Ramanuja

[dogra]

http://web.me.com/eternalbrothers/eternalbrothers/Shri_Ramanuja.html




Shri Ramanuja, the renowned 11th century philosopher and religious leader, is a central figure in a vast lineage of scholars and mystics belonging to the spiritual path of Shri Vaishnavism, a monotheistic religious tradition of India focussed on Vishnu. In addition to being a prodigious thinker and esteemed religious teacher, Shri Ramanuja is also revered for his compassion and humanism. His instructions to his disciples were that the message of the Shri Vaishnava Path should be shared with all, irrespective of race, caste, creed or gender. Such an open and inclusive attitude allowed the Shri Vaishnava message of love and service to God to break through the rigidities of caste and segregation.




He understood the humanity in Sanatan Dharma/Hinduism, as many others know

[atmarama108]

http://web.me.com/eternalbrothers/eternalbrothers/Shri_Ramanuja.html




Shri Ramanuja, the renowned 11th century philosopher and religious leader, is a central figure in a vast lineage of scholars and mystics belonging to the spiritual path of Shri Vaishnavism, a monotheistic religious tradition of India focussed on Vishnu. In addition to being a prodigious thinker and esteemed religious teacher, Shri Ramanuja is also revered for his compassion and humanism. His instructions to his disciples were that the message of the Shri Vaishnava Path should be shared with all, irrespective of race, caste, creed or gender. Such an open and inclusive attitude allowed the Shri Vaishnava message of love and service to God to break through the rigidities of caste and segregation.




He understood the humanity in Sanatan Dharma/Hinduism, as many others know

Not to mention his wonderful commentary on Bhagavad Gita, which is undefeatable by the followers of Shankaracharya.

[Omkara]

http://web.me.com/eternalbrothers/eternalbrothers/Shri_Ramanuja.html




Shri Ramanuja, the renowned 11th century philosopher and religious leader, is a central figure in a vast lineage of scholars and mystics belonging to the spiritual path of Shri Vaishnavism, a monotheistic religious tradition of India focussed on Vishnu. In addition to being a prodigious thinker and esteemed religious teacher, Shri Ramanuja is also revered for his compassion and humanism. His instructions to his disciples were that the message of the Shri Vaishnava Path should be shared with all, irrespective of race, caste, creed or gender. Such an open and inclusive attitude allowed the Shri Vaishnava message of love and service to God to break through the rigidities of caste and segregation.




He understood the humanity in Sanatan Dharma/Hinduism, as many others know

For what purpose have you posted this? Please don't tell me you think Ramanuja agreed with your views.

[philosoraptor]

Of course, it just proves my point that Ramanuja felt everyone could follow Vaishnavism regardless of caste, even as he observed the caste traditions himself and supported the scriptural view on classifying caste based on heredity. I posted his comments from his BSB earlier, as well as from Shankaracharya, and to the best of my knowledge none of the revisionists have responded to those, even while claiming that Ramanuja and Shankara don't associate caste with birth.

Oh dear, too many facts! My head is starting to hurt. I guess it's time for me to read Agniveer.com!

[wundermonk]

It is quite clear that the issue is the following:

Agniveer represents Arya Samaj. One of the reasons Arya Samaj was founded was to prevent the deconversion of Hindus to other religions. It is quite clear to me that the belief in hereditary varnashrama has led to Hindus converting to other religions. As a result, the Shuddhi or reconversion campaign was launched to bring people back into Hinduism. The scriptural basis that Arya Samaj follows is only the Vedas. So, in one sense, they are as traditional as one can get. They do not accept the validity of the Darshanas/BG/Itihasas/Puranas unless and until they accord with the Vedas. So, quoting Ramajuna/Madhva/Shankara is irrelevant against Arya Samaj. So, if a Hindu is going to argue against Arya Samaj then one needs to understand where they are coming from. Unless a verse from the Vedas is provided which establishes that Varna is transmitted by heredity, one can not argue against Arya Samaj.

I do not have any issues with reconversion of lost Hindus back into Hinduism. I think it is the need of the hour actually, dont you? If not, why not?

[philosoraptor]

No, by all means. Change the religion to suit the need of the hour. Who am I protest? It's not as if tradition, smRiti, the upanishads, scholarly opinion, or the historical application of the same is relevant. Let's just believe whatever agniveer says. After all, the ends do justify the means, do they not?

[wundermonk]

No, by all means. Change the religion to suit the need of the hour. Who am I protest? It's not as if tradition, smRiti, the upanishads, scholarly opinion, or the historical application of the same is relevant. Let's just believe whatever agniveer says. After all, the ends do justify the means, do they not?

Dang...the "Smilies" do not have a "strawman" icon. So, fetched one from www. Here you go:

http://www.fotoblography.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/straw-man.jpg

Please feel free to declare Arya Samaj non-Hindu though. Define who is a "Hindu" then.

Lets try this. Amongst the posters on HDF, based on what you can gauge from their posts, who are Hindus? Who are "traditional" Hindus, and who are NeoHindus? Are non-Indian converts here Hindus?

[philosoraptor]

And you say I'm knocking down a strawman? I never claimed that the Arya Samaj was not "Hindu." They are Hindu. Vivekananda was Hindu. Sai Baba was Hindu. Carvaka can be Hindu. Buddhists can be Hindu. Jainas can be Hindu. Even Osho can be Hindu if you want.

What that actually says about anything is another matter entirely. "Hinduism" and "Hindu" are just terms of convenience used to describe widely varying traditions and peoples with views which may or may be based on shAstra.

This is the Vaishnava forum, and the implicit claim by the OP (which I noticed you had no objection to) was that Ramanuja objected to caste divisions because he preached inclusiveness and compassion. This is false. He preached inclusiveness and compasion, but he still recognized varNAshrama-dharma and practiced it himself. This is what I have been trying to point out to you for some time now - varNAshrama-dharma based on heredity and compassion/inclusiveness are not mutually contradictory concepts.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste.

I am a Saiva. However I was reading what claimed to be a Ramanuja organization of the Sri Vaishnavas that only the Lord Who is Purushothaman that He is the only man, and all Vaishnavs of the Lord are women even if called men in this world, that all are women in relationship to Him. Men are just "so-called men" in the Kali Yug.

During the Kali Yug, should the Vaishnav rules for women also apply to men, that men should only chant the name of the Lord and should only read or learn any Veda only if they are married (in this case married if you will to the Lord, e.g. brahmachari devotee to the Lord or sanyasin)?

I mean no offense, I noticed this and it sounds very familiar to what some in ISKCON have said.

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

Namaste.

I am a Saiva. However I was reading what claimed to be a Ramanuja organization of the Sri Vaishnavas that only the Lord Who is Purushothaman that He is the only man, and all Vaishnavs of the Lord are women even if called men in this world, that all are women in relationship to Him. Men are just "so-called men" in the Kali Yug.

During the Kali Yug, should the Vaishnav rules for women also apply to men, that men should only chant the name of the Lord and should only read or learn any Veda only if they are married (in this case married if you will to the Lord, e.g. brahmachari devotee to the Lord or sanyasin)?

I mean no offense, I noticed this and it sounds very familiar to what some in ISKCON have said.

Om Namah Sivaya

Pranams,

No. Men and women still have to follow their respective dharmas. This isn't just what I read in scripture, but also what I have been told by learned Sri Vaishnavas.

The idea of The Lord as the only puruSha and all other entities as prakRiti is one that is also mentioned in ISKCON and other North Indian sampradayas, and often spoken of in a male/female context, with "male" meaning the "puruSha" or the only enjoyer, while "female" refers to that which is enjoyed by the puruSha. What this refers to is the enjoyer and they who are to be enjoyed. The concept is the same but expressed differently in Sri Vaishnavism. However, this has nothing to do with one's bodily identity, which is still the basis for prescribed duties.

[Omkara]

No answer from dogra yet, I see......

[wundermonk]

I never claimed that the Arya Samaj was not "Hindu."

Well, the Arya Samaj considers itself pure Hindus in the sense that the only scripture they claim to follow is the Vedas. They are as traditional as one can get.

Are you against reconversion of lost Hindus? What did Ramanuja have to say regarding reconversion of lost Hindus? From what I gather, all the Acharyas, including Ramanuja, engaged in dialectics sponsored by kings with representatives of other Darshanas, including Jainas/Buddhists also in some cases, and the entire kingdom used to convert into the belief system of the winning Darshana.

[Omkara]

Well, the Arya Samaj considers itself pure Hindus in the sense that the only scripture they claim to follow is the Vedas. They are as traditional as one can get.

Are you against reconversion of lost Hindus? What did Ramanuja have to say regarding reconversion of lost Hindus? From what I gather, all the Acharyas, including Ramanuja, engaged in dialectics sponsored by kings with representatives of other Darshanas, including Jainas/Buddhists also in some cases, and the entire kingdom used to convert into the belief system of the winning Darshana.

The Arya Samajis accept one shakha of each samahita and dismiss the others as fake, without rhyme or reason, and reject the brahmanas, aranyakas and upanishads, and claim that there are instructions to make cars, aeroplanes and batteries in the vedas. None of our acharyas used misrepresentation of our religion as a conversion tool.

[wundermonk]

The Arya Samajis accept one shakha of each samahita and dismiss the others as fake, without rhyme or reason, and reject the brahmanas, aranyakas and upanishads, and claim that there are instructions to make cars, aeroplanes and batteries in the vedas.

So, what are the Arya Samajis then. Are they traditional?neo?non-Hindus? They have to be something, right?


None of our acharyas used misrepresentation of our religion as a conversion tool.

What exactly represents our religion? Does Jaimini represent our religion or does Manu? Who represents our religion today? Does a "Brahmin" who has crossed the oceans contrary to Manu's injunctions represent our religion properly?

[satay]

Admin Note

How is this post related to the OP?


So, what are the Arya Samajis then. Are they traditional?neo?non-Hindus? They have to be something, right?



What exactly represents our religion? Does Jaimini represent our religion or does Manu? Who represents our religion today? Does a "Brahmin" who has crossed the oceans contrary to Manu's injunctions represent our religion properly?

[wundermonk]

Admin Note

How is this post related to the OP?

One would have to follow the whole sequence of posts that led to this. If a derail started, it started elsewhere.

[philosoraptor]

Well, the Arya Samaj considers itself pure Hindus in the sense that the only scripture they claim to follow is the Vedas. They are as traditional as one can get.

This is nonsense. The Vedas don't mention the term "Hindu" anywhere. The only way we can come to an acceptable definition of the term "Hindu" is to look at its historical usage in lay and academic circles. And historically, many if not most scholars coming under the "Hindu" umbrella accepted the authority of all of the vedas - including the upanishads, brahmanas, and aranyakas.

There is no basis for rejecting everything other than the veda samhitas, unless one tacitly accepts academic paradigms of our scriptures' origins. Simply claiming that it is an acceptable "Hindu" point of view, because an obviously "Hindu" organization endorses it, is circular reasoning.



Are you against reconversion of lost Hindus? What did Ramanuja have to say regarding reconversion of lost Hindus? From what I gather, all the Acharyas, including Ramanuja, engaged in dialectics sponsored by kings with representatives of other Darshanas, including Jainas/Buddhists also in some cases, and the entire kingdom used to convert into the belief system of the winning Darshana.

This question one again is of no relevance to anything. Lots of people with little or no shAstric knowledge claim to be "Hindus," but that does not make their beliefs and practices "vedic" or "dharmic."

The original presumption of dogra was that Ramanuja was opposed to caste system (by which he means the traditional hereditary varNAshrama system) because he preached inclusiveness and compassion. This is a non-sequitur, based on the false, Western conception that hereditary varNa is ipso facto the same as exclusiveness and cruelty. The bhAgavata purANa teaches inclusiveness and compassion, but still acknowledges and supports the hereditary varNAshrama system. That is the point - these are not mutually exclusive concepts, and trying to argue otherwise is just falling for Western missionary propaganda, hook, line, and sinker.

[wundermonk]

And historically, many if not most scholars coming under the "Hindu" umbrella accepted the authority of all of the vedas - including the upanishads, brahmanas, and aranyakas.

No. Upanishads-proper were not considered part of the Vedas. As far as I can tell, Nyaya/Vaiseshikha/Mimamsa do not quote the Upanishads for any of their philosophical positions. In fact, the atomic theory of Nyaya/Vaiseshikha is at odds with the prakriti theory of the Upanishads.

In any case, the point being made is that the Arya Samajis are as Hindu as the next person. They did evolve at a particular point in time - just like any other school of thought, and if their status of whether they represent Hinduism properly is called into question, I would expect you to outline who exactly represents Hinduism properly.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

The Arya Samajis accept one shakha of each samahita and dismiss the others as fake, without rhyme or reason, and reject the brahmanas, aranyakas and upanishads, and claim that there are instructions to make cars, aeroplanes and batteries in the vedas. None of our acharyas used misrepresentation of our religion as a conversion tool.

Omkara, namaste

In Vedas there are far superior ideas than the ones used in designing aeroplanes and cars. And I am not asking for anyone to believe it.

Arya Samaj got it all wrong in details, but proved to be right overall for which history will acknowledge them over and above the likes of neo Vedantins.

[jignyAsu]

No. Upanishads-proper were not considered part of the Vedas. As far as I can tell, Nyaya/Vaiseshikha/Mimamsa do not quote the Upanishads for any of their philosophical positions.

As far as my understanding goes, they considered Upanishads as a part of Vedas but less authoritative, as those statements that don't convey an action are meaningless.

The accusations of Upanishads having been added later to the Vedas by tampering etc were post British. Corrections welcome.

[Omkara]

No. Upanishads-proper were not considered part of the Vedas. As far as I can tell, Nyaya/Vaiseshikha/Mimamsa do not quote the Upanishads for any of their philosophical positions. In fact, the atomic theory of Nyaya/Vaiseshikha is at odds with the prakriti theory of the Upanishads.


No. Shankaracharya had debates with members of these schools and he did cite upanishads to them as seen in the Shankara Vijayam. Specifically, he debated with Mandana Mishra on the meaning of Tat Tvam Asi.

[wundermonk]

No. Shankaracharya had debates with members of these schools and he did cite upanishads to them as seen in the Shankara Vijayam. Specifically, he debated with Mandana Mishra on the meaning of Tat Tvam Asi.

That would be Neo though. Nyaya sutras, Mimamsa sutras and Vaiseshikha sutras have no mention of Upanishads. (that would be my guess, need to look them up, but as I remember, no mention is made of Upanishads) So, Shankara was debating with Neos then, right?

[philosoraptor]

No. Upanishads-proper were not considered part of the Vedas. As far as I can tell, Nyaya/Vaiseshikha/Mimamsa do not quote the Upanishads for any of their philosophical positions. In fact, the atomic theory of Nyaya/Vaiseshikha is at odds with the prakriti theory of the Upanishads.

They were considered part of the Vedas. The Puranas also describe them as such.



In any case, the point being made is that the Arya Samajis are as Hindu as the next person.

So is OSHO, but you don't see me making an issue out of it.



They did evolve at a particular point in time - just like any other school of thought, and if their status of whether they represent Hinduism properly is called into question, I would expect you to outline who exactly represents Hinduism properly.

