva likhitam eva,
sarva-varṇeṣu te śūdrā ye na bhaktā janārdane . iti.
अर्थवादा एते विष्णौ रतिं प्रयोजयन्ति इति समीचीना एव ।किञ्च पौराणिकधर्म्माणां वैदिकधर्म्माद्भेदेन निरूपणे कृतेऽधिकारभेदे चाङ्गीकृते कुत्र सङ्करोपि ।आगमरसिकानां वैष्णवानां शैवानाञ्च वैदिकधर्म्मचर्च्चैव व्यर्था , तेषां तत्रानिर्भरात् । किञ्च मीमांसाध्ययनाभावात् कस्य कुत्र तात्पर्य्यम् इत्यपि ज्ञातुं न तेषां सामर्थ्यम् इत्यपि बहुधा प्रकटीभवति ।mīmāṁsā-dāvāgni-jvalita-śuṣka-jñāninām api viṣṇu-māhātmya-jñāna-sāmarthyaṁ vaiṣṇava-māhātmya-jñāna-sāmarthyañca nāsty eva ity api bahudhā prakaṭī-bhavati. padyāvalyāṁ coktam,
mīmāṁsā-rajasā malīmasa-dṛśāṁ tāvan na dhīr īśvare
garvodarka-kutarka-karkaśa-dhiyāṁ dūre'pi vārtā hareḥ
jānanto’pi na jānate śruti-sukhaṁ śrī-raṅgi-saṅgād ṛte
susvāduṁ pariveṣayanty api rasaṁ gurvī na darvī spṛśet
karmādhikāra-bhaktyadhikārayoḥ bhakty-adhikāraḥ śreṣṭha eva iti svayaṁ bhagavatoktam bhāgavate ekādaśa-skandhe,
tāvat karmāṇi kurvīta na nirvidyeta yāvatā
mat-kathā-śravaṇādau vā śraddhā yāvan na jāyate (11.20.9)
gītāyāṁ ca,
yoginām api sarveṣāṁ mad-gatenāntarātmanā
śraddhāvān bhajate yo māṁ sa me yuktatamo mataḥ (6.47)nātra ko 'pi artha-vādaḥ
यदि हि वैदिकैः पौराणवचनानुकूलं शालग्रामार्च्चादि नानुमन्येत तदा तेपि श्रद्धाजडा एव भवेयुः ।satyamअत एव पुराणप्रामाण्याभ्युपगन्तृभिस्तैस्तावदनुमन्तव्यमेव ।purāṇa-prāmāṇyābhupagantṛṇāṁ bhakty-adhikāre sati teṣāṁ bhakti-pratikūlāni mīmāṁsā-vacanāni asvīkṛte 'pi na ko 'pi pratyavāyaḥ.
uktaṁ ca bhāgavate,
dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra
tatra śrīdharācārya-kṛta-ṭīkā — evaṁ karma-kāṇḍa-viṣayebhyaḥ śāstrebhyaḥ śraiṣṭhyam uktam |
jñāna-kāṇḍa-viṣayebhyo’pi śraiṣṭhyam āha vedyam iti |
tathā ca nārada-bhakti-sūtre,
yo vedān api sannyasati kevalam avicchinnānurāgaṁ labhate | iti
tathā ca bhāgavate caturtha-skandhe,
yadā yasyānugṛhṇāti bhagavān ātma-bhāvitaḥ
sa jahāti matiṁ loke vede ca pariniṣṭhitām (4.29.46)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/KobQl_OIHzM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Hari Parshad Das
On Monday, 4 July 2016 15:42:54 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:Please go through all meanings of 'janmāntara' from Shabda-kalpa-druma.It seems that you have not read all the meanings of the term 'janmāntara'. You can refer to the Shabda-kalpadruma for the same.Please quote the specific meaning of SKD you have in mind (with examples, if any) and also show how it contradicts my statement that ‘the word janmāntara is used in the sense of next/future/another physical birth and not for upanayana’. Additional meanings may be possible, and I do not deny them. But is the word used specifically for upanayana (=sāvitra janma) as per the SKD?
It would help your argument and this discussion if some sources can be cited. For example, any other scholarly translations of the Durgamasangamini which translate the passage attributed to Jiva Gosvami differently. I would like to see how they translate it and how they justify their translation.I have attached Dr. Nagendra's translation and interpretation which is based on the commentary of Sri Jiva.I said any other scholarly translations of the Durgamasangamini. It does not appear that the attached snapshot is from a translation the Durgamasangamini. An interpretation of the original text based on a commentary is very different from a translation of a commentary, is it not?
In my reading of Sri Jiva Goswami's works i have never seen him say anywhere that a vaishnava is unqualified to be a brahmana if he is not born in a specific kula. If you have any such evidence i will be glad to have a look at it.How does your observation contradict the translation of a specific passage of Durgamasangamini? It would be good to see other scholarly translations of Durgamasangamini: that is all I am saying. Moreover, can we rule out the chance that the author of the Achyuta Granthamala translation was familiar with works of Jiva Gosvami?
As I said, specific citations/alternate scholarly translations, and not general statements, would help the discussion.It is referring to the descendants of Advaita Acharya himself (The Shantipur Goswamis) who are mentioned in Dimock's book on page number 68. Let me know if it is referring to someone else.Bandyopadhyay says followers, and not descendants on page 83 of ‘Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal’. I have not seen Dimock's work. Does Dimock say descendants? Can you please share the cited by Bandyopadhyay from Dimock?
The Santipur Gosvamins [i.e., the descendants of Advaita] are more conservative and orthodox from the viewpoint of Hindu society than the Nityananda Gosvamins, and they have refused to minister to, or admit into the sect, the lower castes and immoral elements of the population, who have traditionally found help at the hands of Nityananda’s descendants. (Page 68 from Dimock).
Nityanand Misra
On Monday, 4 July 2016 17:47:56 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
The SKD gives 'bhAvAntara' as one meaning given in the Amara-kosha. In this sense, it can refer to a change of samskaras in the same life.
I would like to discuss the शब्दकल्पद्रुमः citation in some detail. Hopefully this will help our understanding. Here is the citation:
जन्मान्तरं, क्ली, (जन्मनः अन्तरम्।)
परलोकः। इति भरतः॥ तत्पर्य्यायः। भावान्तरम् २ प्रेत्य ३ अमुत्र ४। इत्यमरः॥ (यथा, महाभारते। ३ पर्व्वणि। “नूनं जन्मान्तरकृतं पापमाचरितं महत्॥”
अन्यत् जन्म। मयूरव्यंसकादिवत् समासः। पुनर्जन्म। यथा, पञ्चतन्त्रे। २.१८५। “वरं प्राणपरित्यागो न वियोगो भवादृशैः। प्राणा जन्मान्तरे भूयो न भवन्ति भवद्बिधाः॥”)
There are three points to keep in mind.
