[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta discussions
This is going to be my last post on this subject. We have our own
views about things, and that is that.
1. Vijay Pai, thanks for pointing out the acceptance of jivanmukti in
Gaudiya philosophy. I did not know about it. In any case, it is a
significant difference as compared to other Vaishnava schools,
notably the Ramanuja sampradaya. However, this does not change the
fact that all your other claims about Vyasa's guru, about the
"unauthorized" nature of the "mayavad" teachers, etc. are just thin
air.
2. Krishna Susarla, my point in quoting Jai Maharaj's reference to
the Brhan-Naradiya Purana is this. Since you also quote various
Puranas as unquestionable authorities, it is incumbent upon you to
answer Jai or anybody else on the same terms. For nothing else but to
maintain the solidity of your position. Whether Jai is one man or
many, or whether he is an astrologer or not, is quite extraneous to
the issue. He already claims that the verse is found in a manuscript
obtained from Hoshiarpur, Punjab. So, if he now gives you the verse
number, what will be your answer to it? In quoting Jai's posting, I
do not endorse him. I have had my differences with Jai in the past,
which he will remember, if he is one person, and not many. In fact,
if you notice, I explicitly spelled out why and how I completely
disagree with his quotation. Something that Jai himself overlooked, I
suppose, when he crossposted my posting to a.r.v.
3. Finally, to Manish Tandon. It is still not clear how the
Bhagavatam is a commentary on the Vedanta Sutras. I went through
Prabhupada's books on the Bhagavatam, and I could not find any
tangible connection between the two. For example, in one place in the
Brahma Sutras, the opinions of three teachers Asmarathya, Audulomi
and Kasakrtsna are contrasted, and Kasakrtsna's view is endorsed as
the correct one. Where does the Bhagavatam address this specific
issue? That Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that one has to read the
Bhagavatam first is well and good. Please remember that what he said
can apply only to those who choose to follow him. In no way can it
apply to those who lived before him, like Sankara, Ramanuja and
Madhva, who wrote commentaries. It is difficult to take seriously the
claim that commentaries are unnecessary as the Brahma Sutras are
crystal clear, and the Bhagavatam is itself a commentary.
Also, it is somewhat premature on your part to say that it is
discrimination to not teach anybody and everybody the highest
knowledge of the Vedanta. It is not so. You will realize that you
cannot get a graduate education, unless you have acquitted yourself
creditably at the undergraduate level. When this is so even for
purely secular learning, why do you suppose that it should be
otherwise for more esoteric teaching?
Finally, it should be clear to you that in explaining the theory of
relativity to a five year old, you do not and can not make him
understand all there is to the subject. Unless the five year old is a
genius himself. Similarly, a schoolchild is taught that the atom is
indestructible, in order to make him understand the basics of
chemistry. Till he learns better at a more advanced stage, the error
does not affect him much. Thus, in teaching complex sciences to
people with not much capacity to understand it all, one inevitably
dilutes things. Similarly for the Puranas. The rest of my position
follows, therefore.
As for Gaudiya Vaishnavas not following Madhvacharya's system or
otherwise, let me remind you that the first Goswamis after Chaitanya
quote Madhva's works extensively. Madhva himself is listed in the
guru parampara of Sri Prabhupada. "Achintya sakti" in Madhva's Brahma
Sutra Bhashya is not an endorsement of achintya bheda-abheda. Madhva
and his followers maintain bheda quite strongly. Tattvato Bhedah
JeevagaNaa Hareranucaraa Neecocca Bhaavamgataah - There is no room
for even a semblance of abheda in this.
That will be all. There will be no further postings on this issue
from my side, as I think I have made my point to my satisfaction, and
there is no use discussing this any more. Let us agree to disagree
and leave it at that.
S. Vidyasankar