Going off on tangents again, I see. Let's bring us back to the real point. Dogra claims that Ramanuja is opposed to the varNAshrama system because he preached inclusiveness and compassion. This is factually incorrect, since Ramanuja did observe the customs of the heredity-based varNAshrama system, as did his followers. Now, do you dispute this or not?

[shiv.somashekhar]

The accusations of Upanishads having been added later to the Vedas by tampering etc were post British. Corrections welcome.

Chronology existed before the British too. Yajnavalkya introduced the Shukla Yajur because he was concerned about the authenticity of the Krishna Yajur. The Yajur and Sama refer to the Rig, but not the other way around, which automatically makes it older.

It is a fact that most Upanishads have been added later. Shankara talks about a dozen Upanishads, but Ramanuja's list is longer and Madhva's list is even longer. By the time of Vidyaranya, the count was in excess of one hundred. As noted by academia "the later the Acharya, the longer the list of Upanishads". As recently as in the 19th century, one Gaudiya author introduced a Chaitanya Upanishad and claimed it was part of the Rig-Veda and he discovered a Bengali script of this lost Upanishad!

[philosoraptor]

Chronology existed before the British too. Yajnavalkya introduced the Shukla Yajur because he was concerned about the authenticity of the Krishna Yajur. The Yajur and Sama refer to the Rig, but not the other way around, which automatically makes it older.

It is a fact that most Upanishads have been added later. Shankara talks about a dozen Upanishads, but Ramanuja's list is longer and Madhva's list is even longer. By the time of Vidyaranya, the count was in excess of one hundred. As noted by academia "the later the Acharya, the longer the list of Upanishads". As recently as in the 19th century, one Gaudiya author introduced a Chaitanya Upanishad and claimed it was part of the Rig-Veda and he discovered a Bengali script of this lost Upanishad!

Even a mirage in a desert presupposes the existence of real water elsewhere....

[shiv.somashekhar]

No. Upanishads-proper were not considered part of the Vedas. As far as I can tell, Nyaya/Vaiseshikha/Mimamsa do not quote the Upanishads for any of their philosophical positions. In fact, the atomic theory of Nyaya/Vaiseshikha is at odds with the prakriti theory of the Upanishads.

It is my understanding that Mimamsa does not consider anything other than the portions that discuss action, as having value - or more specifically, relevant to their doctrine.

As Mimamsa was the primary target of Shankara, he discusses Karma and Jnana portions of the Shruti and in debating them, argues that the later was more important. Later Madhva criticized Shankara for the artificial separation of Shruti into two and argued that all of Shruti had a single purport of Supremacy of Vishnu.

It is very unlikely that Upanishads were quoted by Nyaya/Vaiseshika. As far as I know, Shankara was the first ever to quote Upanishads (actually, the first time we get to hear of actual Upanishad names). Both Vatsyayana and Udyotakara, the two well known Nyaya commentators lived earlier.

[Omkara]

As far as I know, Shankara was the first ever to quote Upanishads (actually, the first time we get to hear of actual Upanishad names).

What do you have to say about Gautama Buddha ridiculing the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad's creation account in the Digha Nikaya?

[jignyAsu]

Chronology existed before the British too. Yajnavalkya introduced the Shukla Yajur because he was concerned about the authenticity of the Krishna Yajur. The Yajur and Sama refer to the Rig, but not the other way around, which automatically makes it older.


As far as my knowledge goes, the Sage Yajnavalkya was not concerned with anything being fake. He had a difference of opinion b/w His Guru on certain rituals and practices or possibly in classification of the Vedas. When His Guru then asks Him to unlearn everything, He goes in search of sun god to be as His guru.

This is interpreted as being "introduced as new" by non-Hindu historians because they don't believe in Sage Vyasa's or Yajnavalkya's divinity. If Yajnavalkya gets His Upanishad from the Sun god, it means to them that the scripture was invented at that time. Nothing wrong..but we as Hindus don't have problem accepting divinities.



It is a fact that most Upanishads have been added later. Shankara talks about a dozen Upanishads, but Ramanuja's list is longer and Madhva's list is even longer. By the time of Vidyaranya, the count was in excess of one hundred. As noted by academia "the later the Acharya, the longer the list of Upanishads". As recently as in the 19th century, one Gaudiya author introduced a Chaitanya Upanishad and claimed it was part of the Rig-Veda and he discovered a Bengali script of this lost Upanishad!

Just because Shankaracharya talks only about a dozen Upanishad doesn't mean that there were only a dozen Upanishads at that time. There is no rule that an Acharya has to refer all the existing scriptures. They didn't even refer to all the verses in Upanishads...does that mean that all verses were added later? There could have been lot more at that time and it is also possible in some cases that some lost scriptures have been found in some corners in India.

To cook up Upanishads and pass across ancient India was not simple at all like the indologists easily put it. How can the whole of India filled with scholars heavily debating against Ramanujacharya's philosophy (for e.g.) mysteriously be silent when a new Upanishads is introduced? They would have severely criticized Him for introducing fake Scriptures.

Even today, when the population of Vedic scholars have seriously dwindled, Chaintanya Upanishad or Brahma Samhita is accepted only by Gaudiyas. It is not at all accepted all across India in the level of the Chandogya Upanishad.

[shiv.somashekhar]

What do you have to say about Gautama Buddha ridiculing the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad's creation account in the Digha Nikaya?

I am pretty sure, the name Brhadaranyaka does not appear anywhere in any Sutta.

An Upanishad school is mentioned by some writers such as Bana, but no specifics until the time of Shankara.

[shiv.somashekhar]

As far as my knowledge goes, the Sage Yajnavalkya was not concerned with anything being fake. He had a difference of opinion b/w His Guru on certain rituals and practices or possibly in classification of the Vedas.

What is the difference? Sounds the same as invalid or incorrect to me.


This is interpreted as being "introduced as new" by enon-Hindu historians because they don't believe in Sage Vyasa's or Yajnavalkya's divinity.

It is simple logic that the Shukla Yajur was unavailable and unknown before Yajnavalkya's time - regardless of his divinity. Else, we can make the same argument for everything including Islam.


Just because Shankaracharya talks only about a dozen Upanishad doesn't mean that there were only a dozen Upanishads at that time. There is no rule that an Acharya has to refer all the existing scriptures.

Simple logic. If there is no evidence that a certain text existed at time T, then there is every possibility that it did not exist at that time. It may have been in existence, but there is no way to prove it and hence, one has to allow the possibility of its non-existence or else logic just went out of the window.


They didn't even refer to all the verses in Upanishads...does that mean that all verses were added later?

Same logic. The very first time a verse is quoted is when we can be sure of its existence. Any prior date is doubtful subject to the same problem mentioned above. This is again a faith vs. logic thing.


There could have been lot more at that time and it is also possible in some cases that some lost scriptures have been found in some corners in India.

Or they were fabricated. Unless you admit both options, you are not being logical.

You do realize that your position of "we have to accept every scripture as genuine" does not find support among the orthodoxy? This has nothing to do with the British or the West. Every group only accepts a set of scripture as absolute authority. Among the rest , some are acceptable as secondary authorities under certain conditions or else they are not accepted at all.


To cook up Upanishads and pass across ancient India was not simple at all like the indologists easily put it. How can the whole of India filled with scholars heavily debating against Ramanujacharya's philosophy (for e.g.) mysteriously be silent when a new Upanishads is introduced? They would have severely criticized Him for introducing fake Scriptures.

No problem. Scripture and arguments used in debates are tailored to the opponent. You do not quote the Rig-Veda to the Buddhist or the Pancharatra to the Advaitin. Scripture used has to commonly accepted to both parties and therefore new Upanishads do not count.


Even today, when the population of Vedic scholars have seriously dwindled, Chaintanya Upanishad or Brahma Samhita is accepted only by Gaudiyas. It is not at all accepted all across India in the level of the Chandogya Upanishad.

The point is there do exist fake Upanishads and you seem to agree. No one said *all* Upanishads are fake.

[philosoraptor]

It's not correct to say that the Shukla Yajur Veda "did not exist" before Yajnavalkya learned it from sUrya. It existed but was not manifest in this world until Yajnavalkya learned it.

[jignyAsu]

What is the difference? Sounds the same as invalid or incorrect to me.

No. Yajnavalka and His guru had disagreements using the same Krshna Yajur Veda only in its interpretation. His guru asked Him to find some other guru. Thus Shukla Yajur Ved was revealed. You said that Yajnavalkya doubted its authenticity - not true.



Same logic. The very first time a verse is quoted is when we can be sure of its existence. Any prior date is doubtful subject to the same problem mentioned above. This is again a faith vs. logic thing.


But there is more to it here. This is not the first time the verse is quoted..this is only what reached our hands. But then if random made-up Upanishads are quoted among scholars, their reactions to these would have been immense and often the mutt wouldn't have even survived.

This theory doesn't fly that one person from Tamil Nadu is able to walk up to Kashi and beyond with made up Upanishads at those times. One could not even walk a few minutes without meeting a Vedic scholar who would agree to disagree.

Let's do an experiment - Make up one Gita verse now and watch how much you will be ridiculed here. Even you wouldn't dare to do it here..what to talk of representatives of mutts? If this is the case now, what to talk about the ancient Bharata, filled with Vidhwans.

We can logically deduce the authenticity of verses by noticing the lack of reactions by the opponents[Vedic scholars having various interpretations] and the number of VidhwAns, whose counts only increase as we go deeper to the past. To simply say that if I find a verse quoted in 15 century, it was created then and passed across entire India with every one agreeing is not a logical position at all.



You do realize that your position of "we have to accept every scripture as genuine" does not find support among the orthodoxy?

That is not my position at all. I agree that every group only accepts a set of scripture as authority. However they only question the authority not authenticity. This difference should be clear. For those doubting authenticity, we require someone mentioning so. And yes, I do admit tampering and fake Upanishads, which have only increased with the decrease of Vidhwans - recent.

[brahma jijnasa]

Many times I have heard people say that there are new and false Upanishads.
However I think that we should be very careful with this opinion.
Basically people notice that with each subsequent acarya Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, etc. list of the Upanishads becoming longer. This is where I see no evidence of anything.
Some scholars have even expressed the opinion that Srimad Bhagavatam has been composed after the time of Ramanuja or 12th century just because he is not mentioning Bhagavatam in any of his books. Similarly people think that the creation of new Upanishads is taking place because they have not been mentioned by the old authors.

Regarding authenticity of Gopala tapani Upanishad.
Gopala tapani Upanishad is a typical example of how a particular Upanishad has become a victim of this kind of reasoning.
Just because no author prior to perhaps 15th or 16th century is mentioning it, people think it is a medieval composition. It seems that it is accepted only by Gaudiya Vaishnavas and those who are not so skeptical.
However there is one interesting thing about it.
Gopala tapani Upanishad is one of the rare srutis which mentions Lord Krishna's name explicitly and literally and describes Him.
What is interesting to note is that practically all of these srutis are considered to be new! Practically speaking there are no srutis considered to be old which describe Lord Krishna and His name!
Thus we have one paradoxical situation which I would describe as follows:

Lord Krishna's name and He himself is described significantly in smriti literature such as the Bhagavad gita, Puranas, Mahabharata etc. considered to be old and real scriptures while at the same time Lord Krishna's name and He himself is described in those few srutis considered to be new and fake.
Now, let's remember what is the relationship between the sruti and smriti. Sruti means "hearing" and smriti means "remembering". Smriti scripture is considered authentic if it remembers what has been said in sruti.
An example of this we can see described in Manu smriti 2.7:


"Whatever law has been ordained for any (person) by Manu, that has been fully declared in the Veda: for that (sage was) omniscient."

In Manu smriti 12.95-96 it says that those smritis which are not based on the Veda (sruti), produce no reward after death and are worthless and false.

Now, if this is the relationship between the sruti and smriti literature, then what authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge such as Vyasa, Sukadeva Gosvami etc said about Lord Krishna in smritis like Puranas, Mahabharata etc they had to recall from sruti. One would expect that knowledge about Lord Krishna must be there in srutis at least on a basic level. This is especially to be expected when less important gods such as Indra, Vayu, Agni etc are all mentioned in srutis while at the same time Lord Krishna who is described as the ultimate goal of human life in smritis, is not even mentioned in the old and authentic vedic Upanishads?!
Quite strange to say the least.
All this suggests that those few srutis in which Lord Krishna is described are real and old vedic Upanishads.


Additional reason that suggests authenticity of Gopala tapani Upanishad:

Padma Purana says (quoted in Laghu-bhagavatamrta, Chapter Five, by Rupa Gosvami):


"In Lord Nrsimha, Ramacandra, and Krsna the six transcendental opulences are perfect and complete. They are the paravasthas (most important forms of the Lord). From Him (Krsna) they are manifested as lamps are lighted from an (original) lamp."

Since Lord Nrisimha, Ramacandra, and Krishna (Gopala) are most important forms of the Lord, it is reasonable to expect that some srutis should be dedicated to the description of them.
It is well known that there are three Upanishads: Nrisimha tapani, Rama tapani and Gopala tapani.
This also suggests that they are real, old and authentic vedic Upanishads dedicated to Lord Nrisimha, Ramacandra, and Krishna (Gopala).

What I said here may not be evidence for anything, but it is at least indicative and suggests something interesting.

regards

[philosoraptor]

brahma jijnasa,

Let me ask you this - what other sampradAya (besides the gauDIyas) accepts the authority of the gopAla-tApanI upaniShad?

Also, in what sampradAya-s is the gopAla-tApanI upaniShad still chanted and transmitted in the oral tradition?

If you cannot answer these questions, then you cannot convincingly argue that it is shruti.

I can empathize with your difficulty of trying to reconcile ISKCON doctrine with reality.

[brahma jijnasa]

Let me ask you this - what other sampradAya (besides the gauDIyas) accepts the authority of the gopAla-tApanI upaniShad?

The popular Gopala Tapini Upanishad, among Nimbarka Sampradaya and Gaudiya Vaishnavism, belongs to Paippalada Samhita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharvaveda).
There are several commentaries on Gopala tapani by Advaitins.
It seems that they accept it.



Also, in what sampradAya-s is the gopAla-tApanI upaniShad still chanted and transmitted in the oral tradition?

I do not see significance of this question. Practically all the Upanishads are now preserved only in written form. If we would relied on the oral tradition, nothing would be left of Upanishads because the oral traditions get lost. Just a few have survived.



If you cannot answer these questions, then you cannot convincingly argue that it is shruti.

That Gopala Tapini Upanishad has a status of sruti from Atharva Veda, Paippalada branch we know from this:

1) http://veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/tattvas1.htm :


A note of interest: Although this verse was quoted by Rupa, the original texts for this part of the Gopal-tapani Upanisad were unknown to scholars for many, many years. In 1966 one Vaishnava scholar here in Orissa named Fakir Mohan Das discovered original palm leaf copies of this rare literature in the Balasore district of northern Orissa. After finding it he quickly reprinted it to preserve it.

The following is an excerpt from an article written by Dr Fakir Mohan entitled "The History of Sri Sri Radha Krsna Worship in Orissan Culture":

"In Ujjvala Nilamani Srila Rupa Goswami cites the Gopala Tapani Upanisad and the Rg Parisista to show the authenticity of the worship of Srimati Radharani: gopalottaratapinyam yad gandharveti visrutah radhet rk parisiste ca, etc.