1) Firstly, there is almost certainly a typographical error in the citation: भावान्तरं is incorrect, it should be भवान्तरं. The citation gives three synonyms (भावान्तरम्, प्रेत्य, and अमुत्र; numbered as 2, 3, and 4) of जन्मान्तरं and traces these to the अमरकोष. I consulted five editions of Amarakosa (NSP Mula, with Colebrook’s translation, with Vyakhyasudha commentary, with Mahesvara commentary, and with Haragovinda’s commentary). All five editions have the reading प्रेत्यामुत्र भवान्तरे. Given this, I am almost certain that the SKD citation has भवान्तरं incorrectly typeset as भावान्तरं.
2) Secondly, it is clear from the SKD citation that भवान्तरं is not listed as an independent meaning of the word जन्मान्तरं, but as one of the three synonyms (पर्याय) of the first meaning (परलोकः). This is clear from तत्पर्य्यायः। So, as per SKD, भवान्तरं is another word for परलोकः (‘next/other world’) and does not stand for ‘upanayana’ or refer to ‘change of samskaras in the same life.’
3) Lastly, the translations and commentaries on the अमरकोष I consulted explain भवान्तर as ‘next life’ or ‘other world.’ Colebrook explains the word as ‘next life’. Vyakhyasudha and Mahesvari explain it as जन्मान्तर. Haragovinda explains it as ‘परलोक’ (‘other world’). If you have a source which supports your interpretation of भवान्तर as (‘upanayana’/‘change of samskaras in the same life’), it is most welcome. Perhaps your interpretation was influenced by the error in SKD (भावान्तर instead of भवान्तर).
I said any other scholarly translations of the Durgamasangamini. It does not appear that the attached snapshot is from a translation the Durgamasangamini. An interpretation of the original text based on a commentary is very different from a translation of a commentary, is it not?How do you assume that the six editor team under Dr. Nagendra not read Sri Jiva's commentary before writing their comments? If you do not want to agree even after sharing a scholarly edition, then i do not have to pursue this further. Show me the commentary referred to by Dr. Nagendra while making his comments and then we can continue on this. Else i have no issues if you want to assume without proof that Dr. Nagendra did not refer to Sri Jiva.
Unless the author of the Achyuta Granthamala claims so, i can safely assume that he has overstretched the meaning of the text. It is not uncommon for a translator to interpret incorrectly. Neither is the translator a practitioner of the sampradaya.
I cannot answer generalizations and assumptions. One can say it is not uncommon for somebody affiliated to ISKCON to disagree with anything that goes against the ‘official position’. These are of no use.
Bandyopadhyay says followers, and not descendants on page 83 of ‘Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal’. I have not seen Dimock's work. Does Dimock say descendants? Can you please share the cited by Bandyopadhyay from Dimock?
The Santipur Gosvamins [i.e., the descendants of Advaita] are more conservative and orthodox from the viewpoint of Hindu society than the Nityananda Gosvamins, and they have refused to minister to, or admit into the sect, the lower castes and immoral elements of the population, who have traditionally found help at the hands of Nityananda’s descendants. (Page 68 from Dimock).
Nityanand Misra
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 07:18:39 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:
I would like to discuss the शब्दकल्पद्रुमः citation in some detail. Hopefully this will help our understanding. Here is the citation:
जन्मान्तरं, क्ली, (जन्मनः अन्तरम्।)
परलोकः। इति भरतः॥ तत्पर्य्यायः। भावान्तरम् २ प्रेत्य ३ अमुत्र ४। इत्यमरः॥ (यथा, महाभारते। ३ पर्व्वणि। “नूनं जन्मान्तरकृतं पापमाचरितं महत्॥”
अन्यत् जन्म। मयूरव्यंसकादिवत् समासः। पुनर्जन्म। यथा, पञ्चतन्त्रे। २.१८५। “वरं प्राणपरित्यागो न वियोगो भवादृशैः। प्राणा जन्मान्तरे भूयो न भवन्ति भवद्बिधाः॥”)
There are three points to keep in mind.
1) Firstly, there is almost certainly a typographical error in the citation: भावान्तरं is incorrect, it should be भवान्तरं. The citation gives three synonyms (भावान्तरम्, प्रेत्य, and अमुत्र; numbered as 2, 3, and 4) of जन्मान्तरं and traces these to the अमरकोष. I consulted five editions of Amarakosa (NSP Mula, with Colebrook’s translation, with Vyakhyasudha commentary, with Mahesvara commentary, and with Haragovinda’s commentary). All five editions have the reading प्रेत्यामुत्र भवान्तरे. Given this, I am almost certain that the SKD citation has भवान्तरं incorrectly typeset as भावान्तरं.
2) Secondly, it is clear from the SKD citation that भवान्तरं is not listed as an independent meaning of the word जन्मान्तरं, but as one of the three synonyms (पर्याय) of the first meaning (परलोकः). This is clear from तत्पर्य्यायः। So, as per SKD, भवान्तरं is another word for परलोकः (‘next/other world’) and does not stand for ‘upanayana’ or refer to ‘change of samskaras in the same life.’
3) Lastly, the translations and commentaries on the अमरकोष I consulted explain भवान्तर as ‘next life’ or ‘other world.’ Colebrook explains the word as ‘next life’. Vyakhyasudha and Mahesvari explain it as जन्मान्तर. Haragovinda explains it as ‘परलोक’ (‘other world’). If you have a source which supports your interpretation of भवान्तर as (‘upanayana’/‘change of samskaras in the same life’), it is most welcome. Perhaps your interpretation was influenced by the error in SKD (भावान्तर instead of भवान्तर).
BVKSastry(Gmail)
Namaste
Can we focus on this one point here reading < janmāntara (a new birth) after śaukra-janma >
What all does this expression cover? . Here are my thoughts:
1) ‘ A new birth’ presupposes a ‘ border line’ separating the ‘current state of existence’ from a previous state;
- 1.1) Which in case of śaukra – is body –Material –Processes of (Human) life model; the normal understanding being ‘ Stree- Pum Bhoga janita martya shareera’. Which seems to map to < one is birth in the literal sense > . This ‘birth-phase ’ ends only wih ‘Shareera-Naasha / Marana’.
- 1.2) Which in case of sāvitra - is Non-Material body – Non-Material Processes of (Human) life, pre-supposing a ‘Samskara’ and ‘Adrushta vishesha /Adhikaaraavapti / Privilege and responsibility in a body
of 1.1 type’. This ‘ new birth’ is technical, needs to be maintained for its status and if failed, can be restored back through the technicality of Prayaschitta.
This is Some thing like a club- membership. Which seems to map to < in the metaphoric sense >.
This ‘birth-phase ’ has an ‘interim reference point within 1.1 and dynamics for maintaining it. And is ‘ JanmaVarna’ –‘Veda’ factored.
- 1.3) Which in case of yājñika – is (1.3.a) body of type 1.1 (1.3.b) which may or may not be of 1.2 and ( 1.3.c) a temporary process where in some technicality is invoked for a purpose, analogous to the dress and ornaments put on a actor, a role-play making the person look like a ‘Rama or Ravana’ ( - Natvat vyavaharah). Which seems to map to < in the metaphoric sense >. This ‘birth-phase ’ has a ‘interim reference point, within a context and a temporal value till the deeksha within 1.1 and limited dynamics for maintaining it. Here the ‘ Janma-Varna’ issue is not brought in to consideration at all !
In this light, I am not able to understand the total purport of the statement reading : < The difference is one is birth in the literal sense and other two in the metaphoric sense. In itself and without any qualification, the word janmāntara is used in the sense of next/future/another physical birth and not for upanayana.> Why then connect the word ‘Dvi-ja’ with ‘ Upa-Nayana’? The vedantins speak of every wake up from sleep comparable to < another birth experience>.
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
Regards
BVK Sastry
Hari Parshad Das
On Monday, 4 July 2016 17:47:56 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:The SKD gives 'bhAvAntara' as one meaning given in the Amara-kosha. In this sense, it can refer to a change of samskaras in the same life.I would like to discuss the शब्दकल्पद्रुमः citation in some detail. Hopefully this will help our understanding. Here is the citation:
जन्मान्तरं, क्ली, (जन्मनः अन्तरम्।)
परलोकः। इति भरतः॥ तत्पर्य्यायः। भावान्तरम् २ प्रेत्य ३ अमुत्र ४। इत्यमरः॥ (यथा, महाभारते। ३ पर्व्वणि। “नूनं जन्मान्तरकृतं पापमाचरितं महत्॥”
अन्यत् जन्म। मयूरव्यंसकादिवत् समासः। पुनर्जन्म। यथा, पञ्चतन्त्रे। २.१८५। “वरं प्राणपरित्यागो न वियोगो भवादृशैः। प्राणा जन्मान्तरे भूयो न भवन्ति भवद्बिधाः॥”)
There are three points to keep in mind.
1) Firstly, there is almost certainly a typographical error in the citation: भावान्तरं is incorrect, it should be भवान्तरं. The citation gives three synonyms (भावान्तरम्, प्रेत्य, and अमुत्र; numbered as 2, 3, and 4) of जन्मान्तरं and traces these to the अमरकोष. I consulted five editions of Amarakosa (NSP Mula, with Colebrook’s translation, with Vyakhyasudha commentary, with Mahesvara commentary, and with Haragovinda’s commentary). All five editions have the reading प्रेत्यामुत्र भवान्तरे. Given this, I am almost certain that the SKD citation has भवान्तरं incorrectly typeset as भावान्तरं.
2) Secondly, it is clear from the SKD citation that भवान्तरं is not listed as an independent meaning of the word जन्मान्तरं, but as one of the three synonyms (पर्याय) of the first meaning (परलोकः). This is clear from तत्पर्य्यायः। So, as per SKD, भवान्तरं is another word for परलोकः (‘next/other world’) and does not stand for ‘upanayana’ or refer to ‘change of samskaras in the same life.’
3) Lastly, the translations and commentaries on the अमरकोष I consulted explain भवान्तर as ‘next life’ or ‘other world.’ Colebrook explains the word as ‘next life’. Vyakhyasudha and Mahesvari explain it as जन्मान्तर. Haragovinda explains it as ‘परलोक’ (‘other world’). If you have a source which supports your interpretation of भवान्तर as (‘upanayana’/‘change of samskaras in the same life’), it is most welcome. Perhaps your interpretation was influenced by the error in SKD (भावान्तर instead of भवान्तर).
I said any other scholarly translations of the Durgamasangamini. It does not appear that the attached snapshot is from a translation the Durgamasangamini. An interpretation of the original text based on a commentary is very different from a translation of a commentary, is it not?How do you assume that the six editor team under Dr. Nagendra not read Sri Jiva's commentary before writing their comments? If you do not want to agree even after sharing a scholarly edition, then i do not have to pursue this further. Show me the commentary referred to by Dr. Nagendra while making his comments and then we can continue on this. Else i have no issues if you want to assume without proof that Dr. Nagendra did not refer to Sri Jiva.I am not assuming that. I am asking if Dr. Nagendra’s work is a strict/close translation of the Durgamasangamini or not. It does not appear so. Seems to be an independent work (you can confirm this, I do not have the work). The author/team may have consulted Durgamasangamini (and even other works) and yet differed from them at places. There is a big difference between a translation of a commentary and a translation made by consulting a commentary. I can very well author an independent translation of Kumarasambhava by consulting Mallinatha, and yet differ from Mallinatha at several places in my interpretation. My point is simple: let us see another scholarly translation of Durgamasangamini, and not independent works.
Unless the author of the Achyuta Granthamala claims so, i can safely assume that he has overstretched the meaning of the text. It is not uncommon for a translator to interpret incorrectly. Neither is the translator a practitioner of the sampradaya.I cannot answer generalizations and assumptions. One can say it is not uncommon for somebody affiliated to ISKCON to disagree with anything that goes against the ‘official position’. These are of no use.
Bandyopadhyay says followers, and not descendants on page 83 of ‘Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal’. I have not seen Dimock's work. Does Dimock say descendants? Can you please share the cited by Bandyopadhyay from Dimock?
The Santipur Gosvamins [i.e., the descendants of Advaita] are more conservative and orthodox from the viewpoint of Hindu society than the Nityananda Gosvamins, and they have refused to minister to, or admit into the sect, the lower castes and immoral elements of the population, who have traditionally found help at the hands of Nityananda’s descendants. (Page 68 from Dimock).You claim, citing CC Adi 12.71, that such orthodox followers were rejected in the time of Jiva Gosvami and Krishnadas Kaviraj. However, Bandyopadhyay claims that ‘gradually this orthodox trend became dominant’. Is it likely that different sets of people are being referred to? To me, it is not convincing to cite CC, a hagiography, to counter a modern author’s research.
Nityanand Misra
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 08:54:34 UTC+5:30, Dr.BVK Sastry wrote:
In this light, I am not able to understand the total purport of the statement reading : < The difference is one is birth in the literal sense and other two in the metaphoric sense. In itself and without any qualification, the word janmāntara is used in the sense of next/future/another physical birth and not for upanayana.> Why then connect the word ‘Dvi-ja’ with ‘ Upa-Nayana’? The vedantins speak of every wake up from sleep comparable to < another birth experience>.