'From the Vedic literature we come to know that Sri Radharani is referred to as 'Gandharvi' in the second part of the Gopal Tapani, and as 'Radha' in the Rg Parishistha.'

"Srila Vishvanath Cakravarti Thakur and Baladev Vidyabhushan have stated in their commentaries on Gopala Tapani Upanisad that this tapani of the Atharva Veda, Paippalada branch, was previously being recited by the brahmanas of Gujarat and Orissa. Although presently there are no brahmanas of the Atharva Veda Paippalada branch found in Gujarat, thousands of this lineage are still living in the vicinity of the village Remuna, the birth place of Srila Baladev Vidyabhushan, and in other places of Orissa. In the absence of any help from ancient manuscripts, the original text of the Paippalada Samhita can be reconstructed even today from the tradition, which the village reciters still carry with them unimpaired. In this area some rare Paippalada Samhita manuscripts have been found along with a number of hitherto unknown manuals of special Paippalada rites which give an insight into the social, religious and cultural traditions of Paippaladiyans found in the tapani literature.

"In the 18th century, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushan has quoted the Purusa-bodhini Sruti, Purusottama Tapini, in his Prameya Ratnavali in connection with the worship of Sri Sri Radha Krsna in the Vedic period. ..."

2) Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopala_Tapani_Upanishad :

In the Muktika Upanishad all four Tāpinī Upanishads (Nṛsiṁha, Rāma, Tripurā and Gopāla) are also listed there as belonging to the Atharvaveda.

The Gaudiya Vaishnavas also quote the Gautamīya-tantra in order to establish that this Upanishad is śruteḥ śiraḥ. The quote does indeed seem to be a reference to Gopāla-tāpanī.

3) What I have said in my last post #33 it is at least indicative and suggests something interesting. This view is based on the well known relationship between the sruti and smriti. Sruti means "hearing" and smriti means "remembering". Smriti scripture is considered authentic if it remembers what has been said in sruti.
This is accepted by all traditions!
Logic and common sense based on the well known relationship between the sruti and smriti tell us that there must be some real, old and authentic vedic srutis dedicated to the description of Lord Krishna. If we deny this simple fact then we have the absurdity that Lord Krishna is described significantly in smriti literature such as the Bhagavad gita, Puranas, Mahabharata etc. while at the same time that very same Lord Krishna who is described as the ultimate goal of human life in smritis, is not even mentioned in the old and authentic vedic srutis?!
This is silly and nonsense.

regards

[Omkara]

There are several commentaries on Gopala tapani by Advaitins.
It seems that they accept it.


I know of one Advaitin Commentary on the Gopala Tapani by the 14th century commentator Narayana, who has also commented on Rama and Narasimha Tapani Upanishad.

I am not sure about the acceptance of Gopala Tapani Upanishad by Advaitins. The Rama Tapani Upanishad is accepted by Vaishnavas. It has been quoted by Vadiraja Tirtha. The Barasimha Tapani is accepted by Vaishnavas and Advaitins. Famous scholars like Vidyaranya and Vedanta Desika have cited it. None of these upanishads are accepted by Shaivas.

[brahma jijnasa]

I know of one Advaitin Commentary on the Gopala Tapani by the 14th century commentator Narayana, who has also commented on Rama and Narasimha Tapani Upanishad.


Now, at least no one can accuse Gaudiyas of counterfeiting the Gopala Tapani sruti. :D

regards

[philosoraptor]

I know of one Advaitin Commentary on the Gopala Tapani by the 14th century commentator Narayana, who has also commented on Rama and Narasimha Tapani Upanishad.

This is news to me, but helpful to know. As far as I knew, the only non-Gaudiya commentary on the GTU was an 18th century one by the Advaitin monk Upanishad Brahmendra Yogin.


I am not sure about the acceptance of Gopala Tapani Upanishad by Advaitins. The Rama Tapani Upanishad is accepted by Vaishnavas. It has been quoted by Vadiraja Tirtha. The Barasimha Tapani is accepted by Vaishnavas and Advaitins. Famous scholars like Vidyaranya and Vedanta Desika have cited it. None of these upanishads are accepted by Shaivas.

I've never seen the GTU quoted by any non-Gaudiyas. If you have any more information on that 14th century commentary of the GTU, please share.

[philosoraptor]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="2"]

The popular Gopala Tapini Upanishad, among Nimbarka Sampradaya and Gaudiya Vaishnavism, belongs to Paippalada Samhita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharvaveda).
There are several commentaries on Gopala tapani by Advaitins.
It seems that they accept it.


I only know of 1-2, as mentioned previously. As far as its being "popular," there is little evidence of that - I've never seen this Upanishad quoted in the traditional commentaries. And simply saying that it belongs to Paippalada Samhita is not answering the question. Many "Upanishads" of dubious authenticity are alleged to be part of the Paippalada Samhita of the Atharvaveda.



I do not see significance of this question. Practically all the Upanishads are now preserved only in written form. If we would relied on the oral tradition, nothing would be left of Upanishads because the oral traditions get lost. Just a few have survived.

It's quite simple. Something can only be shruti if it is heard through the oral tradition. While many of the principle Upanishads are indeed quoted from printed texts, they still are studied and passed down in the traditional manner in Hindu monasteries spanning several different sampradAyas. The same is not true of the GTU. I am not aware of any oral tradition for it existing today. Again, I would be quite happy to be proven incorrect on this.



That Gopala Tapini Upanishad has a status of sruti from Atharva Veda, Paippalada branch we know from this:

1) http://veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/tattvas1.htm :

[INDENT]A note of interest: Although this verse was quoted by Rupa, the original texts for this part of the Gopal-tapani Upanisad were unknown to scholars for many, many years. In 1966 one Vaishnava scholar here in Orissa named Fakir Mohan Das discovered original palm leaf copies of this rare literature in the Balasore district of northern Orissa. After finding it he quickly reprinted it to preserve it.


Again, it is shruti when it is passed down in the oral tradition. Discovering it in ancient written form does not confer it authenticity, and certainly does not confer upon it status as shruti.



The following is an excerpt from an article written by Dr Fakir Mohan entitled "The History of Sri Sri Radha Krsna Worship in Orissan Culture":

"In Ujjvala Nilamani Srila Rupa Goswami cites the Gopala Tapani Upanisad and the Rg Parisista to show the authenticity of the worship of Srimati Radharani: gopalottaratapinyam yad gandharveti visrutah radhet rk parisiste ca, etc.

'From the Vedic literature we come to know that Sri Radharani is referred to as 'Gandharvi' in the second part of the Gopal Tapani, and as 'Radha' in the Rg Parishistha.'

First of all, Rupa Gosvami is 16th century, so this still gives us insufficient evidence of its antiquity. Secondly, the name "rAdhA" is not mentioned in the GTU at all, at least, not in the recension translated by Kushakratha dasa and popularly circulated in ISKCON. The leader of the gopis is named "gaurI" and it is inferred by gauDIyas that this is rAdhA. I have no problem with that, but it's hardly correct to say "from Vedic literature we come know that Sri Radharani is referred to as...." - there is no such explicit statement in the GTU, and the Vedic basis of GTU is still very much in doubt - claiming that it is Vedic because it belonged to the Paippalada Samhita of the Atharvaveda is merely restating the point that is being doubted in the first place. There is also no explicit statement in the Rg veda regarding rAdhA - when one gauDIya swAmI claimed this, I asked him for the Sanskrit, and what he quoted did not have any name at all, just his interpolated statement that it was referring to rAdhA and kRiShNa, even though the actual mantra translated as something like, "We go to their house...."



"Srila Vishvanath Cakravarti Thakur and Baladev Vidyabhushan have stated in their commentaries on Gopala Tapani Upanisad that this tapani of the Atharva Veda, Paippalada branch, was previously being recited by the brahmanas of Gujarat and Orissa. Although presently there are no brahmanas of the Atharva Veda Paippalada branch found in Gujarat, thousands of this lineage are still living in the vicinity of the village Remuna, the birth place of Srila Baladev Vidyabhushan, and in other places of Orissa. In the absence of any help from ancient manuscripts, the original text of the Paippalada Samhita can be reconstructed even today from the tradition, which the village reciters still carry with them unimpaired. In this area some rare Paippalada Samhita manuscripts have been found along with a number of hitherto unknown manuals of special Paippalada rites which give an insight into the social, religious and cultural traditions of Paippaladiyans found in the tapani literature.

In other words, he is saying in effect that there is no oral tradition for the GTU extant today, and that the manuscripts from which the GTU has been "reconstructed" is supposedly from that Gujarati sampradaya in Orissa whose oral tradition has died out. Problem: that means it is not shruti by definition.


2) Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopala_Tapani_Upanishad :

In the Muktika Upanishad all four Tāpinī Upanishads (Nṛsiṁha, Rāma, Tripurā and Gopāla) are also listed there as belonging to the Atharvaveda.

Unfortunately, the authenticity of the Muktika is also not clear.



The Gaudiya Vaishnavas also quote the Gautamīya-tantra in order to establish that this Upanishad is śruteḥ śiraḥ. The quote does indeed seem to be a reference to Gopāla-tāpanī.

And once again, quoting another sampradaya-specific text to establish the authenticity of another sampradaya-specific text....

[shiv.somashekhar]

I know of one Advaitin Commentary on the Gopala Tapani by the 14th century commentator Narayana, who has also commented on Rama and Narasimha Tapani Upanishad.

Can you provide more details on this commentator?

Thanks

[brahma jijnasa]

It's quite simple. Something can only be shruti if it is heard through the oral tradition. While many of the principle Upanishads are indeed quoted from printed texts, they still are studied and passed down in the traditional manner in Hindu monasteries spanning several different sampradAyas. The same is not true of the GTU. I am not aware of any oral tradition for it existing today. Again, I would be quite happy to be proven incorrect on this.

Sooner or later, many traditions get extinguished. This does not mean that once they did not existed.


Many "Upanishads" of dubious authenticity are alleged to be part of the Paippalada Samhita of the Atharvaveda.
...
Again, it is shruti when it is passed down in the oral tradition. Discovering it in ancient written form does not confer it authenticity, and certainly does not confer upon it status as shruti.
...
the Vedic basis of GTU is still very much in doubt - claiming that it is Vedic because it belonged to the Paippalada Samhita of the Atharvaveda is merely restating the point that is being doubted in the first place.
...
In other words, he is saying in effect that there is no oral tradition for the GTU extant today, and that the manuscripts from which the GTU has been "reconstructed" is supposedly from that Gujarati sampradaya in Orissa whose oral tradition has died out. Problem: that means it is not shruti by definition.


So here we are. You can doubt and deny anything and everything you want. If you do not want to accept sources and testimonies then you do not need to. It is fine with me.
If we do not believe the testimony given by the respected acaryas Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Baladeva Vidyabhushana then whom shall we believe to? If we do not believe the scholars who collected manuscripts then whom shall we believe to?
In the text it clearly says that the tradition once existed, and that even today it exists although many successions get lost.


Unfortunately, the authenticity of the Muktika is also not clear.
...
And once again, quoting another sampradaya-specific text to establish the authenticity of another sampradaya-specific text....


Whoever has compiled a list of the Upanishads in Muktika, he obtained information about it from somewhere.
Gaudiyas quoted from the scriptures of various traditions like Pancaratras, even Saiva Puranas etc. They never had a problem with that.

Now, what I can see from all this is the following.
We have the testimonies and evidences about Gopala tapani Upanishad from at least several independent sources. If we put all these sources and testimonies side by side and consider them as such, and taking into account logic and common sense based on the well known relationship between the sruti and smriti which tell us that Smriti is "remembering" what has been said in Sruti and thus there must be some real, old and authentic vedic srutis dedicated to the description of Lord Krishna, then the conclusion about the status of Gopala tapani Upanishad is obvious.

regards

[Omkara]

This is news to me, but helpful to know. As far as I knew, the only non-Gaudiya commentary on the GTU was an 18th century one by the Advaitin monk Upanishad Brahmendra Yogin.
I've never seen the GTU quoted by any non-Gaudiyas. If you have any more information on that 14th century commentary of the GTU, please share.

I have never seen the GTU cited by Advaitins either, which is why I have doubts over its acceptance by Advaitins. The info about the commentary is from Paul Deussen's 'Upanishads of the Veda' in which he gives a list of Upanishads commented upon by Narayana. The GTU is part of this list. I don't think anything else about this is mentioned in the book, but I have not read it completely.

[bhagavatafan]

Well, the commentaries of Narayana (Narayana's dipika) are available to read fully in this link: http://www.dli.gov.in/scripts/FullindexDefault.htm?path1=/data_copy/upload/0083/618&first=1&last=169&barcode=1990030083613

(please make sure you install the alternatiff plugin for iexplore/firefox before opening this link).

This commentator seems to be an advaitin, but I am unable to infer how the conclusion that "he belongs to the 14th/15th centuries" can be arrived at.

The authenticity/inauthenticity of the contents of certain Upanishads is uncertain, given the current situation. It certainly can not be said that a Upanishad is authentic only if there is a tradition of adhyayana/oral transmission of it. Oral transmission of many Upanishads (such as Mahopanishad) ceased millenia ago, but Vedantins have taken verses quoted by ancient commentators. I believe this is acknowledged by even Vedanta Desika, who points out that the authenticity of the Mahopanishad verse "Eko ha vai" etc. can not be doubted because it was quoted by pre-Ramanuja Vedantins also.

As examples of Upanishads which are not transmitted orally, but for which we have strong reasons to believe their authenticity, I point out that Vedanta Desika quotes from "Katyayana Upanishad", "Dvayopanishad", and "Sudarshanopanishad". These Upanishads are not in the bogus 108 list given by Muktika (which itself is bogus and recent). However, these Upanishads have been published in full by the Adyar library under "aprakAshita Upanishads", edited by Kunhan Raja:

http://www.dli.gov.in/scripts/FullindexDefault.htm?path1=/data6/upload/0145/148&first=1&last=539&barcode=99999990010989

The verses quoted by Vedanta Desika are also intact in this edition.

PS:

The 108 Upanishad edition has many spurious additions and deletions which make it unreliable. To illustrate:

(1) None of the verses that come after the first couple of chapters claimed in the 108 edition to be belonging to Mahopanishad are to be found in the commentaries of Narayana or Shankarananda. The original later chapters (from which Vedanta Desika gives a couple of quotes, but which was not commented upon by Narayana/Shankarananda) seem to have been uprooted and instead spurious chapters have been propped up in their place.

(2) The Maitrayani Upanishad found in the 108 Upanishad edition omits a few verses which identify "the one with the name Vishnu" as the in-dweller of the sun. These verses were however quoted by Vedanta Desika and Appayya Dikshita as part of this Upanishad. The missing verses were finally found in a commentary of an advaitin named "Ramatirtha" to the entire Upanishad, which was published in early 20th century. This edition can be accessed here:

http://www.dli.gov.in/scripts/FullindexDefault.htm?path1=/data/upload/0047/681&first=1&last=318&barcode=1990020047676

[Omkara]

This commentator seems to be an advaitin, but I am unable to infer how the conclusion that "he belongs to the 14th/15th centuries" can be arrived at.