K S Kannan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Bvk sastry
The word dvija is commonly used in the sense of the three varnas by rudhi (convention),
and to explain this usage we connect the word with upanayana which is the second birth, metaphorically speaking.
But is the word janmāntara used conventionally in the sense of non-physical birth?
Does any Kosa list this sense as a meaning, or are there any examples attesting to such a usage?
BVK Sastry
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Bvk sastry
And todays process has no ' design, purpose, pedagogy' to seek Brahma, be a Sa-Varna-lingee, or be a practitioner of ' Brahma-Charyaa'.brahmacāriṇam kṛṇute garbham antaḥ
BVK Sastry
Nityanand Misra
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 18:12:07 UTC+5:30, Dr.BVK Sastry wrote:
NamasteI have greater difficulty in understanding your second explanation than the original statement!BVK Sastry (on commonly used-1) : the common word/ literary and social usage like द्विज- द्विज श्रेष्ठ- द्विजोत्तम have social usage focussed on Brahmanas with a birth- Profession- learning- practice (including the dress code , the sacred thread wearing, and facial mark). Example : The conversation in the dramas of Bhasa , The conversation of Karna and Aswatthama in Venisamhara.The word dvija is commonly used in the sense of the three varnas by rudhi (convention),No reader has confused the 'Dharma-Shaastra technicality of Upanayana-Samskara ( derogatorilyPointing to tuft and janivu/ yajnopaveetam wearing by Dvija- Brahmana' ) with an equal-measure application to rest of the varnas.
BVK Sastry (on Kosha listing- 1) :Let us put the question differently: is there any kosha which says dvija can be used for a kshatriya or vaishya or ' limited sense usage for a shudra' ? The classical usage of term has been to point to Brahmanas with brahmana-achaaras.
Hnbhat B.R.
2>> Let us put the question differently: is there any kosha which says dvija can be used for a kshatriya or vaishya or ' limited sense usage for a shudra' ? The classical usage of term has been to point to Brahmanas with brahmana-achaaras.
>>
>
> The word is used for both: specifically for Brahmins, and in general for the three varnas. For the general meaning, there is evidence in Kosas and Smrtis:
>
> Kosa evidence:
> 1) द्विजः स्याद्ब्राह्मणक्षत्रवैश्यदन्ताण्डजेषु ना (मेदिनीकोषः, जान्तवर्गः ९, also cited in Vyakhyasudha on Amarakosa)
> 2) क्षत्त्रियः। वैश्यः। इति मेदिनी (शब्दकल्पद्रुमः on द्विजः)
> 3) ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियवैश्येषु च (वाचस्पत्यम् on द्विज)
>
> Smrti evidence
> मातुर्यदग्रे जायन्ते द्वितीयं मौञ्जिबन्धनात्। ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशस्तस्मादेते द्विजाः स्मृताः॥ १.३९ ॥
Further,
1.1.19 वसन्ते ब्राह्मणमुपनयीत, ग्रीष्मे राजन्यं, शरदि वैश्यं, गर्भाष्टमेषु ब्राह्मणं, गर्भैकादशेषु राजन्यं, गर्भाद्वादशेषु वैश्यम्।।
आपस्तम्बः।for नारदः -
आधानादष्टमे वर्षे जन्मतो वाग्रजन्मनाम् ।
राज्ञामेकादशे मौञ्जीबन्धनं द्वादशे विशाम् ॥
for मौञ्जीबन्धनं common for the three वर्ण-s to have दितीयं जन्म referred to in याज्ञवल्क्यस्मृतिः.
BVKSastry(Gmail)
Namaste
1. It is nice to see and be reminded to revisit the quotes from several resources, which do provide multiple meaning of the word ‘dvija’. Before I made the post on ‘dvija’ clarification, I have verified the following sources, where I do see the word-listing with multiple meanings in different contexts. It does not help to fire a salvo in the battle for ‘Sanskrit’ or build a ‘poorva-paksha’, much less restore ‘brahmana’ Varna stakes to the fore.
Thanks Bhat ji for making me revisit them once again.
http://www.sanskritdictionary.com/?q=dvije
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=dvija&direction=SE&script=&link=yes
http://faculty.washington.edu/prem/mw/s.html
http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=twice-born&direction=ES&script=HK&link=yes&beginning=
These listings do not resolve the issue.
2. What then was the focus of my asking again on the usage of the word ‘dvija’ and pointing to the preferred classical usage pointing to < Brahmanas with brahmana-achaaras > in the context of the thread of discussion debating ‘Brahmanatva’ by birth.
The ‘meaning listing given by the links above and resources’ is a ‘ pool of meanings’ associated with the word ‘dvija’ in different contexts. The links themselves do not provide a filtering criterion or logic for construction, beyond a ‘ justification to say: This meaning ‘also’ is associated with the word’.
This is precisely where the clarity needs to be provided in understanding the meaning of the Samskruth word < dvija>. In the context of the description, which brought in ‘Identification of Brahman Varna status’ by ‘ birth or otherwise, three criterion - Saukra, Savitra, Yajnika - were listed. Each one is a different technicality and discipline – context specific construction. Such constructions need to guard jumps across the following boundary lines:
- 2a) by the model of ‘traditional nirvachana’ : जन्मना ब्राह्मणो ज्ञेयः संस्कारै- र्द्विज उच्यते Dvija as ‘Twice born’ - N.13.42. -जः 'twice-born' 1 a man of any of the first three castes of the Hindus (a Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya or Vaiśya);
- 2b) by the ‘paribhashaa’- Technical definition under ‘Dharma-Shaastra’ invoking ‘Veda’ : - मातुर्यदग्रे जायन्ते द्वितीयं मौञ्जिबन्धनात् । ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशस्तस्मादेते द्विजाः स्मृताः Y.1.39. -2 Brāhmaṇa (over whom the Saṁskāras or purificatory rites are performed);
- 2c) by the social usage – model of dictionary where one looks at the word-meaning in usage context
- 2d) by the literary expression usage in poetry as a creative composition (Venisamhara quoted earlier)
- 2e) by discipline technicality –Shaastra Paddhati. (Varna-Ashrama Dharma contextuality).
When these boundaries are violated, exactly like the approach used in colonial and oriental research in constructing the history and social implication of ‘Document of Samskruth’ and using ‘academic freedom for cross hopping across ‘ time-lines, societies and knowledge domains’ and pronounce opinions guarded by shield of ‘freedom of expression’, there will be serious errors in understanding the intention of writer, text, practicing culture, rite of passage and usage. And outcome of such writing can be politically damning for communities, if not a religious ‘ castigation’ (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/damnation ).
3. By pointing to the links and a plurality of meanings, the resolving of the issue in original post has been further complicated. Here is ‘why’ and I request you to address this.
- I take the usage of word ‘dvija’ in Gita (17-14) line: deva-dvija-guru-prājña- pūjanaṁ .
- Why Gita? Gita serves as a 3100 BCE text / Pre-Christian period text, and before any of these dictionaries can be used as a reference; including the Dharma-Shaastra reference indicated. Gita text uses the word ‘Brahmana’ (18-41) also without any confusion or overlap of meaning on ‘dvija’. The word usage of ‘Brahmana’ in prior-works to Gita are aplenty and come with specificity of expectations which do not make a substitution or wide sweep coverage like ‘dvija’. For word usage ‘Brahmana’ in literature earlier to Gita, see url : http://www.vedabase.com/en/verse-index?original_op=contains&original=brahmaNa&=Apply
- The question : I place the listed meaning of the words – ‘ dvija’ and ‘brAhmaNa’ drawn from from url’s.
What does the word ‘dvija’ mean in Gita statement yielding the expression : ‘deva-dvija- guru-prajna- poojanam ? How does this translate in to ‘ limited one ‘Varna’ focused practice? How to filter the appropriate meaning from the pool of meanings listed in the above urls’? Can ‘Any and all ‘ meanings of ‘dvija’ – ‘ brAhmaNa’- be swapped and substituted by the translator? What happens when one does such ‘ transgression using the ‘ academic freedom’? When one needs to work on explaining the position of ‘Gita’ on ‘Dvija - brAhmaNa’ , using a commentary of a very later period, taken as authority in a ‘fairly rigid lane of Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya’, what meaning would be most appropriate? Why? How does one get at the ‘ intended meaning and position (Vivakshaa –Taatparya) of the commentator? And the translator to pick? Where are the dictionaries covering the fine shades of usage < Saukra, Savitra, Yajnika > filters ? Would the ‘Buddha’ reference based translation to interpret ‘Gita’ line be appropriate?
Word Meaning dvija - brAhmaNa
1 brAhmaNa mfn. relating to or given by a Bra1hman , befitting or becoming a BrñBra1hman , Bra1hmanical AV. TBr. MBh. ; (%{-Na4}) m. one who has divine knowledge (sometimes applied to Agni) , a Bra1hman , a man belonging to the 1st of the 3 twice-born classes and of the 4 original divisions of the Hindu1 body (generally a priest , but often in the present day a layman engaged in non-priestly occupations although the name is strictly only applicable to one who knows and repeats the Veda) RV. &c. &c. ; = %{brAhmaNAcchaMsin} Ka1tyS3r. ; a Bra1hman in the second stage (between Ma1tra and S3rotriya) Hcat. ; N. of the 28th lunar mansion L. ; (%{I}) f. see %{brAhmaNI} ; n. that which is divine , the divine AV. ; sacred or dñdivine power ib. A1s3vGr2. ; Bra1hmanical explanation , explanations of sacred knowledge or doctrine (esp. for the use of the Bra1hmans in their sacrifices) Br. ; the Bra1hman2a portion of the Veda (as distinct from its Mantra and Upanishad portion) and consisting of a class of works called Bra1hman2as (they contain rules for the employment of the Mantras or hymns at various sacrifices , with detailed explanations of their origin and meaning and numerous old legends ; they are said by Sa1yan2a to contain two parts: 1. %{vidhi} , rules or directions for rites ; 2. %{artha-vAda} , explanatory remarks ; each Veda has its own Bra1hman2a , that of the RV. is preserved in 2 works , viz. the Aitareya , sometimes called A1s3vala1yana , and the Kaushi1taki or S3a1n3kha1yana-BrñBra1hman2a ; the white Yajur-veda has the S3ata-patha-BrñBra1hman2a ; the black Yajur-veda has the Taittiri1ya-BrñBra1hman2a which differs little from the text of its Sam2hita1 ; the SV. has 8 BrñBra1hman2a , the best known of which are the Praud2ha or Pan5ca-vin6s3a and the Shad2vins3a ; the AV. has one BrñBra1hman2a called Go-patha) Nir. Gr2S3rS. &c. ; the Soma vessel of the Brahman priest RV. AV. ; a society or assemblage of Bra1hmans , a conclave W.
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
1 dvija see %{dvija4}.
2 dvijA mfn. twice-born RV.
3 dvija mfn. twice-born ; m. a man of any one of the first 3 classes , any A1ryan , (esp.) a Bra1hman (re-born through investiture with the sacred thread cf. %{upa-nayana}) AV. Mn. MBh. &c. ; a bird or any oviparous animal (appearing first as an egg) Mn. MBh. &c. ; a tooth (as growing twice) Sus3r. Bhartr2. Var. (n. BhP. ii , 1 , 31) ; coriander seed or Xantboxylum Alatum L. ; (%{A}) f. Piper Aurantiacum Bhpr. ; Clerodendrum Siphonantus L. ; %{pAlaGkI} L. (cf. %{-jA4} and %{-jati}).
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
-------------
sabhasman
○bhasman mfn. mixed or smeared with ashes R
• (○ma) -dvija m. pl. N. of Pāśupata or Śaiva mendicants Buddh
http://faculty.washington.edu/prem/mw/s.html
Regards
BVK Sastry
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hnbhat B.R.
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July, 2016 8:28 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Judging Varna based on Guna or birth (Janma)?
--
Nityanand Misra
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 23:32:23 UTC+5:30, Dr.BVK Sastry wrote:
Namaste
Hari Parshad Das
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 23:32:23 UTC+5:30, Dr.BVK Sastry wrote:Namaste
I think the discussion on the meanings of dvija has led the thread to digress far away from the topic. Probably a new thread can be started on the same. Let me bring back the focus on the position of Jiva Gosvami on varna (brahmanatva) based on birth.
Nobody contests that the neo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement (in the lineage of Bhaktivinoda Thākura and Svāmī Prabhupāda) holds the view that varṇa is not by birth but by symptoms. But this appears to be a new view in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement, against the view expressed by Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī: two of the original gosvāmī-s of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya. How the neo-Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-s reconcile the new view with the old views expressed by Jīva Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī is a moot question.
I would like to submit a clarification to an earlier reference, and another reference.Firstly, the Hindi translation of Durgamasangamini that I had referred to is not form an Achyuta Granthamala publication from Kashi, but from a publication of multiple commentaries on Bhaktirasamrtasindhu with their Hindi translations by Gadadgara-gaurahari Press in Vrindavan. What is more, the Hindi translation is by none other than the late Vidyaratna Haridasa Shastri, probably the most prolific and erudite scholar in the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition in recent times.
I am attaching the images of title page of the work and two pages in which Haridasa Shastri Ji's translation of Durgamasangamini clearly interprets Jiva Gosvami's commentary as stating that (another) physical birth is required for savana (in other words, Haridasa Shastri Ji sees Jiva Gosvami's commentary as supporting varna based on birth). This correction and publication details will hopefully answer the speculation that the author of the Hindi commentary did not know or was not a practitioner of the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition.