Well, that is what paul deussen says in his book. I am not sure how he came to the conclusion.


As examples of Upanishads which are not transmitted orally, but for which we have strong reasons to believe their authenticity, I point out that Vedanta Desika quotes from "Katyayana Upanishad", "Dvayopanishad", and "Sudarshanopanishad". These Upanishads are not in the bogus 108 list given by Muktika (which itself is bogus and recent). However, these Upanishads have been published in full by the Adyar library under "aprakAshita Upanishads", edited by Kunhan Raja:

http://www.dli.gov.in/scripts/FullindexDefault.htm?path1=/data6/upload/0145/148&first=1&last=539&barcode=99999990010989

The verses quoted by Vedanta Desika are also intact in this edition.


I hope someone translates these Upanishads. it is sad that translations of the so-called 108 upanishads are available but those of authentic ones are not.

[philosoraptor]

The authenticity/inauthenticity of the contents of certain Upanishads is uncertain, given the current situation. It certainly can not be said that a Upanishad is authentic only if there is a tradition of adhyayana/oral transmission of it.

No doubt an authentic upaniShad can be extant only in written form. However, my point is we cannot ascribe the status of shruti to these texts, especially when they have not been quoted in previous commentaries.

Everyone has heard of kaTha, Isha, muNdaka, etc upaniShads. These are the same in each of the sampradAyas and they have been used over and over again in debates, quoted, and even commented on. The same is not true for the gopALa-tApanI, the caitanya, or for that matter, the "allah" upaniShads. Thus, I would say it's a foregone conclusion there are indeed bogus texts that are passed off as upaniShads, others that are of dubious authenticity, and others that might be authentic but have no existing tradition of oral transmission or commentary. It's perfectly reasonable not to give these upaniShads the same level of importance as shruti, except of course for those whose philosophy depends on them.

[brahma jijnasa]

Here I would like to add something more to what I said in posts #33, #35, #41.

This well known relationship between the sruti and smriti can be applied to other features, and not just to Lord Krishna.
Sruti means "hearing" and smriti means "remembering". Smriti scripture is considered authentic if it remembers what has been said in sruti. This is well known relationship between the sruti and smriti.
If this is the relationship between the sruti and smriti literature, then what authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge such as Vyasa, Sukadeva Gosvami etc said in smritis like Bhagavad gita, Puranas, Mahabharata, Pancaratras, Manu-smriti etc they had to recall from sruti. One would expect that knowledge about all these things must be there in srutis at least on a basic level.
I mean if it were not so, then it is not established that well known relationship between the sruti and smriti which must hold true!

This view is strengthened by the fact that many things about which we read in the smriti scriptures have their basis in the descriptions given in the srutis.
Take for example the gods and goddesses such as Indra, Vayu, Agni, Rudra, Narayana etc, Sarasvati, Lakshmi, even Apsaras, etc are described in both sruti and smriti.
Many other things are also described in both sruti and smriti, such as concepts about karma and samsara, vedic sacrifices and rites, doctrines and practices about yoga, meditation, bhakti, worship, etc etc.

Now, what about Radha and Krishna, Balarama, Ramacandra, Narasimha? What about gopis and their bhakti towards Krishna? What about some Vaishnava practices like wearing tilaka and attending to the Deities in the temple?
Many of these things are found very rarely described in the srutis. Practically speaking they have been described in just a few rare Upanishads and even then some people would say that these are new Upanishads from the Middle Ages.
Some people think like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads) :


"New Upanishads are often sectarian since sects have sought to legitimize their texts by claiming for them the status of Śruti."

"On many occasions, when older Upanishads have not suited the founders of new sects, they have composed new ones of their own."

But how can that be?
How can that be when well known relationship between the sruti and smriti must hold true!?
Then, where all these things described in smritis have been "remembered" from?
Some people can't put two and two together and see what is obvious.

regards

[jignyAsu]

Sruti means "hearing" and smriti means "remembering". Smriti scripture is considered authentic if it remembers what has been said in sruti. This is well known relationship between the sruti and smriti.

If this is the relationship between the sruti and smriti literature, then what authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge such as Vyasa, Sukadeva Gosvami etc said in smritis like Bhagavad gita, Puranas, Mahabharata, Pancaratras, Manu-smriti etc they had to recall from sruti. One would expect that knowledge about all these things must be there in srutis at least on a basic level.


You bring up interesting points. However, I don't think that all of what is said in smriti has to summarized in shruti. Otherwise, the Acharyas would have mentioned so and also used shruti to justify all the important incidents in smritis they chose to comment. The basic requirement is to understand that Rama and Krishna are avataras of Lord Narayana, who is the goal of Vedas (for Vaishnavas), through authorities like Sage Valmiki, Narada, Sukha, Vyasa etc. For e.g. sage Valmiki got His summary from Sage Narada and documented what He saw through His divine vision, instead of remembering from shruti.

Also, if this was the case, these Upanishads on Rama, Krishna etc would have been better preserved.

That much said, I would like to add one thing. To say that Gopal Tapani Upanishad is not an accepted pramana for everyone does not mean that it is a fake. Surely there are lots of scriptures which have been lost because of lack of importance, invasion etc. Atleast it will never be put on the level of Allah upanishad etc..because it is recited in a great tradition. Just felt like saying this.

[brahma jijnasa]

You bring up interesting points. However, I don't think that all of what is said in smriti has to summarized in shruti.

Are you sure about that?
All knowledge that is presented in smriti must be presented in sruti also at least on a basic level. It must be so because the scriptures say so!
I am talking about knowledge, not about the stories and the like. All the elements of knowledge in smritis must be included in the sruti. That is why Sruti means "hearing" and smriti means "remembering". I have already talked about that in post #33.
Manu smriti 2.7 says (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm) :

"Whatever law has been ordained for any (person) by Manu, that has been fully declared in the Veda: for that (sage was) omniscient."

Here I emphasize this "that has been fully declared in the Veda (Sruti)".
See also Manu smriti 12.95-96:


"All those traditions (smriti) and those despicable systems of philosophy, which are not based on the Veda, produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded on Darkness.

All those (doctrines), differing from the (Veda), which spring up and (soon) perish, are worthless and false, because they are of modern date."

Only in this case it makes sense to say that things described in smritis have been "remembered" from sruti. Smriti scripture is considered authentic if it remembers what has been said in sruti. This is well known relationship between the sruti and smriti.


For e.g. sage Valmiki got His summary from Sage Narada and documented what He saw through His divine vision, instead of remembering from shruti.

Here I am not talking about how someone gained his knowledge, but I am talking about elements of Vedic knowledge as such.


Also, if this was the case, these Upanishads on Rama, Krishna etc would have been better preserved.

This is just an assumption. We can only speculate why certain scriptures have not been better preserved.
In fact they have been preserved. We have srutis that describe Rama and Krishna. These are Rama Tapani and Gopala Tapani (see my previous posts in this thread). We have srutis that describe Radha and Krishna, Balarama, gopis and their bhakti towards Krishna, these are Gopala Tapani and Purusa-bodhini Upanishads.
Certainly they could have been better preserved, but a similar problem is with some other Upanishads, with Mahabharata, Puranas, Pancaratras, etc.
For example many Pancaratras get lost, many Upanishads that we know for sure that are ancient have not been preserved well.

What about some Vaishnava practices like wearing tilaka?
It is described in Vasudeva Upanishad.
Many other things that we cannot find practically anywhere else in the sruti, we find described in ancient smritis and some rare Upanishads that people suspect to be new ones. But how can they be new? If we suppose that they are new, then where all these things described in smritis have been "remembered" from?

Some people really can't put two and two together and see what is obvious.

regards

[jignyAsu]

All knowledge that is presented in smriti must be presented in sruti also at least on a basic level. It must be so because the scriptures say so!
I am talking about knowledge, not about the stories and the like. All the elements of knowledge in smritis must be included in the sruti.


The leelAs of Rama, Krishna, Varaha etc. is best summarized as displaying their auspicious qualities of supreme power, compassion, knowledge etc. These have been well established in the shruti as belonging to the Brahman or Narayana, whether or not the Avataras are mentioned. You seem to indicate that it is necessary that all these leelAs have to be mentioned in some form in the shruti, which is what I don't entirely agree.

The knowledge of Rama/Krishna as Avatara is also eternal in the form of Smriti. I don't think that a Shruti necessarily needs to exist for this to be remembered.



What about some Vaishnava practices like wearing tilaka?
It is described in Vasudeva Upanishad.
Many other things that we cannot find practically anywhere else in the sruti, we find described in ancient smritis and some rare Upanishads that people suspect to be new ones. But how can they be new? If we suppose that they are new, then where all these things described in smritis have been "remembered" from?


But they are well established in Puranas and Agamas that is central to Vaishnavas for ages and I don't see any problems in accepting them. The texts for establishing temples, worshipping Vigrahas, wearing tilakas etc necessarily have to be in Upanishads - does this thought spring from outsiders or from within Hinduism? Our Vedas have a group of dissimilar text having various purposes...we just have to see which has a long standing credibility that's all. The outsiders to our religion cannot come and insist that we have to show everything everywhere.

[brahma jijnasa]

You seem to indicate that it is necessary that all these leelAs have to be mentioned in some form in the shruti, which is what I don't entirely agree.

Yes, they must be mentioned at least briefly.
In my last post I have been emphasized that Manu smriti 2.7 says "that has been fully declared in the Veda (Sruti)".
We can not remember something about which we have no idea. If we have never heard of an idea, then how can we remember it?
This is well known relationship between the sruti and smriti.


The knowledge of Rama/Krishna as Avatara is also eternal in the form of Smriti. I don't think that a Shruti necessarily needs to exist for this to be remembered.

Then I must say, it seems that you do not understand relationship between the sruti and smriti.

regards

[philosoraptor]

Where in shruti is it mentioned that Krishna is the "Original Supreme Personality of Godhead" and Naaraayana is the avatar/expansion?

[brahma jijnasa]

You seem to indicate that it is necessary that all these leelAs have to be mentioned in some form in the shruti, which is what I don't entirely agree.
Yes, they must be mentioned at least briefly.
In my last post I have been emphasized that Manu smriti 2.7 says "that has been fully declared in the Veda (Sruti)".
We can not remember something about which we have no idea. If we have never heard of an idea, then how can we remember it?
This is well known relationship between the sruti and smriti.

Continued from previous post #50.

Here I am giving three examples from the Brahma-vaivarta Purana which explicitly say that elements of knowledge about Radha and Krishna and about other gopis must be present in Sama Veda which is sruti.
Now, the only question remains whether these verses have been preserved in extant recensions of Sama Veda. When Brahma-vaivarta Purana says "Sama Veda" it may refer to its constituent parts or samhitas, brahmanas, aranyakas and upanishads.
We have information that the Sama Veda formerly consisted of 1000 Samhitas. The most part of it get lost.

* * * * *
Sri Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Canto Four

1) Chapter Eight

śrī janmāṣṭamī-vrata-pūjopavāsa-nirūpaṇa
Vows, Worship, and Fasting on śrī janmāṣṭamī

janmāṣṭamī -- Kṛṣṇa's birthday (the 8th day in the dark half of month srāvaṇa or bhādra)


Text 19
puṣpakaṁ mastake nyasya
punar dhyāyed vicakṣaṇaḥ
dhyānaṁ ca sāma-vedoktaṁ
śṛṇu vakṣyāmi nārada
brahmoṇā kathitaṁ pūrvaṁ
kumārāya mahātmane

puṣpakam-a flower; mastake-to the head; nyasya-placing; punaḥ-again; dhyāyet-should meditate; vicakṣaṇaḥ-wise; dhyānam-meditation; ca-and; sāma-vedoktam-spoken in the Sāma Veda; śṛṇu-please listen; vakṣyāmi-I will speak; nārada-O Nārada; brahmaṇā-by Brahmā; kathitam-spoken; pūrvam-before; kumārāya-to the Kumāra; mahātmane-the great soul.

"Then a wise person should place a flower to his head and meditate on the description of the Lord spoken in the Sāma Veda. O Nārada, please listen and I will tell you that description, which Lord Brahmā told the Kumāras in ancient times."

Text 20
bālaṁ nīlāmbudābham atiśaya-ruciraṁ smera-vaktrāmbujaṁ taṁ
brahmeśānanta-dharmaiḥ kati kati divasaiḥ stuyamānaṁ paraṁ yat
dhyānāsādhyaṁ ṛṣīndrair muni-manuja-varaiḥ siddha-saṅghair asādhyaṁ
yogīndrāṇām acintyam atiśayam atulaṁ sākṣi-rūpaṁ bhaje 'ham

bālam-a child; nīlāmbudābham-splendid as a dark monsoon cloud; atiśaya-ruciram-very handsome; smera-vaktrāmbujam-His lotus face smiling; tam-to Him; brahmeśānanta-dharmaiḥ-by Brahmā, Śiva, Śeṣa, and Yama; kati kati-how many?; divasaiḥ-with days; stuyamānam-being praised; param-great; yat-what; dhyāna-by meditation; asādhyam-unattainable; ṛṣīndraiḥ-by the kings of sages; muni-manuja-varaiḥ-by the best of sages and human beings; siddha-saṅghaiḥ-by the siddhas; asādhyam-unattainable; yogīndrāṇām-of the kings of yogis; acintyam-untinkable; atiśayam-great; atulam-incomparable; sākṣi-rūpam-the witness; bhaje-worship; aham-I.

"I worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is an infant boy, who is
splendid as a dark monsoon cloud, who is very handsome, whose lotus face is smiling,
whom Brahmā, Śiva, Śeṣa, and Yama glorified for how many days?, whom the kings of
sages cannot approach in their meditations, whom the munis, siddhas, and sons of
Manu cannot attain, whom the kings of the yogīs cannot imagine in their thoughts,
who is the greatest, who is without peer, who is all-seeing witness."

* * * * *

2) Chapter Thirteen

śrī kṛṣṇānna-prāśana-nāma-karaṇa-prastāva
śrī kṛṣṇā's Anna-prāśana and Nāma-karaṇa


Text 103
rādhā-śabdasya vyutpattiḥ
sāma-vede nirūpitā
nārāyaṇas tam uvāca
brahmānaṁ nābhi-paṅkaje

"The Sama Veda explains how Lord Nārāyaṇa explained to the demigod Brahmā,
who was sitting on the lotus of the Lord's navel, the derivation of the word Rādhā."
... ...

Text 108
rākāro niścalāṁ bhaktiṁ
dāsyaṁ kṛṣṇa-padāmbuje

"The letter rā brings unwavering devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet"

* * * * *

3) Chapter Sixteen

Baka-keśi-pralamba-vadha-vṛndāvana-gamana
The Killing of Baka, Keśī, and Pralamba, and the Journey to Vṛndāvana


Text 81
"... and then one should devotedly
meditate on the Lord Kṛṣṇa, the master of Śrī Rādhā (dhyāyed bhaktyā ca rādheśaṁ). Please listen and I will describe
to you that meditation spoken in the Sāma Veda (dhyānaṁ ca sāma-vedoktaṁ
nibodha kathayāmi te)."

Texts 82-84
"I worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is dark like a new monsoon
cloud (navīna-nīrada-śyāmaṁ), who wears yellow silk garments, whose smiling face is an autumn moon, whose
eyes are blossoming lotus flowers, who is splendidly anointed with sandal paste, who
again and again enchants the gopīs' hearts (mānasaṁ gopikānāṁ ca mohayantaṁ), on whom Rādhā gazes, who rests on
Rādhā's breast (rādhayā dṛśyamānaṁ ca
rādhā-vakṣaḥ-sthala-sthitam), and whom Brahmā, Śeṣa, Śiva, Yama, and all the demigods glorify with
many prayers."


regards

[smaranam]

praNAm

Bramha-jijnasa has a point.

In any case, "Of Vedas I am SAma" says Shri KRshNa, not without reason. Not ONLY because it is the sing-song Veda.

Here is something interesting from our favorite crown-jewel of sAttvic purAN, Shrimad BhAgvat:

The NArAyaNa Kavach (a prayer to NArAyaNa for protection), which was transmitted from Dadhichi Rshi to Prachetas-Daksha's son Kashyap's Aditya-son TvashTA to VishvarUpa to Devas lead by Indra, at the beginning times of the manvantara, eons before KRshNa came to earth in the 28th Chaturyuga cycle's dvApar Yuga,

speaks of Flute-playing Govinda and Panchajanya shankha blowing Shri KRshNa, showing eternality of Govinda and Goloka. (SB 6.8.20, SB 6.8.25)

Again, Dhruva is so ancient, Devarshi NArad gave him the mantra "om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya" (SB 4.8.54)

So, the Lord is more than son-of-Vasudev.

READ HERE: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=104634&postcount=8


SachidAnanda rUpAya vishwath pathyade hetave
TApatreya VinAshAya Sri KrishNAya vayam Numaha: - Bhagvat Mahatmya verse 1

Shri KRshNa Govinda Hare MurAre
He nAtha nArAyaNa vAsudeva

Radhe KRshNa Radhe KRshNa Radhe Radhe KRshNa KRshNa

KRSHNAAAAA S S S S
Hare KRshNaaa S S S S
Hare S S S Hare S S S
(title song of Ramanand Sagar's KRISHNAAA S S S - all of this in magenta - just felt like singing)

[smaranam]

What is the sAdhak ultimately supposed to gain from this?

That Govinda-GopAla was,is,will be always Govinda-GopAla.
It is His Govinda-ness that touches us, and matters to us (or His devotees anyway).
It is NArAyaNa's NArAyaNa-ness that touches us, matters to us.

Whether shruti or smRti, we must read very carefully, and, like a sponge we must absorb as much as possible on mutiple levels of Truth (Adhibhautilk, adhyAmtik, adhidaivik, and when applicable, adhiyadnik?)

When bhakta-vatsal NArAyaNa hears prayers of devas and jivas and comes to them instantly, He is riding pUjya GaruDa.
GaruDa's wings sing-chant the hymns of sAma veda.
Always. SmRti mentions "Then Shri Hari left. As GaruDa arose flapping His wings, the transcendental sound of the sAma veda could be heard."

In VaikuNTha, NArAyaNa is surrounded by the four Vedas personified. Not surprising, as He IS, is the source of, and the substratum of the vedas. It means that ParamAtmA Parameshwar is omni-scient-potent as Vedas are His "left and right hand men"
These very same vedas become Gopis in Goloka VRndAvan. Some Gopis are nitya from Golok (Radha's prAN sakhis), some are personified Vedas, Rg Veda & sAma veda Rchis personified, some were ancient Rshis of DanDakAraNya during the time of Shri RAm and gained Govind's association later on.

Points to ponder. Why would GaruDa's wings chant the sAma? What are the 4 vedas doing in VaikunTha and what are they doing in Goloka as Gopis? Obviously they are constantly chanting His Glories, non-stop.

_/\_

[smaranam]

praNAm


Where in shruti is it mentioned that Krishna is the "Original Supreme Personality of Godhead" and Naaraayana is the avatar/expansion?

Perhaps nowhere. Shruti will not elevate one form of THE ONE AND ONLY Supreme over another (does not mean all devas are same - they are not even in the picture here)

That, however, does not make Krishna a one-time appearance in the 28th dvapar of current manvantar.

Goloka and Govinda-GopAla is as eternal and perhaps as much in the vedas as VaikuNTha and NArAyaNa. These are simultaneous realms. To devotees of NArAyaNa, NArAyaNa will always be Supreme.

Tough leelA-fight. Gopis Vs Lakshmis. mAdhurya Vs aishvarya.
veNu Vs pAnchajanya. surabhi Vs. kAmadhenu

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[philosoraptor]

Perhaps nowhere. Shruti will not elevate one form of THE ONE AND ONLY Supreme over another (does not mean all devas are same - they are not even in the picture here

That, however, does not make Krishna a one-time appearance in the 28th dvapar of current manvantar.

However, brahma-jijnasa claimed that everything in smRiti has to be validated in shruti. If that's true, then he should be able to show where in shruti this (Krishna being the Original Supreme Personality of Godhead) is stated. Of course, if he wishes to retract that claim about needing 1:1 shruti correspondence, then that is fine, too.

[philosoraptor]

After re-reading brahma-jijnasa's posting, I realize now that I may have misunderstood his position. He isn't saying that everything in smRiti has to have corresponding existence in shruti. Rather, he is saying that whatever is claimed to be in shruti can be accepted as being in shruti. Thus, he has no problem believing that the Sama Veda mentions Radha, on the sole basis that the Brahma-vaivarta Purana claims that it is so, even when he has no evidence from the Sama Veda itself to substantiate this.

The problems with this strange logic become apparent when you apply it consistently across the board. Many deviant doctrines claim to have support from the Vedas. Event the kama-sutra, a misguided text written by a misguided author, claims to derive its principles from the Vedas. It was the standard in ancient times to invoke the authority of the Veda, whether rightly or wrongly, because that was a marker for authority. But the mere claim that something comes from or is found in the Veda does not make it so.

[brahma jijnasa]

The problems with this strange logic become apparent when you apply it consistently across the board. Many deviant doctrines claim to have support from the Vedas.
...
It was the standard in ancient times to invoke the authority of the Veda, whether rightly or wrongly, because that was a marker for authority. But the mere claim that something comes from or is found in the Veda does not make it so.

Oh, I see.
So when Brahma-vaivarta Purana, in my post #52, says that in the Sama Veda Lord Krishna, Sri Radha and gopis have been described, it is then "deviant doctrines" that Brahma-vaivarta Purana is trying to impose on us.
Thank you for your mindful insight.

regards

[philosoraptor]

Oh, I see.
So when Brahma-vaivarta Purana, in my post #52, says that in the Sama Veda Lord Krishna, Sri Radha and gopis have been described, it is then "deviant doctrines" that Brahma-vaivarta Purana is trying to impose on us.
Thank you for your mindful insight.

regards

Pranams.

Righteous indignation is not going to help you. When you quote scripture to substantiate your views, it makes no sense to ask people to accept said quotes as evidence when they don't exist.

You claim that the sAma veda mentions rAdhA based on the fact that brahma-vaivarta purANa says that it does. By the same logic, do you agree that vedas endorse sensual enjoyment as a worthwhile end, because kAma-sUtra claims that they do?

As an aside, and I'm certain I already know the answer to this - Can you quote the specific mantra in sAma veda which mentions rAdhA by name?

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

When you quote scripture to substantiate your views, it makes no sense to ask people to accept said quotes as evidence when they don't exist.

You claim that the sAma veda mentions rAdhA based on the fact that brahma-vaivarta purANa says that it does. By the same logic, do you agree that vedas endorse sensual enjoyment as a worthwhile end, because kAma-sUtra claims that they do?

We have information that the Sama Veda formerly consisted of 1000 Samhitas. The most part of it get lost.
There are so many verses cited in the books by Ramanuja, Madhva etc that have been lost. We can accept them or not.


As an aside, and I'm certain I already know the answer to this - Can you quote the specific mantra in sAma veda which mentions rAdhA by name?

No, I can not.
But I can quote from Gopala Tapani and Purusha-bodhini Upanishads. :)

regards

[philosoraptor]

Namaste

We have information that the Sama Veda formerly consisted of 1000 Samhitas. The most part of it get lost.

That may be, but you still have no proof, just an unsubstantiated assertion. If all of your critical philosophical points are going to be attributed to lost scriptures, then you might as well retract your statement that shruti is needed in 1:1 correspondence with all smriti.



There are so many verses cited in the books by Ramanuja, Madhva etc that have been lost. We can accept them or not.


Whether you accept or not is irrelevant. If the evidence comes from shruti, then it has to be accepted. There is no such obligation for anything else. From what I have seen so far, Ramanuja's proofs, unlike those of the Gaudiyas, do not depend on lost or obscure scriptures.

[brahma jijnasa]

That may be, but you still have no proof, just an unsubstantiated assertion. If all of your critical philosophical points are going to be attributed to lost scriptures, then you might as well retract your statement that shruti is needed in 1:1 correspondence with all smriti.

Whether you accept or not is irrelevant. If the evidence comes from shruti, then it has to be accepted. There is no such obligation for anything else. From what I have seen so far, Ramanuja's proofs, unlike those of the Gaudiyas, do not depend on lost or obscure scriptures.

If some verses has been preserved, Gaudiyas would accept them even if this scripture has disappeared, but under the condition that there is a valid reason or authority that points to their authenticity. Thus for example, Gaudiyas accepted some verses from the Puranas quoted by Madhvacarya and others, although these verses can not be found in today's editions of these Puranas. I'm not saying that there is obligation to do so.

Now, regarding Ramanuja's proofs.
I believe that it happened that some verses which he quoted in his books get lost to date, ie can no longer be found in the scriptures anymore. Would you accept these verses or not?
Gaudiyas would accept them. Proofs from Brahma-vaivarta Purana in my post #52 Gaudiyas would accept as good enough in order to say that in the Sama Veda, in sruti, Lord Krishna, Sri Radha and gopis have been described.
However I would not say that the whole Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy and their conclusions depend just on such verses. Not at all.

regards

[philosoraptor]

If some verses has been preserved, Gaudiyas would accept them even if this scripture has disappeared, but under the condition that there is a valid reason or authority that points to their authenticity. Thus for example, Gaudiyas accepted some verses from the Puranas quoted by Madhvacarya and others, although these verses can not be found in today's editions of these Puranas. I'm not saying that there is obligation to do so.

Pranams. You are missing the point. Whether Gaudiyas accept them or not does not speak to their acceptability across sectarian lines. When you are discussing spiritual subjects with people outside of your sampradaya, as HDF discussions invariably are, you have to stick to sources that are at least theoretically acceptable to most if not all. Lost verses from lost scriptures clearly do not meet that standard by any reasonable estimation. It's disingenuous to articulate the truth of a certain position when your proof lies entirely on scriptures whose validity is only accepted by your sect. Many ISKCON devotees frequently argue points whose only basis is in Brahma-samhita, for example, never bothering to mention to the naive listeners that Brahma-samhita is an exclusively Gaudiya text.



Now, regarding Ramanuja's proofs.
I believe that it happened that some verses which he quoted in his books get lost to date, ie can no longer be found in the scriptures anymore. Would you accept these verses or not?

Apropo to point #1, my acceptance or rejection of said verses, again, would be irrelevant. I would not use such verses as proof of anything, nor would I quote them at all to convince someone of anything.



Gaudiyas would accept them. Proofs from Brahma-vaivarta Purana in my post #52 Gaudiyas would accept as good enough in order to say that in the Sama Veda, in sruti, Lord Krishna, Sri Radha and gopis have been described.


I doubt that very much. The Uttaradi Math edition of the Puraanas indicates that Adi Shankara was not an incarnation of Lord Shiva as Gaudiyas claim, but rather an incarnation of a demon known as Maniman. Would Gaudiyas accept that?

[Venudhara]

Some good points. It is long-standing and well-established practice among Vedantic thinkers to ensure that their insights and theological contributions are supported by a set of well-accepted scriptural texts. There is no doubt, for instance, that the prasthana-traya falls within this category.

The problem with the Gaudiya community and the other Bhakti traditions that emerged in the North of India in around the 15th and 16th century is that they do not have a rich commentarial tradition on either the Upanishads or Badarayana's Brahma Sutras. Of course, this 'lacuna', if you like, was deliberately created. According to the tradition's founder, Sri Caitanya, the Srimad Bhagavata Purana constituted the 'natural commentary' on Badarayana's famous work. The Garuda Purana it is said supports this insight. Sri Jiva Goswami, in his Tattva Sandarbha, tries to argue for the pre-eminent authority of the Bhagavatam. His arguments are innovative and his case, it must be admitted, is compelling. Be that as it may, Jiva Goswami, and other theologians following him, were astute enough to recognize that the prestige of their tradition depended, in part, on their ability to present it as being founded upon or closely aligned with, the older, more established Vedanta tradition. Jiva Goswami's Sat Sandarbhas display the author's surprisingly high degree of familiarity with the Vedanta tradition; Jiva's advantage, of course, lies in the fact that, writing in the 16th century, he had access to the rich commentarial traditions of his predecessors which assisted him, no doubt, in carving out a neat and somewhat impressive theological system of his own. All of this, of course, is meant to show that it is somewhat inaccurate to claim, as you do, that the Gaudiya's tend to support their doctrinal insights with reference to 'lost or obscure scriptures.'

Even with a text like the Brahma Samhita, any doubts as to its veracity would quickly dispel, if readers studied the text along with Jiva Goswami's tika; Jiva does a fantastic job of supporting the said text's insights by referring to scriptural text's accepted by most Vedantic traditions.

Of course, none of this is to suggest that the Gaudiya's do not have any difficulty in 'finding Radha in the Vedas'. I would be interested to see how the other North-Indian Vaishnava traditions go about achieving this task.

Anuj





Pranams. You are missing the point. Whether Gaudiyas accept them or not does not speak to their acceptability across sectarian lines. When you are discussing spiritual subjects with people outside of your sampradaya, as HDF discussions invariably are, you have to stick to sources that are at least theoretically acceptable to most if not all. Lost verses from lost scriptures clearly do not meet that standard by any reasonable estimation. It's disingenuous to articulate the truth of a certain position when your proof lies entirely on scriptures whose validity is only accepted by your sect. Many ISKCON devotees frequently argue points whose only basis is in Brahma-samhita, for example, never bothering to mention to the naive listeners that Brahma-samhita is an exclusively Gaudiya text.



Apropo to point #1, my acceptance or rejection of said verses, again, would be irrelevant. I would not use such verses as proof of anything, nor would I quote them at all to convince someone of anything.



I doubt that very much. The Uttaradi Math edition of the Puraanas indicates that Adi Shankara was not an incarnation of Lord Shiva as Gaudiyas claim, but rather an incarnation of a demon known as Maniman. Would Gaudiyas accept that?

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

You are missing the point. Whether Gaudiyas accept them or not does not speak to their acceptability across sectarian lines. When you are discussing spiritual subjects with people outside of your sampradaya, as HDF discussions invariably are, you have to stick to sources that are at least theoretically acceptable to most if not all. Lost verses from lost scriptures clearly do not meet that standard by any reasonable estimation. It's disingenuous to articulate the truth of a certain position when your proof lies entirely on scriptures whose validity is only accepted by your sect. Many ISKCON devotees frequently argue points whose only basis is in Brahma-samhita, for example, never bothering to mention to the naive listeners that Brahma-samhita is an exclusively Gaudiya text.