The other reference is Shyamlal Hakim's summary of the position of Jiva Gosvami. He also interprets Jiva Gosvami's to say that a candala needs another physical birth to be able to perform havana. I do not have full details of Shyamlal Hakim.
Thanks, Nityananda--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/KobQl_OIHzM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Nityanand Misra
On Monday, 11 July 2016 01:49:28 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
In this regard I have already shown that Sri Sanatana Goswami is of the opinion of varna by symptoms. I cited the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa commentary in support of that.
That's a good appeal to authority but it should be noted that there have been many prolific Gaudiya Vaishnava scholars with various accolades bestowed on them even before Sri Haridas Shastriji. I don't know if you've heard of Ramnarayan Vidyaratna, Puridas or Sundarananda Vidyavinoda. Of course, this is not to undermine Sri Haridas Shastrijis achievements in any way. Sri Haridas Shastriji is a great vaishnava who dedicated his life for serving Go-mātā and Govinda and my sincere pranams to him but I just wanted to make a point that the sampradāya has other dedicated and respected vidvāns too (like Sri Mukunda Goswami, who believes that the dog-eater is immediately eligible for a soma-yajña and whose commentary was faithfully translated by Sri Haridas Shastriji).
And I have already said that its not only vidvans within Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya who support such a view. I have also stated earlier that brahminism by qualities has been advocated in the Ramanandi Sampradaya too, and I have already cited Sri Vallabhacharya's commentary on the same verse.Also by the way, i'm not sure if you saw one of my uploads previously but I had uploaded a book named "Hindu-dharma-rahasyam vā Sarva-dharma-samanvayaḥ" which was published by Sri Haridas Shastriji himself. You can see clear support for varnas based on quality rather than birth in that book (URL: https://archive.org/details/hindudharmarahasyam ). Now this shows the dynamic nature of the personality of Sri Haridas Shastriji. This book is a clear proof that he was open to other viewpoints which are logical.
As I have stated earlier, Srila Jiva Goswami says clearly that the entire verse is in context of a person who is currently eating meat. Using this verse to say that Srila Jiva Goswami does not support brahminism by birth even for a person who has given up meat eating and is practicing principles of vaishnavism in a modern day Gaudiya Vaishnava institution is a clear case of misapplication.
V Subrahmanian
Not to digress, I would like to know whether shishtas of the vaidika sampradaya include such a person discussed here in a soma or any shrauta yaga.
Regards
Subrahmanian. V
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Damodara Dasa
+91 9737475085
www.bvks.com
Hari Parshad Das
On Monday, 11 July 2016 01:49:28 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:In this regard I have already shown that Sri Sanatana Goswami is of the opinion of varna by symptoms. I cited the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa commentary in support of that.That's a good appeal to authority but it should be noted that there have been many prolific Gaudiya Vaishnava scholars with various accolades bestowed on them even before Sri Haridas Shastriji. I don't know if you've heard of Ramnarayan Vidyaratna, Puridas or Sundarananda Vidyavinoda. Of course, this is not to undermine Sri Haridas Shastrijis achievements in any way. Sri Haridas Shastriji is a great vaishnava who dedicated his life for serving Go-mātā and Govinda and my sincere pranams to him but I just wanted to make a point that the sampradāya has other dedicated and respected vidvāns too (like Sri Mukunda Goswami, who believes that the dog-eater is immediately eligible for a soma-yajña and whose commentary was faithfully translated by Sri Haridas Shastriji).And I have already said that its not only vidvans within Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya who support such a view. I have also stated earlier that brahminism by qualities has been advocated in the Ramanandi Sampradaya too, and I have already cited Sri Vallabhacharya's commentary on the same verse.Also by the way, i'm not sure if you saw one of my uploads previously but I had uploaded a book named "Hindu-dharma-rahasyam vā Sarva-dharma-samanvayaḥ" which was published by Sri Haridas Shastriji himself. You can see clear support for varnas based on quality rather than birth in that book (URL: https://archive.org/details/hindudharmarahasyam ). Now this shows the dynamic nature of the personality of Sri Haridas Shastriji. This book is a clear proof that he was open to other viewpoints which are logical.As I have stated earlier, Srila Jiva Goswami says clearly that the entire verse is in context of a person who is currently eating meat. Using this verse to say that Srila Jiva Goswami does not support brahminism by birth even for a person who has given up meat eating and is practicing principles of vaishnavism in a modern day Gaudiya Vaishnava institution is a clear case of misapplication.Thanks for the response and examples, but the positions of these Gauḍiya Vaiṣṇava scholars (including Haridāsa Śāstrī Ji) elsewhere or even scholars from other traditions does not influence interpretation of Jīva Gosvāmī’s position in Durgamasaṅgamanī in any way. That Jīva Gosvāmī sees the [extreme] example of śvapāka in Bhāgavatam 11.14.21 as kaimutya is clear when he says kaimutyārthameva proktam: there is nothing specific about śvapāka to merit a mention except kaimutya (the jāti was considered the lowest and hence the example). In addition, Jīva Gosvāmī's sub-statement that the right to perform savana is acquired only after a śaukra janma (physical birth) as a Brahmin and sāvitra janma (upanayana) is crystal clear. The terms durjāti and sujāti are also used by Jīva Gosvāmī in the sense of physical birth alone. Given all this, the only rational conclusion I can reach is that Durgamasaṅgamanī supports right to savana only for those who are born as a Brahmin
and have had upanayana, and somebody who is purified by bhakti also has to take a physical birth as a Brahmin and undergo upanayana before he can perform savana (as said earlier, the cāṇḍāla example is for kaimutya alone as per Jīva Gosvāmī). And this conclusion is confirmed by the excellent scholarly translation by Haridāsa Śāstrī and the summary by Shyamlal Hakim.
With that, I do not have anything else to say for now.
ato niṣedhakaṁ yad yad vacanaṁ śrūyate sphuṭam
avaiṣṇava-paraṁ tat tad vijñeyaṁ tattva-darśibhiḥ
If another scholarly translation of the Durgamasaṅgamanī interprets him otherwise, I would be happy to see that.
--
Nityanand Misra
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 01:03:16 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
Once again, you are squarely missing the context of the Durgama-sangamani. NOWHERE does it speak of an initiated vaishnava and it is merely speaking of a person who is currently habituated to eating meat. If you want to extrapolate it and use it to think that it applies also to those who are not currently eating meat, that is up to you. I do not have to convince you in this regard. If Srila Jiva Goswami's clear statement about "currently eating meat" is not acceptable to you and you want to include all initiated vaishnavas in it too, then it may be your interpretation which is not acceptable to many others (including Srila Sanatana Goswami).