It seems to me that we didn't understand each other.
I would agree with you that when we are discussing spiritual subjects with people outside of our sampradaya in a debate with the aim to defeat the opponent's position we should not rely solely on scriptures whose validity is only accepted by our sect.
However I have not come to this HDF forums just to participate in such debates. I came here to discuss the various points of vedic philosophy and specifically to present the viewpoint of Gaudiya vaishnavas.
In order to do that, I don't need to rely solely on scriptures whose validity is accepted by someone's sampradaya. Every member of this HDF can discuss whatever they want. It does not require someone's approval or acceptance. If someone does not want to accept my views, he is free to do so.

By the way are you sure that ISKCON devotees are using Brahma-samhita to express some points which has only been spoken in Brahma-samhita and can not be find anywhere else?
So far I have not seen a single example that ISKCON devotees have used Brahma-samhita in essence to express some point which can not be found anywhere else.



Proofs from Brahma-vaivarta Purana in my post #52 Gaudiyas would accept as good enough in order to say that in the Sama Veda, in sruti, Lord Krishna, Sri Radha and gopis have been described.
I doubt that very much. The Uttaradi Math edition of the Puraanas indicates that Adi Shankara was not an incarnation of Lord Shiva as Gaudiyas claim, but rather an incarnation of a demon known as Maniman. Would Gaudiyas accept that?

What is it exactly what you doubt?
Is it correctness of Brahma-vaivarta Purana or an idea that in sruti Lord Krishna, Sri Radha and gopis have been described?
Or both, or what?

regards

[philosoraptor]

It seems to me that we didn't understand each other.
I would agree with you that when we are discussing spiritual subjects with people outside of our sampradaya in a debate with the aim to defeat the opponent's position we should not rely solely on scriptures whose validity is only accepted by our sect.

Pranams. No, it really is only you who have misunderstood. First, there is no "our sampradaya." I am not in your sampradaaya. Secondly, it's not a question of defeating anyone's position, but merely of establishing an authoritative position that should be acceptable to all by means of a mutually accepted standard of evidence. When one articulates the truth of a position and quotes shAstra to back it up, it is implict that the shAstras quoted ought to be of a mutually acceptable standard of evidence. Not to mention up front that one is quoting a shAstra of narrow, sectarian acceptance is a bit disingenuous when preaching to neutrally-disposed people and/or the uninformed.



By the way are you sure that ISKCON devotees are using Brahma-samhita to express some points which has only been spoken in Brahma-samhita and can not be find anywhere else?

So far I have not seen a single example that ISKCON devotees have used Brahma-samhita in essence to express some point which can not be found anywhere else.

The idea of Shiva being a "transformation" of Vishnu is exclusive to brahma-saMhitA, and I have not seen such a view articulated in any other, mainstream shAstra. As always, I welcome you to correct me by quoting primary sources.



What is it exactly what you doubt?
Is it correctness of Brahma-vaivarta Purana or an idea that in sruti Lord Krishna, Sri Radha and gopis have been described?
Or both, or what?


I am saying that the sAma veda we have today does not mention the name of rAdhA, and arguing that it does because a smRiti says so, and that the alluded-to reference is in a lost portion of the shruti, is itself an argument that is predicated on the unsullied nature of the smRiti quoted to establish this.

Note that this is not the same thing as saying that there can be no such references. There are certainly references to shrI kRiShNa avatAra in the shruti, and I don't personally have any problem with the idea of rAdhA being in shruti. My point is simply that you have not proven your case by the standard which you enunciated previously, viz. that there should be shruti support for everything mentioned in smRiti.

Also, you did not answer my question earlier. You claimed that gauDIYas would accept smRiti texts quoted by other sampradAyas: "I believe that it happened that some verses which he quoted in his books get lost to date, ie can no longer be found in the scriptures anymore. Would you accept these verses or not? Gaudiyas would accept them." So, do you or do you not accept the uttarAdi matha's edition of the padma purANa which says that Adi shankarAchArya is an incarnation of the demon manimAn? This is doubly significant, since the mAdhva tradition is the root of the gauDIya sampradAya according to your own sampradAya's AchAryas. Therefore, not to accept this not only indicates that you don't accept on faith the authenticity of smRitis quoted by other AchAryas, but also that you don't accept on faith the authenticity of smRitis quoted by your pUrvAchAryas, contrary to your claims.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

The problem with the Gaudiya community and the other Bhakti traditions that emerged in the North of India in around the 15th and 16th century is that they do not have a rich commentarial tradition on either the Upanishads or Badarayana's Brahma Sutras. Of course, this 'lacuna', if you like, was deliberately created. According to the tradition's founder, Sri Caitanya, the Srimad Bhagavata Purana constituted the 'natural commentary' on Badarayana's famous work. The Garuda Purana it is said supports this insight. Sri Jiva Goswami, in his Tattva Sandarbha, tries to argue for the pre-eminent authority of the Bhagavatam. His arguments are innovative and his case, it must be admitted, is compelling. Be that as it may, Jiva Goswami, and other theologians following him, were astute enough to recognize that the prestige of their tradition depended, in part, on their ability to present it as being founded upon or closely aligned with, the older, more established Vedanta tradition. Jiva Goswami's Sat Sandarbhas display the author's surprisingly high degree of familiarity with the Vedanta tradition; Jiva's advantage, of course, lies in the fact that, writing in the 16th century, he had access to the rich commentarial traditions of his predecessors which assisted him, no doubt, in carving out a neat and somewhat impressive theological system of his own. All of this, of course, is meant to show that it is somewhat inaccurate to claim, as you do, that the Gaudiya's tend to support their doctrinal insights with reference to 'lost or obscure scriptures.'

Pranams,

Certainly it is the case that gauDIyas tend to support their insights, especially some very critical points of their philosophy, by relying on obscure or lost texts. I can give you several examples just from my readings to date:

1) the divinity of shrI chaitanya - there is no explicit reference in any mainstream text, and the only explicit references provided are in texts of obscure origin and status (i.e. brahma-yAmala, etc.).

2) the belief that shiva is a "transformation" of viShNu and thus non-different from Him - again, no explicit reference I have seen anywhere to date other than the brahma-saMhitA (which is itself different from the pancharAtric text of the same name).

3) the belief that bhAgavata-purANa is a "natural commentary" on the vedAnta-sUtra. I don't have a problem with this in principle, taking "commentary" in the non-literal sense of something giving the essence of something else. However, the only verse that explicitly says this, attributed to the garuDa purANa, cannot be found in extant versions of the same. Feel free to look it up and correct me if I am wrong. Beyond this, there are certainly verses praising the bhAgavata purANa, and shrI jIva gosvAmI quotes padma purANa, uttara-khANDa to say that bhAgavata is the best of all purANas, which is indeed in that text. However, I am not aware of any explicit, mainstream pramANa which confirms its status as a "natural commentary" on vedAnta-sUtra.

4) the belief in the status and divinity of rAdhA: interestingly, this is not mentioned at all in either bhAgavata or viShNu purANa-s, excepting one possibly indirect reference in the former which is only appreciated as such by gauDIyas. Now, to be fair, rAdhA is mentioned explicitly in the brahma-vaivarta purANa and nArada purANa, and I don't have any reason to dispute those references. However, it's odd that for a tradition that places so much emphasis on rAdhA-kRiShNa worship, they have very little to support that standard except for references in purANa-s of lesser importance. I also find very peculiar the argument that vyAsa would conceal rAdhA's name in the bhAgavatam, and yet allow for Her to be spoken of unrestrictedly in the nArada and brahma-vaivarta, especially considering the fact that the latter is not even in the sAttvik class. This seems inconsistent, to say the least.

5) the chanting of hare kRiShNa mantra. I have never seen this mantra anywhere, except in kalisantArana upaniShad, a text which, again, seems to have limited acceptance. Even the word order of the mantra is different in different recensions, and the idea that this is the best of all mantras is, again, not to be found in any mainstream texts that I have seen to date.

Note that none of this should be construed as denying gauDIya vaiShNavism its other merits and interesting contributions to devotional theology.



Even with a text like the Brahma Samhita, any doubts as to its veracity would quickly dispel, if readers studied the text along with Jiva Goswami's tika; Jiva does a fantastic job of supporting the said text's insights by referring to scriptural text's accepted by most Vedantic traditions.

That may be. Truth be told, I don't remember anything in that text which I would dispute, except for the idea of shiva being a "transformation" of viShNu. However, that is besides the point. A text can support correct views and still be of mundane origin. For example, I don't have any problem philosophically with many of the 108 upaniShads mentioned in the muktika, but I am hard pressed to argue that they are authentic shruti that are part of the canon. I don't recall reading anything in the gauDIya literature in which the origins of brahma-saMhitA are authenticated.


regards,

[Venudhara]

I think it’s important to be frank about the sort of allegations we wish to make here. It is, of course, quite conceivable that the Vrindavan Goswami’s (the chief theologians of the Caitanya School) fabricated texts in order to lend scriptural support to their otherwise dubious conclusions. Personally, I find that conclusion somewhat unconvincing. The period within which these thinkers were writing was, from a literary perspective at least, quite fertile. The scholastic tendencies of the various schools flourished greatly during this period and theology was certainly developing to new heights. If you study Jiva Goswami’s Sat Sandarbhas, for example, it’s clear that he was writing for an audience very well-versed in all of the major Vedic disciplines (including Vyakarana, Nyaya and Vedanta). Fabricating texts or improperly referencing them would not go undetected; I find it therefore difficult to accept that such greater thinkers as the Vrindavan Goswami’s would consider it worthwhile to put their reputation and that of their tradition’s at stake so as to score a few theological points.

It is, of course, very much possible that many of these texts have just become lost. This is, as many on this forum know well, a problem that the Madhva tradition have had to grapple with as well. Many, many scriptural verses that Madhva cites are no longer extant. Of course, this led to the famous charge of improprietry being levelled at the Tattvavadi tradition by the medieval Advaitin thinker, Appaya Dikshita. In his writings, Jiva Goswami makes it a point to preface his reliance on Madhva’s sources by admitting to having never found many of the references himself. Anyway let me deal with some of your points more specifically.

Your first argument is that there is no explicit reference to the divinity of Sri Caitanya in any mainstream text. The question here is how explicit does a text have to be in order for it to be accepted as being sufficiently clear. The Caitanya Vaisnava tradition has identified a whole host of texts which they regard as indicative of Caitanya’s divinity. Some of them have been referenced here: http://gosai.com/writings/the-divinity-of-sri-caitanya-mahaprabhu-0. Admittedly, it could be pointed out that none of these texts, apart from a few, are satisfactorily explicit. We do know, however, that thousands of Indians worshipped him as the Divine Lord in his own lifetime and amongst his worshippers were men of the highest learning and intelligence (the Vrindavan Goswamis, Prabhodananda Saraswati, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya etc). Unlike the well-documented evolution in Jesus’s divinity, Caitanya was accepted as an avatara of Krishna in his own life by his close associates as is well documented in his early biographies. Of course, I would still, however, have to conclude that it may well be too much for us Gaudiya’s to insist on others accepting the divinity of Sri Caitanya. The fact that many traditions across India revere him as a great saint and superlative devotee suffices for me.

Let me move on to the question of Shiva’s status. The relevant text of the Brahma Samhita that you are referring to reads as follows: Sri Govinda attains the condition of being Sambhu for the sake of performing a specific function, just as milk is transformed into yogurt by contact with a particular transforming agent, although yogurt is not a different substance, independent of milk, which is its cause. I worship that original personality, Sri Govinda (B.S. 5.45) [Gaudiya Vedanta Publications Ed.]

The point that you bring up is excellent and is addressed directly by Jiva Goswami in his tika. Instead of rambling on myself, I’ll quote his tika directly. ‘The next subject is Mahesvara Siva, whose svarupa is being defined in this verse. Just as milk is transformed into yogurt by contact with a transforming agent, Sri Govinda similarly accepts the form of Sambhu in order to accomplish a specific purpose. The example of yogurt is given in order to convey the idea of cause and effect. Here the transformation aspect of the analogy is not applicable, for this example has not been given to convey the idea of transformation. The reason for this is that the Sri Govinda is a realty who cannot be transformed, so it is not possible for him to undergo any kind of distortion. A wish-fulfilling gem (cintamani) manifests many things according to one’s desire, yet its constitutional nature remains untransformed; the desired articles are manifest by the influence of Bhagavan’s acintya-sakti. Similarly, although Bhagavan Sri Govinda manifests in the form of the instrumental cause Sambhu, his svarupa remains unchanged.’

The meaning of non-difference (abheda) then is to be understood in much the same way as Ramanuja understands and uses the term abheda in his Sri Bhashya: The universe is integrally related to Brahman in the same was as an essential attribute (visesana) to its substrate (visesya). The two are non-distinct in so far as the former (the universe) is necessarily and eternally supported and controlled by Brahman. In the same way, Govinda and Shiva are non-different realities in so far as the latter is utterly and wholly dependent on the former. I hope this clears things up.

Moving on, you are quite right to point out that the two verses cited by Sri Jiva Goswami to support his view of the Bhagavata as the natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra’s are not currently available in any extant edition of the Garuda Purana. I think the point I made above is relevant here. I won’t go through it again. Jiva Goswami develops his case on this point in his Tattva Sandarbha and elaborates on it further in the remaining books of his Sandarbhas (in particular, see the Paramatma Sandarbha). Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to study these texts in great detail yet so I will reserve judgment on the issue.

Again, with respect to the status and divinity of Sri Radha, as I granted in my earlier post, this issue is a little tricky. It would be great if we could get some Nimbarkis here to explain how they address this issue.

Finally, there are many references to the Hare Krishna mantra that predate Chaitanya and many of them can be found in this useful document (turn to page 9): http://www.gaudiya.com/pdf/References_to_the_Hare_Krishna_Maha-Mantra.pdf

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

No, it really is only you who have misunderstood. First, there is no "our sampradaya." I am not in your sampradaaya.

Are you sure you understood?
I was talking about the hypothetical person who does not belong to "our", ie "my" sampradaya. This person can be anyone, you too.


Secondly, it's not a question of defeating anyone's position, but merely of establishing an authoritative position that should be acceptable to all by means of a mutually accepted standard of evidence. When one articulates the truth of a position and quotes shAstra to back it up, it is implict that the shAstras quoted ought to be of a mutually acceptable standard of evidence. Not to mention up front that one is quoting a shAstra of narrow, sectarian acceptance is a bit disingenuous when preaching to neutrally-disposed people and/or the uninformed.

So again you have misunderstood.
I told you that I came here to this HDF forums to discuss the various points of vedic philosophy and specifically to present the viewpoint of Gaudiya vaishnavas. In order to do that, I don't need to rely solely on scriptures whose validity is acceptable to all.
I can rely on whatever I want to and it does not require someone's approval or acceptance. I do not need to ask you nor anybody which scriptures should I rely on. If someone does not want to accept my views, he is free to do so.
It is well known that Gaudiya vaishnavas used to quote from any scripture agama, samhita, tantra, pancaratra, even Shaiva Puranas etc.