Again an overstretch and misapplication of a verse which is clearly not speaking about an initiated vaishnava. Once again, if you can find anyone of authority in Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy who claims that this commentary by Sri Jiva is speaking about an initiated vaishnava, please let me know. Otherwise I am fine and okay if you want to assume that it applies to an initiated vaishnava too. As i said earlier, such assumptions do not change the fact that Sri Jiva wrote the entire commentary for a person who is currently eating meat.
Thank you. Once again I say that all Goswamis of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are theoretically in support of the view taken by the modern Gaudiya institutions. Sri Jiva too has never spoken a word about a vaishnava being disqualified for anything. Here is a brilliant conclusion from the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa:
ato niṣedhakaṁ yad yad vacanaṁ śrūyate sphuṭam
avaiṣṇava-paraṁ tat tad vijñeyaṁ tattva-darśibhiḥ
Translation: Therefore, wherever restrictive statements are seen clearly [in the śāstra], those respective statements are seen as applicable to non-vaiṣṇavas by the tattva-darśīs.For the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, Sri Jiva Goswami is a tattva-darśī and he has read these statements from the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa. He has read all the books and notes of Sri Gopal Bhatta Goswami. Those who have read his books cover to cover know that he has never spoken a word about the disqualification of vaishnavas. You may try as much as you want to show that Sri Jiva supports varṇa by birth for the vaishnavas, but in the end you will end up hitting a wall.The teachings of Srila Sanatana Goswami are "specifically" in regards to initiated vaishnavas whereas the teachings of Sri Jiva are about a dog-meat eater who is still eating meat. Any intelligent person can understand which teaching is applicable to an initiated vaishnava in a modern day Gaudiya Vaishnava institution.
Hari Parshad Das
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 01:03:16 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:Once again, you are squarely missing the context of the Durgama-sangamani. NOWHERE does it speak of an initiated vaishnava and it is merely speaking of a person who is currently habituated to eating meat. If you want to extrapolate it and use it to think that it applies also to those who are not currently eating meat, that is up to you. I do not have to convince you in this regard. If Srila Jiva Goswami's clear statement about "currently eating meat" is not acceptable to you and you want to include all initiated vaishnavas in it too, then it may be your interpretation which is not acceptable to many others (including Srila Sanatana Goswami).Again an overstretch and misapplication of a verse which is clearly not speaking about an initiated vaishnava. Once again, if you can find anyone of authority in Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy who claims that this commentary by Sri Jiva is speaking about an initiated vaishnava, please let me know. Otherwise I am fine and okay if you want to assume that it applies to an initiated vaishnava too. As i said earlier, such assumptions do not change the fact that Sri Jiva wrote the entire commentary for a person who is currently eating meat.Thank you. Once again I say that all Goswamis of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are theoretically in support of the view taken by the modern Gaudiya institutions. Sri Jiva too has never spoken a word about a vaishnava being disqualified for anything. Here is a brilliant conclusion from the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa:
ato niṣedhakaṁ yad yad vacanaṁ śrūyate sphuṭam
avaiṣṇava-paraṁ tat tad vijñeyaṁ tattva-darśibhiḥTranslation: Therefore, wherever restrictive statements are seen clearly [in the śāstra], those respective statements are seen as applicable to non-vaiṣṇavas by the tattva-darśīs.For the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, Sri Jiva Goswami is a tattva-darśī and he has read these statements from the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa. He has read all the books and notes of Sri Gopal Bhatta Goswami. Those who have read his books cover to cover know that he has never spoken a word about the disqualification of vaishnavas. You may try as much as you want to show that Sri Jiva supports varṇa by birth for the vaishnavas, but in the end you will end up hitting a wall.The teachings of Srila Sanatana Goswami are "specifically" in regards to initiated vaishnavas whereas the teachings of Sri Jiva are about a dog-meat eater who is still eating meat. Any intelligent person can understand which teaching is applicable to an initiated vaishnava in a modern day Gaudiya Vaishnava institution.Please excuse me for the late response.Jīva Gosvāmī uses the present tense only in the nirukti to infer tacchīlatva and ultimately arrive at a [cāṇḍāla] jāti meaning which is clear when he says: śvādatvamatra śvabhakṣakajātiviśeṣatvameva. It is not a random person who is currently eating dog-meat but a member of the cāṇḍāla jāti that is being inferred by him. There is nothing specific about dog-meat here, the words śvapaca and śvāda are used by rūḍhi for a cāṇḍāla, historically considered the lowest of all jāti-s.
Which is why the kaimutya, as pointed out by Jīva Gosvāmī, makes sense.
इस प्रकार कैमुत्य न्याय से सिद्ध होता है कि जब भगवान के नामों का श्रवण या कीर्तन करने से तथा भूले-भटके कभी-कभी उनका वंदन या स्मरण करने से कुत्ते का मांस खाने वाला चाण्डाल भी तत्काल सोमयाजी ब्राह्मण के समान पूज्य हो जाता है, फिर भगवान का दर्शन करने से मनुष्य कृतकृत्य हो जाता है, इसमें तो कहना ही क्या है, अर्थात वह हर प्रकार से कृतकृत्य हो जाता है।
I have not stretched the cāṇḍāla example, but it is Jīva Gosvāmī himself who sees kaimutya nyāya (a fortiori argument) in the underlying SB verse: in kaimutya the strong/extreme example applies to weaker/less extreme examples also.
If there is no varṇa/jāti by birth in Jīva Gosvāmī's view, what do the words/phrases like śvabhakṣakajāti, durjātitva, sujātitva, brāhmaṇānāṃ śaukraṃ janma, etc mean in his commentary? How can śaukraṃ janma of a Brāhmaṇā be possible if one does not assume varṇa by birth?
As for Sanātana Gosvāmī, I have asked before how is his interpretation of BRS helpful here in interpreting Jīva Gosvāmī? His commentary is on the BRS and not a sub-commentary on Jīva Gosvāmī’s commentary, is it?
vidhi-niṣedhā bhagavad-bhaktānāṁ na bhavantīti devarṣi-bhūtāpta-nṝṇāṁ pitṝṇām [BhP 11.5.41] ity ādi-vacanaiḥ (Excerpt from HBV Commentary on 5.453)
You may find my reading an overstretch or misapplication, but at least it is backed by two published scholarly sources.
I will not respond to arguments that appeal to emotion (hit a wall, overstretch, any person can understand, etc), but if you can bring up a scholarly translation of DS to back your interpretation of Jīva Gosvāmī, I will be happy to discuss. Or if you can present your own word-for-word translation of the commentary passages, they can also be discussed.
I believe Satyanarayana Dasa Ji, who has translated several sandarbha works of Jīva Gosvāmī, is a member of this group. Let us hope he comments here.