Regarding preaching to neutrally-disposed people and/or the uninformed.
These people can accept any viewpoint that is presented here on this HDF forums. They don't have to ask neither you nor me what they should accept. They will decide for themselves.


The idea of Shiva being a "transformation" of Vishnu is exclusive to brahma-saMhitA, and I have not seen such a view articulated in any other, mainstream shAstra. As always, I welcome you to correct me by quoting primary sources.

This verse of Brahma samhita, however, is not quoted by ISKCON devotees in order to show that guna avatara Shiva is transformation of Lord Vishnu, but to show that guna avatara Shiva is different from Lord Vishnu.
Maybe you'll be surprised when I tell you that Gaudiya vaishnavas hold that not only guna avatara Shiva is transformation of Lord Vishnu's energy, but all living beings are transformation of Lord Vishnu's energy.
All that we have already discussed in another thread.
That guna avatara Shiva is different from Lord Vishnu has been established in other scriptures too.


I am saying that the sAma veda we have today does not mention the name of rAdhA, and arguing that it does because a smRiti says so, and that the alluded-to reference is in a lost portion of the shruti, is itself an argument that is predicated on the unsullied nature of the smRiti quoted to establish this.

Yes, exactly.
This is exactly my position from the very beginning.
Gaudiyas have quoted Puranas because they believe that they are authentic scriptures. So when Brahma-vaivarta Purana says that in Sama Veda, Lord Krishna, Sri Radha and gopis have been described, Gaudiyas accept that as truth.
If you do not want to accept it as truth, it's your choice.


Note that this is not the same thing as saying that there can be no such references. There are certainly references to shrI kRiShNa avatAra in the shruti, and I don't personally have any problem with the idea of rAdhA being in shruti. My point is simply that you have not proven your case by the standard which you enunciated previously, viz. that there should be shruti support for everything mentioned in smRiti.

What proof do you want?
I am not saying that I am giving proof that there should be sruti support for everything mentioned in smriti, but I am giving something called "common sense".
Common sense based on statements by Manu smriti 2.7 "that has been fully declared in the Veda (Sruti)" and Manu smriti 12.95-96, and also well known relationship between the sruti and smriti which says that Smriti is "remembering" what has been said in Sruti, is telling me that there should be sruti support for everything mentioned in smriti.
Common sense based on all this is telling me that we can not remember something about which we have no idea. If we have never heard of an idea, then how can we remember it?
All this is what I call common sense.


So, do you or do you not accept the uttarAdi matha's edition of the padma purANa which says that Adi shankarAchArya is an incarnation of the demon manimAn?

Well, it seems that this issue is somewhat controversial.
Should we accept version quoted by Gaudiyas or this by uttarAdi matha's edition? We should think about it.

regards

[philosoraptor]

I think it’s important to be frank about the sort of allegations we wish to make here. It is, of course, quite conceivable that the Vrindavan Goswami’s (the chief theologians of the Caitanya School) fabricated texts in order to lend scriptural support to their otherwise dubious conclusions. Personally, I find that conclusion somewhat unconvincing.

Pranams. I don't recall making any such allegation, and if you interpreted it as such, I can assure you that it was entirely in your imagination. I merely took the position that the Chaitanya school has historically relied on quite a few texts of either obscure or unavailable (or sometimes both) status in supporting critical points within its philosophical perspective. Whether they fabricated these texts or not isn't really relevant here, and it's not my place to explain away their origins merely because I cannot substantiate their authenticity. To my mind, the burden of proof is on those who present these atypical and unheard of texts as evidence to convince me, not the other way around.


The period within which these thinkers were writing was, from a literary perspective at least, quite fertile. The scholastic tendencies of the various schools flourished greatly during this period and theology was certainly developing to new heights.

With all due respect, that version of history seems inconsistent with the one offered by Chaitanya-Charitamrita and Chaitanya-Bhagavata. In these texts. Sri Chaitanya's polemics with members of other schools, excepting one encounter with Sarvabhauma Bhattaachaarya, seemed rather non-Vedaantic in style and substance, emphasizing his charisma and devotional accomplishments over interpretation of shAstra. Sri Chaitanya, in his conversations with Prakashaananda Saraswati, was quoted as saying that he was forbidden by his guru from playing with the vedAnta, apparently downplaying the need for vedAntic discourse. There are multiple descriptions of encounters with people of, how should we say, rather non-Vedic backgrounds? This includes Muslims, Shaktas, and "sannyasis" who maintain wives at home and drink alcohol. It's hard for me to believe that these kinds of people would detect or protest the use of obscure or fabricated scriptures. Even Chaitanya's dialogue with the Maadhvas of Udipi was based not on vedAntic interpretation, but on select verses from the Bhaagavatam. All in all, I'm not sure who in the post-Chaitanya environment would have been a qualified foil to detect the sort of improprieties we are talking about.



If you study Jiva Goswami’s Sat Sandarbhas, for example, it’s clear that he was writing for an audience very well-versed in all of the major Vedic disciplines (including Vyakarana, Nyaya and Vedanta). Fabricating texts or improperly referencing them would not go undetected; I find it therefore difficult to accept that such greater thinkers as the Vrindavan Goswami’s would consider it worthwhile to put their reputation and that of their tradition’s at stake so as to score a few theological points.

I've read tattva-sandarbha, bhagavat-sandarbha, paramAtmA-sandarbha, and kRiShNa-sandarbha. For the first, I had Satyanarayana's translation, while for the latter three, I was reading Kushakratha's translation. Incidentally, I'm taking recommendations for good translations of these texts - I liked Satyanarayana's translation a lot but didn't find the others comparable in quality to his. But in any case, I digress. I really didn't get the impression that shrI jIva gosvAmI was writing for the scholarly audience that you describe. His arguments in tattva-sandarbha establishing the primacy of the bhAgavata purANa are certainly compelling, but they aren't airtight. For example, he argues that the purANa-s constitute a portion of the primeval shruti left over after vyAsa divided and arranged them - he quotes a vAyu purANa verse to establish this, but his reading of that verse didn't seem that obvious to me when I looked at it within context. Furthermore, giving the purANa-s a sort of honorary status as shruti is contradictory to his elsewhere stated objections to their non-Vaishnava sections. He also argues that the bhAgavatam is best of these purANas, but his proof is based entirely on those other purANas (which are not themselves unsullied), and on the bhAgavatam itself. There are some cool quotes here, no doubt. But in the end, his regarding of the bhAgavatam as a spotless purANa, is something I have difficulty reconciling with some of the shaivite influence in it. Though I certainly agree that it is among the preeminent of the purANas, I don't find it quite on par with shruti, and would be hesitant to take every shloka within it as independently authoritative. Case in point: shrI chaitanya's guru's guru's pUrvAchArya, shrI madhva, has endorsed the authenticity of a different version of the bhAgavatam which does not have the brahma-vimohana-LIlA. This is mentioned in shrI madhva vijaya. Two versions of the same shAstra within the same sampradAya cannot both be the correct one authored by vedavyAsa - so which one is spotless and on par with shruti?

Anyway, to summarize, I think shrI jIva gosvAmI's argument is developed enough to present as a general recommendation for relying on the bhAgavatam for the upliftment of the average person. I don't mean this in a bad way, so please do not misunderstand me. The Bhaagavatam is certainly a very nectarean shAstra and it contains the cream of Vedic knowledge. But I am less certain I would want to go to bat armed solely with those arguments into a discussion with Vaishnava Vedaantic scholars.



It is, of course, very much possible that many of these texts have just become lost. This is, as many on this forum know well, a problem that the Madhva tradition have had to grapple with as well. Many, many scriptural verses that Madhva cites are no longer extant. Of course, this led to the famous charge of improprietry being levelled at the Tattvavadi tradition by the medieval Advaitin thinker, Appaya Dikshita. In his writings, Jiva Goswami makes it a point to preface his reliance on Madhva’s sources by admitting to having never found many of the references himself. Anyway let me deal with some of your points more specifically.

To their credit, however, I note that modern Maadhvas don't usually rely on these lost pramANa-s in modern debates.


Your first argument is that there is no explicit reference to the divinity of Sri Caitanya in any mainstream text. The question here is how explicit does a text have to be in order for it to be accepted as being sufficiently clear.

I don't think that's a hard question to answer. Let's look at some examples of explicit identification of viShNu-avatAras:

ekonaviṁśe viṁśatime
 vṛṣṇiṣu prāpya janmanī
rāma-kṛṣṇāv iti bhuvo
 bhagavān aharad bharam || SB 1.3.23 ||

Here is an explicit reference. It names Sri Krishna along with Balaraama, identifying both with bhagavAn. By naming Krishna along with Balaraama, it eliminates the doubt that some other Krishna could be the referent.

athāsau yuga-sandhyāyāṁ
 dasyu-prāyeṣu rājasu
janitā viṣṇu-yaśaso
 nāmnā kalkir jagat-patiḥ || SB 1.3.25 ||

Here is another explicit reference. It gives a very specific time period - the yuga sandhya at the end of kali-yuga, names the avatAra and His father.

Now, here is an example of a reference which ISKCON devotees often quote as "proof" of shrI chaitanya's divinity:

kṛṣṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākṛṣṇaṁ
 sāṅgopāṅgāstra-pārṣadam
yajñaiḥ saṅkīrtana-prāyair
 yajanti hi su-medhasaḥ || SB 11.5.32 ||

Translation by Sri Prabhupada: "In the Age of Kali, intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the names of Kṛṣṇa. Although His complexion is not blackish, He is Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is accompanied by His associates, servants, weapons and confidential companions."

Now, this is not an explicit reference. For starters, shrI chaitanya's name is not mentioned in the Sanskrit, and the plea that this is because he is a "hidden" avatAra doesn't really change that basic fact. No other identifying information is given, like being the son of jagannAtha-mishra, appearing under a neem tree, being born in navadvIp, etc. The words "kRiShNa-varNaM" are translated as "chanting the name kRiShNa" although a more literal reading would be "having the color of kRiShNa." Here, "varNaM" is taken as being derived from "varNayati" which apparently means singing or chanting in some contexts. I say "some" contexts because, I'm not sure you will find such a definition in a standard Sanskrit dictionary, or such usage anywhere else in shAstra.

So how explicit should a reference to an avatAra be? I would say explicit enough to name the avatAra and give specific identifying information. Kalki as the son of viShNu-yasha, for example. Or Krishna appearing along with Balaraama. And so on.



The Caitanya Vaisnava tradition has identified a whole host of texts which they regard as indicative of Caitanya’s divinity. Some of them have been referenced here: http://gosai.com/writings/the-divinity-of-sri-caitanya-mahaprabhu-0. Admittedly, it could be pointed out that none of these texts, apart from a few, are satisfactorily explicit.


Which brings me back to my original point - acceptance of shrI chaitanya's divinity requires belief in these obscure or simply not explicit texts.



We do know, however, that thousands of Indians worshipped him as the Divine Lord in his own lifetime and amongst his worshippers were men of the highest learning and intelligence (the Vrindavan Goswamis, Prabhodananda Saraswati, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya etc). Unlike the well-documented evolution in Jesus’s divinity, Caitanya was accepted as an avatara of Krishna in his own life by his close associates as is well documented in his early biographies. Of course, I would still, however, have to conclude that it may well be too much for us Gaudiya’s to insist on others accepting the divinity of Sri Caitanya. The fact that many traditions across India revere him as a great saint and superlative devotee suffices for me.

Only the gauDIya tradition regards him as being same as kRiShNa. No other tradition that I am aware of regards him as such. I cannot ask people to believe he is an avatAra because his contemporaries declared him to be one. Would you accept that the founder of the Swaminarayan sect is the Lord Himself because his followers accepted him as such?



Let me move on to the question of Shiva’s status. The relevant text of the Brahma Samhita that you are referring to reads as follows: Sri Govinda attains the condition of being Sambhu for the sake of performing a specific function, just as milk is transformed into yogurt by contact with a particular transforming agent, although yogurt is not a different substance, independent of milk, which is its cause. I worship that original personality, Sri Govinda (B.S. 5.45) [Gaudiya Vedanta Publications Ed.]

The point that you bring up is excellent and is addressed directly by Jiva Goswami in his tika. Instead of rambling on myself, I’ll quote his tika directly. ‘The next subject is Mahesvara Siva, whose svarupa is being defined in this verse. Just as milk is transformed into yogurt by contact with a transforming agent, Sri Govinda similarly accepts the form of Sambhu in order to accomplish a specific purpose. The example of yogurt is given in order to convey the idea of cause and effect. Here the transformation aspect of the analogy is not applicable, for this example has not been given to convey the idea of transformation. The reason for this is that the Sri Govinda is a realty who cannot be transformed, so it is not possible for him to undergo any kind of distortion. A wish-fulfilling gem (cintamani) manifests many things according to one’s desire, yet its constitutional nature remains untransformed; the desired articles are manifest by the influence of Bhagavan’s acintya-sakti. Similarly, although Bhagavan Sri Govinda manifests in the form of the instrumental cause Sambhu, his svarupa remains unchanged.’

Admittedly, I may just be dull-witted, but I cannot say that I find this clear. Essentially, the text says that shiva is a transformation of viShNu, but shrI jIva is saying that he is not a literal transformation. Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati says that Shiva is not a second Godhead to Vishnu. On the other hand, brahma-jijnasa on this very forum claimed that this Shiva is a jIva, and further claimed that this was jIva gosvAmI's view (which is also not clear based on what you quoted).



The meaning of non-difference (abheda) then is to be understood in much the same way as Ramanuja understands and uses the term abheda in his Sri Bhashya: The universe is integrally related to Brahman in the same was as an essential attribute (visesana) to its substrate (visesya). The two are non-distinct in so far as the former (the universe) is necessarily and eternally supported and controlled by Brahman. In the same way, Govinda and Shiva are non-different realities in so far as the latter is utterly and wholly dependent on the former. I hope this clears things up.

Again, not really. Because as I pointed out to brahma-jijnasa previously, the same description of being a "transformation" is not found in regards to any other deva, only to shiva. If "transformation" is only meant here in the sense of the mAdhva concept of vishesha-visheshya, or the shrI vaiShNava concept of sharIra-sharIrin bhAva, then why only mention this in the context of shiva, when the relationship is equally valid for all other dependent entities?



Moving on, you are quite right to point out that the two verses cited by Sri Jiva Goswami to support his view of the Bhagavata as the natural commentary on the Vedanta Sutra’s are not currently available in any extant edition of the Garuda Purana. I think the point I made above is relevant here. I won’t go through it again. Jiva Goswami develops his case on this point in his Tattva Sandarbha and elaborates on it further in the remaining books of his Sandarbhas (in particular, see the Paramatma Sandarbha). Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to study these texts in great detail yet so I will reserve judgment on the issue.

Just out of curiosity, why did you argue that shrI jIva gosvAmI was writing for a vedAntic audience when you have not studied these texts?



Again, with respect to the status and divinity of Sri Radha, as I granted in my earlier post, this issue is a little tricky. It would be great if we could get some Nimbarkis here to explain how they address this issue.

I could probably help you with that, based on the references I do know of from my personal library. But again, none of those references, which are mainstream, are used by gauDIyas at all, which I find rather odd.



Finally, there are many references to the Hare Krishna mantra that predate Chaitanya and many of them can be found in this useful document (turn to page 9): http://www.gaudiya.com/pdf/References_to_the_Hare_Krishna_Maha-Mantra.pdf

Quick question: is this the same Madhavananda das who publishes Krishan-kathamrita bindu?

OK, here is my cursory analysis of the above linked document. Once again, it either quotes really obscure sources that are explicit, lost sections of mainstream sources that are explicit, or relatively mainstream and available sources that are rather less than explicit. That just gets back to the point I made previously, which is that gauDIya pramANa-s invariably tend to follow this pattern, especially on very critical points of philosophy.

warm regards,

[Venudhara]

Yet again, philosoraptor, you raise some excellent points. This is one of the reasons I enjoy using HDF; it provides me with a valuable opportunity to broaden my understanding of my own tradition and that of others. So, thank you for your insightful comments. I consider myself to be placed in somewhat of an advantageous position, actually. I am relatively young and despite my love and preference for the Sri Caitanya Sampradaya, I make sure that I am familiar with the main tenets of other traditions. For example, I have a particular interest in Sri Vaishnavism and my deep love for this tradition essentially means that I have one foot in both camps.

Let me now try to respond to some of your points. Again, I should preface this by saying that the main thrust of what you are saying is compelling and very hard to argue against. What would really be wonderful is to get somebody of Satyanarayan das Babaji’s calibre to respond to this discussions (and others like it). Part of the big problem with the Caitanya tradition today is that, with the exception of a few individuals, we do not have the sort of scholars who could defend the main tenets of the tradition in a inter-Vedantic debate.

I argued that the scholastically fertile nature of the 15th and 16th century suggests that it would have been difficult for thinkers of various traditions to fabricate texts. My point was not specifically in reference to Sri Caitanya. You are quite right to suggest that Sri Caitanya’s polemics were, largely, of a non-Vedantic nature. In my view, that Caitanya’s devotional credentials were enough to win people over is really testament to the saintliness of his character. With particular respect to Jiva Goswami, I cannot agree with your suggestion that he was not writing for the sort of scholarly audience that I had in mind. That he expects his reader to be thoroughly well-versed in Vedanta and intimately familiar with the various nuances of different traditions is made very clear, for example, in his Bhagavata Sandarbha. The problem with English translations is that they tend to fill in what the Sanskrit leaves out: in other words, many a time Jiva Goswami simply quotes a few words of a particular Acharya’s bhasya without necessarily expanding upon it. Now despite the fact that this strategy may appear to lend to his work a somewhat cryptic feel, it indicates that the author expected his audience to be very familiar with the commentaries of the various Vedantic traditions.

You argue that Jiva’s arguments in the Tattva Sandarbha are not air-tight. It is only natural for adherents of other traditions to feel somewhat unconvinced about the merits of other tradition’s tenets. Fair enough. That you don’t find all of his arguments compelling doesn’t in any way however detract from my otherwise overwhelmingly positive assessment of his contribution and his theological ability. Many scholars, of both a partisan and non-partisan type, consider, for example, Sri Ramanuja’s concept of Aprthak-Siddhi to be flawed. Again, many scholars are not convinced with Sri Madhvacharya’s suggestion that Brahman is not the upadana-karana or material cause of the universe. The fact that members of a particular tradition do not find the tenets or arguments other rival schools compelling or ‘airtight’ is certainly not surprising and very much to be expected!

You write: ‘I note that modern Maadhvas don’t usually rely on these lost pramANa-s in modern debates’. This is a good point. I think it is important for Caitanya Vaishnava’s to ensure that when engaged in inter-Sampradayic discourse, they rely only on those pramanas that all participants regard as authoritative and therefore acceptable. In many ways, our historical reluctance to do this perhaps reflects on how poorly our philosophical and theological views are supported by shruti. Or, of course, it could just mean that the thinkers of this school regard the quotes that they furnish from smriti as sufficient.

With respect to Sri Caitanya’s divinity, I granted in my earlier post that many of these texts are not explicit. I would like to argue, however, that every tradition has the tendency of regarding its founder or pre-eminent acharyas as ‘special’ or divine in some way. For the Advaitins, Adi Sankara is Lord Shiva himself. According to the Tattvavadi’s, Sri Madhva is Vayu. According to some hagiographic accounts, Sri Ramanuja is regarded as an incarnation of Adi-Shesa. The Pushti-Margi’s, in turn, regard Vallabhacharya as an incarnation of Krishna’s lotus-mouth. None of these traditions, however, can point to explicit evidence in the scriptures to support their arguments. By and large, they adopt such views on faith and faith alone. The Caitanya Vaishnava’s, it could be argued, are no different.

Perhaps I was not clear with my passage on the Brahma Samhita. Let me clear, according to C.V. Lord Shiva is not a jiva. He falls outside the category of Jiva-Tattva altogether. He is said to occupy a unique ontological category of his own (Siva-Tattva) which is below and distinct from Vishnu Tattva. The Brahma Samhita text (sort of) suggests that Lord Shiva is a transformation of Lord Vishnu. Jiva is arguing that this should not be taken literally. There are two important points to be made here. First, according to C.V. everything other than Bhagavan (I.e. Jiva and Jagat) is regarded as a transformation of Bhagavan’s sakti. This is as applicable to the various Vedic divinities as it is to us and the universe. However, and this is point number two, such transformations do not, in any way whatsoever, affect the svarupa of Bhagavan. He remains unaffected by such transformation. That is why, Jiva Goswami argues that the milk-yoghurt analogy is only intended to convey the idea of cause and effect. Just as the effect is one with and yet different from its cause, so similarly, Shiva is one with and different from Bhagavan. Now you could argue that this causal relationship is common to all entities so why is Shiva being singled out- the only answer I can think of is that the text is somehow suggesting that the causal oneness and difference that subsists between Shiva and Bhagavan is somehow more pronounced. To suggest that Shiva is of the same category as other Vedic divinities is seriously to ignore an overwhelming number of texts that distinguish him from other such entities. He is, after all, and certainly not without reason, called Mahadeva.

The fact that I have not ‘studied these texts in great detail’ does not mean that I have not read them and therefore not familiar with their contents. Moreover, I have had the opportunity to read a very useful academic treatment of the Bhagavata Sandarbha, and the author, Professor Ravi M Gupta, essentially articulates a similar point in the work (the author is a CV practitioner himself). If you are interested the book can be purchased on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chaitanya-Vaishnava-Vedanta-Jiva-Gosvami/dp/0415405483/ref=la_B001JRRH5E_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371636571&sr=1-1


I would really appreciate it if you could refer me to the sort of references the Nimbarkis rely on to ‘prove’ the divinity of Sri Radha.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage in this meaningful discussion. I hope that I can continue to learn from your contributions on this forum.

Best,

Anuj

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Just to clarify a point or two, I am not an "adherent of another tradition." At least, I don't have any sentimental attachment to any particular sampradAya. I introduced myself to this forum last year as a seeker, and that most accurately describes me. I do have a regular sadhana and am convinced that the Vaishnava paradigm most fits the teaching of the shruti and authentic smRitis. This is in spite of coming from a smArtha background and being taught about pancopAsana which I don't currently agree with. My readings have been primarily to see which system of Vaishnava philosophy does the best job explaining shAstra. Thus, when I say that someone's reasoning is not very convincing, it's not because of a sectarian motivation of trying to refute their point of view, but rather from the perspective of a seeker who is interested in being convinced.

I'm also not that convinced that 16th century Bengal was the intellectual powerhouse you claim that it was. Aside from the biographies, which describe Chaitanya's polemics as fairly one-sided, we have not witnessed the kind of outpouring of scholarly traditions from that region and time period as we have from, say, South India during the 8th to 11th centuries. I'm not really clear on who the learned vidvAns were whom you say would have challenged the authenticity of the unusual pramANas presented by some of the gosvAmI-s in their writings.

I agree that every sampradAya seems to have its "avatar," and I generally don't pay much attention to these claims. Having said that, I've never seen such overt emphasis on this as I have seen in ISKCON and the Swaminarayan groups. In ISKCON, Chaitanya's divinity is discussed as if it is an obvious fact, and Chaitanya murthies, aside from being present in most temples, are sometimes the only deities worshiped in some. I cannot understand why it is so important for GVs to get others to accept Chaitanya as Lord Himself, when they just don't have indisputable evidence to back this up.

I think I understand your position on Shiva vis-a-vis BrS 5.45 better, although just FYI, that position appears to be different from brahma-jijnasa's. And the fact remains that while Shiva is described as a transformation of Vishnu, no other entity in that text is so described. Thus, it is reasonable to opine that the author of the text is ascribing a unique status to Shiva, one which your/JV's interpretation is denying by suggesting that Shiva is only a transformation in the same sense that all other devas and achit entities are, i.e. shakti-parinAmavAda. I have no problem with shakti-parinAmavAda conceptually, but I'm just not convinced that this was the purport of this specific verse which describes Shiva's relationship to Vishnu. Also, as an aside, I know of no vedAntic precedent for establish a third class of living entity between the jIva and paramAtmA, and that was a doubt I expressed earlier on a previous thread.

I don't know how nimbArka followers would support their views on rAdhA, but I do know of a fair number of shlokas that discuss this subject. I will maybe open another thread on that subject in the near future.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste
I think I understand your position on Shiva vis-a-vis BrS 5.45 better, although just FYI, that position appears to be different from brahma-jijnasa's. And the fact remains that while Shiva is described as a transformation of Vishnu, no other entity in that text is so described. Thus, it is reasonable to opine that the author of the text is ascribing a unique status to Shiva, one which your/JV's interpretation is denying by suggesting that Shiva is only a transformation in the same sense that all other devas and achit entities are, i.e. shakti-parinAmavAda. I have no problem with shakti-parinAmavAda conceptually, but I'm just not convinced that this was the purport of this specific verse which describes Shiva's relationship to Vishnu. Also, as an aside, I know of no vedAntic precedent for establish a third class of living entity between the jIva and paramAtmA, and that was a doubt I expressed earlier on a previous thread.

Here I would like to draw attention to the emphasis above.
Ascribing a unique status to guna avatara Shiva does not necessarily mean denying Shiva as a transformation in the same sense that all other devas and achit entities are, i.e. shakti-parinAmavAda!!!
I think I was clear on this matter in my post in a thread Question about Brahma Samhita 5.45. See this post here:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=102764#post102764

Thus guna avatara Shiva can easily be unique in his status as in between jivas and Lord Vishnu, but what people usually do not understand is the meaning of names "Brahma", "Indra", "Shiva" and other devatas.
Some people think that names "Brahma", "Indra", "Shiva" etc refer to some particular persons or jivas by the name "Brahma", "Indra", "Shiva" etc, however this is not true!
Names "Brahma", "Indra", "Shiva" etc, refer only to posts that a particular person or a jiva may temporarily perform as duty in service of Lord Vishnu. Just as in any country in the world we have the title "President" which is a post that some particular person temporarily performs as duty. Here I am putting the emphasis on "temporarily performs".
Thus we have one typical misunderstanding like this:
Some people may think "There is one particular person who is Brahma or Indra or guna avatara Shiva and he possesses that status forever, eternally". But this is wrong. To be Brahma, Indra, guna avatara Shiva etc does not mean to be some sort of being or class of living entity called Brahma, Indra, guna avatara Shiva etc, but it just means to hold a position of Brahma, Indra, guna avatara Shiva etc temporarily. Just like in the world we don't have sort of humans called "Mr. President". :)
Some particular person or a jiva gets promoted to the position of Brahma, Indra, guna avatara Shiva according to his merits. During the period of time of performing his duties as Brahma or guna avatara Shiva, this person or jiva possesses some extraordinary powers and qualities that other jivas usually do not have.
Now, guna avatara Shiva as a post may be in between ordinary jivas and Lord Vishnu, but that does not mean that there is a certain creature that belongs to the class of guna avatara Shiva, ie there is no class of living entity that is eternally guna avatara Shiva.

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Which brings me back to my original point - acceptance of shrI chaitanya's divinity requires belief in these obscure or simply not explicit texts.

Unfortunately it seems that many explicit verses in generally accepted scriptures get lost, but even in the few extant Gaudiyas can find confirmation of Sri Caitanya's divinity. Here I will try to demonstrate this with a few examples quoted by Gaudiya acaryas Jiva Gosvami and others.

Bhāgavatam 7.9.38 (http://vedabase.net/sb/7/9/38/en) :


channaḥ kalau yad abhavas tri-yugo 'tha sa tvam

"... but in the age of Kali You conceal
Yourself by appearing in a hidden form."


Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāmastotraḥ, Mahābhārata 13.135.75 says (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs13135.htm) :


saṃnyāsakṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇam

"He will accept the sannyāsa order and He will be equipoised and
peaceful. He will be utterly absorbed in devotion."


Bhāgavatam 11.5.32 (http://vedabase.net/sb/11/5/32/en) :


kṛṣṇa-varṇaḿ tviṣākṛṣṇaḿ
sāńgopāńgāstra-pārṣadam
yajñaiḥ sańkīrtana-prāyair
yajanti hi su-medhasaḥ

"In the age of Kali, intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the names of Kṛṣṇa. Although His complexion is not blackish, He is Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is accompanied by His associates, servants, weapons and confidential companions."


Narada Purana 1.5.47 (http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/3_purana/nardp1_u.htm) :


ahameva dvijaśreṣṭha nityaṃ pracchannavigrahaḥ
bhagavadbhaktarupeṇa lokākrakṣāmi sarvadā

"I shall advent in the form of a brahmana devotee and I shall hide my factual identity. I shall deliver all the worlds."


Here it says bhagavad-bhakta-rupena "devotee of The Lord" and pracchanna-vigrahah "I shall hide my factual identity". Compare this with the above statement of Bhāgavatam 7.9.38 channaḥ kalau "... but in the age of Kali You conceal Yourself by appearing in a hidden form."
Compare lokam raksami sarvada "I shall deliver all the worlds" with Bhāgavatam 11.5.32 "In the age of Kali ... incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the names of Kṛṣṇa".

Now taking into account all this above tell me about it, in which descent of the Lord He is known for being:

a) in the age of Kali
b) concealed by appearing in a hidden form which indicates that He was not openly revealed his identity in public as The Lord Himself
c) accept the sannyāsa order, absorbed in devotion
d) advent in the form of a devotee of The Lord, by His activities "deliver all the worlds" which indicates that He influenced the great mass of people.
How did he influenced the great mass of people? See the following:
e) "In the age of Kali" ... "the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the names of Kṛṣṇa", associated with sańkīrtana "congregational chanting"

It has been said about Śrī Caitanya and his mission:


Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 7.128
"Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as they are given in the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land."

Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 18.220
"Whoever met Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu became a Vaiṣṇava, and whoever met that Vaiṣṇava also became a Vaiṣṇava. In this way, all the towns and villages became Vaiṣṇava, one after the other."

"In every town and village, the chanting of My name will be heard." (Caitanya Bhagavata, Antya-khaṇḍa 4.126)

To someone who is skeptical, no verses will be "proof" for anything.

regards