--
Hari Parshad Das
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 16 July 2016 01:03:16 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:Once again, you are squarely missing the context of the Durgama-sangamani. NOWHERE does it speak of an initiated vaishnava and it is merely speaking of a person who is currently habituated to eating meat. If you want to extrapolate it and use it to think that it applies also to those who are not currently eating meat, that is up to you. I do not have to convince you in this regard. If Srila Jiva Goswami's clear statement about "currently eating meat" is not acceptable to you and you want to include all initiated vaishnavas in it too, then it may be your interpretation which is not acceptable to many others (including Srila Sanatana Goswami).Again an overstretch and misapplication of a verse which is clearly not speaking about an initiated vaishnava. Once again, if you can find anyone of authority in Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy who claims that this commentary by Sri Jiva is speaking about an initiated vaishnava, please let me know. Otherwise I am fine and okay if you want to assume that it applies to an initiated vaishnava too. As i said earlier, such assumptions do not change the fact that Sri Jiva wrote the entire commentary for a person who is currently eating meat.Thank you. Once again I say that all Goswamis of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are theoretically in support of the view taken by the modern Gaudiya institutions. Sri Jiva too has never spoken a word about a vaishnava being disqualified for anything. Here is a brilliant conclusion from the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa:
ato niṣedhakaṁ yad yad vacanaṁ śrūyate sphuṭam
avaiṣṇava-paraṁ tat tad vijñeyaṁ tattva-darśibhiḥTranslation: Therefore, wherever restrictive statements are seen clearly [in the śāstra], those respective statements are seen as applicable to non-vaiṣṇavas by the tattva-darśīs.For the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, Sri Jiva Goswami is a tattva-darśī and he has read these statements from the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa. He has read all the books and notes of Sri Gopal Bhatta Goswami. Those who have read his books cover to cover know that he has never spoken a word about the disqualification of vaishnavas. You may try as much as you want to show that Sri Jiva supports varṇa by birth for the vaishnavas, but in the end you will end up hitting a wall.The teachings of Srila Sanatana Goswami are "specifically" in regards to initiated vaishnavas whereas the teachings of Sri Jiva are about a dog-meat eater who is still eating meat. Any intelligent person can understand which teaching is applicable to an initiated vaishnava in a modern day Gaudiya Vaishnava institution.Please excuse me for the late response.Jīva Gosvāmī uses the present tense only in the nirukti to infer tacchīlatva and ultimately arrive at a [cāṇḍāla] jāti meaning which is clear when he says: śvādatvamatra śvabhakṣakajātiviśeṣatvameva. It is not a random person who is currently eating dog-meat but a member of the cāṇḍāla jāti that is being inferred by him. There is nothing specific about dog-meat here, the words śvapaca and śvāda are used by rūḍhi for a cāṇḍāla, historically considered the lowest of all jāti-s.agreed till this point.Which is why the kaimutya, as pointed out by Jīva Gosvāmī, makes sense.The kaimutya is in the original verse of the Bhagavatam itself "kutaḥ punas te bhagavan nu darśanāt". Sri Haridas Shastri in the translation says:
इस प्रकार कैमुत्य न्याय से सिद्ध होता है कि जब भगवान के नामों का श्रवण या कीर्तन करने से तथा भूले-भटके कभी-कभी उनका वंदन या स्मरण करने से कुत्ते का मांस खाने वाला चाण्डाल भी तत्काल सोमयाजी ब्राह्मण के समान पूज्य हो जाता है, फिर भगवान का दर्शन करने से मनुष्य कृतकृत्य हो जाता है, इसमें तो कहना ही क्या है, अर्थात वह हर प्रकार से कृतकृत्य हो जाता है।The highlighted portion is the kaimutya as specified by Sri Haridas Shastri also.I have not stretched the cāṇḍāla example, but it is Jīva Gosvāmī himself who sees kaimutya nyāya (a fortiori argument) in the underlying SB verse: in kaimutya the strong/extreme example applies to weaker/less extreme examples also.No, this is not the kaimutya. Sri Haridas Shastriji has given the correct interpretation of kaimutya, as I have cited above.If there is no varṇa/jāti by birth in Jīva Gosvāmī's view, what do the words/phrases like śvabhakṣakajāti, durjātitva, sujātitva, brāhmaṇānāṃ śaukraṃ janma, etc mean in his commentary? How can śaukraṃ janma of a Brāhmaṇā be possible if one does not assume varṇa by birth?Sri Jiva assumes varna by birth for someone who is currently eating meat, having taken birth in a cāṇḍāla family. But that example cannot be used for a person who is not currently eating meat, because Sri Jiva has not said anything in the commentary in regards to a person who is not eating meat.
Nityanand Misra
On Saturday, 23 July 2016 12:24:39 UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:
The kaimutya is in the original verse of the Bhagavatam itself "kutaḥ punas te bhagavan nu darśanāt". Sri Haridas Shastri in the translation says:
इस प्रकार कैमुत्य न्याय से सिद्ध होता है कि जब भगवान के नामों का श्रवण या कीर्तन करने से तथा भूले-भटके कभी-कभी उनका वंदन या स्मरण करने से कुत्ते का मांस खाने वाला चाण्डाल भी तत्काल सोमयाजी ब्राह्मण के समान पूज्य हो जाता है, फिर भगवान का दर्शन करने से मनुष्य कृतकृत्य हो जाता है, इसमें तो कहना ही क्या है, अर्थात वह हर प्रकार से कृतकृत्य हो जाता है।The highlighted portion is the kaimutya as specified by Sri Haridas Shastri also.I have not stretched the cāṇḍāla example, but it is Jīva Gosvāmī himself who sees kaimutya nyāya (a fortiori argument) in the underlying SB verse: in kaimutya the strong/extreme example applies to weaker/less extreme examples also.No, this is not the kaimutya. Sri Haridas Shastriji has given the correct interpretation of kaimutya, as I have cited above.
Sri Jiva assumes varna by birth for someone who is currently eating meat, having taken birth in a cāṇḍāla family. But that example cannot be used for a person who is not currently eating meat, because Sri Jiva has not said anything in the commentary in regards to a person who is not eating meat.
Sri Sanatan Goswami has not written a commentary on BRS. His commentary on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa is specifically speaking about the case of vaishnavas. Here is what he says,
vidhi-niṣedhā bhagavad-bhaktānāṁ na bhavantīti devarṣi-bhūtāpta-nṝṇāṁ pitṝṇām [BhP 11.5.41] ity ādi-vacanaiḥ (Excerpt from HBV Commentary on 5.453)
It is not even backed by the scholarly source that you yourself quoted. You said that kaimutya means that it applies to weaker cases too, but that interpretation of kaimutya is not supported by Sri Haridas Shastriji whom you yourself quoted. Sri Haridas Shastriji says there clearly that kaimutya is for expressing the feeling that — what to speak of the person who gets a darśana of the Lord?