Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

[brahma jijnasa]

4) cultish adherence to ISKCON's democratically-based decision-making system about what does, and does not, constitute authentic gaudiya vaishnava siddhanta. Since the knowledge base of ISKCON's leaders is limited, this leads to ISKCON devotees adopting non-vedantic ideas like "fall from Vaikuntha" and becoming very hostile to any scripturally-based discussion which contradicts their "siddhanta." Siddhanta in ISKCON is determined by majority vote among its leaders, and not by study of shAstra.

Praṇām,

After reading your post, I noticed that this "fall from Vaikuṇṭha" idea seemed vaguely familiar, as if I had previously heard it before from an ISKCON "devotee." I started to do some research and it seems that this anucita concept does seem to come from ISKCON leaders, as is evident in the following lecture by Jayadvaita Swami: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24apWagHe94

Jai Jai Śrī Vṛṣabhānu Dulāri

Philosoraptor and I had a lengthy discussion on this issue in the thread Start of the 'Atma'/Soul, see here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...028#post103028

There I tried to explain to Philosoraptor that this idea is not strange nor is it non-vedantic or not grounded in shastra. It seems that he still thinks that it's non-vedantic.

Those who think that this idea is strange should answer the question: How we get ourselves in this material world? Where did we come from?
Philosoraptor's idea was that we jiva souls have always been here in this material world in a miserable bondage of beginningless saṃsāra. I think that people who adhere to such ideas did not have much benefit of studying scriptures, their knowledge is limited and they are the ones who adhere to non-vedantic ideas.

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Regarding Iskcon I just want to say that their problems are not the topic of our discussion here. I think they are not on trial here, and I do not need to be their attorney. By the way I am not a member of ISKCON.

However, it is pretty clear from chAndogya upaniShad that the idea of converting a shUdra to a brahmin is contradicted by the requirement of the disciple to first give his gOtra. Now, you may not like that, but great vedic scholars like Adi shankara, madhva, rAmAnuja, and your own baladeva vidyAbhUShaNa all agree on this point.

If you persist on the idea that Satyakama had been initiated on account of his varna by birth, then please answer the two questions 1) and 2) that I asked Sudas Paijavana, see here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...230#post107230

In light of his view that varna was not based on birth and shudras (by birth) were permitted to learn vedas, perhaps brahma jijnasa could explain why gautama asked satyakAma for his "gOtra," when everyone knows that gOtra is a hereditary designation. I am sure many of us are unclear on why, in a system that supposedly ignored familial lines, any guru would ask about one's lineage before intiation.

Also, if it never mattered what his lineage was, then I think many of us are unclear as to why satyakAma telling the truth about not knowing it was so praise-worthy.

It seems to me that you missed my point.

1) I do not deny that the Scriptures teach about varna by birth! I also do not deny that a guru, Gautama, attempted to determine Satyakama's varna by birth.
Long ago I already told that to Sudas Paijavana, see here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...249#post105249

That's what I also said to jignyAsu, see here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...562#post106562

2) Shudras and mleccha-s by birth were permitted to learn Vedas only if they have the aspiration (strong desire, longing) towards the spiritual life, and if guru estimates that their qualities (character, nature) are superior to the qualities of shudra.

When a guru wants to determine which varna candidate who approached him with a desire to be initiated belongs to, he will follow the procedure I have explained to Sudas Paijavana and jignyAsu, see above links under point 1).

This is the procedure that Gautama followed when Satyakama approached him with a desire to be initiated.
This procedure can be universally applied to all candidates who aspire towards the spiritual life, even if they are shudras or mleccha-s by birth, even if they were born in western countries such as Europe and America.

It seems to me that some of our HDF members do not understand what is meant by "varna by birth"!
When we say "varna by birth" it means to be born into a family that belongs to that varna. For example when someone is born in a family where the parents are shudras, he is a shudra by birth. When someone is born in a family where the parents are brahmanas, he is a brahmana by birth. This is one's "varna by birth"! Thus the term "varna by birth" is just a hereditary designation and has nothing to do with one's qualities (character, nature).

perhaps brahma jijnasa could explain why gautama asked satyakAma for his "gOtra," when everyone knows that gOtra is a hereditary designation. I am sure many of us are unclear on why, in a system that supposedly ignored familial lines, any guru would ask about one's lineage before intiation.

I am not saying that Gautama ignored Satyakama's familial lines. But what could he do when he saw that it was impossible to determine what was Satyakama by birth?!
Satyakama has said:

Sir, I do not know of what lineage I am.

Now, one may wonder why did Gautama even wanted to determine Satyakama's varna by birth if, ultimately speaking, it was not crucial or final?
If one's qualities (character, nature) is crucial, then why did he even wanted to determine Satyakama's varna by birth?
The answer is because such is the procedure. He just wanted to see if the Satyakama's qualities (character, nature) match to his varna by birth. However when he failed with attempt to determine Satyakama's varna by birth, he just continued to estimate his qualities (character, nature). I have explained this procedure to Sudas Paijavana: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...249#post105249

and also to jignyAsu, see here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...562#post106562

Also, if it never mattered what his lineage was, then I think many of us are unclear as to why satyakAma telling the truth about not knowing it was so praise-worthy.

Satyakama's qualities are praise-worthy. Based on these qualities only he get initiation. It seems that Gautama estimated Satyakama's character according to Bhagavad-gītā. How he did it I have already explained here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...048#post107048

In other words, he (brahma jijnasa) did not challenge my point about the absence of scriptural examples showing mlecchas-by-birth and/or shudras-by-birth becoming brahmins.

Bhāgavatam 7.11.35 (http://vedabase.net/sb/7/11/35/) :

"If one shows the symptoms of being a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, as described above, even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification."

So one can be born in a varna of shudras but if he shows the symptoms (qualities, character, nature) of being a brāhmaṇa, he should be accepted as brāhmaṇa.

regards

[philosoraptor]

Philosoraptor's idea was that we jiva souls have always been here in this material world in a miserable bondage of beginningless saṃsāra. I think that people who adhere to such ideas did not have much benefit of studying scriptures, their knowledge is limited and they are the ones who adhere to non-vedantic ideas.

This is an example of the kind of arrogance I frequently see in Western Hare Krishna devotees.

Every vedAnta commentator that I know of, including the gauDIya vaiShNava commentator, accepts the idea of beginningless samsAra.

Every one.

Brahma-jijnasa continues to disagree with this, despite not having studied any vedAnta-sUtras, which is fine. Yet, he has been unable to find even one commentator on the vedAnta who supports his "fall from Vaikuntha" view, and then goes on to claim that those who believe in beginningless karma are non-vedAntic.

I just cannot respect people who continue arguing the truth of their unfounded beliefs when presented with evidence contrary to them.

[philosoraptor]

Regarding Iskcon I just want to say that their problems are not the topic of our discussion here. I think they are not on trial here, and I do not need to be their attorney. By the way I am not a member of ISKCON.

You were the one who brought up Western converts in ISKCON as evidence for your position that non-dvijas can become brahmins. If you were not prepared to stand on that evidence, you should not have brought it up. I'm fine with not discussing the widespread degradation of ISKCON's so-called "brahmins by quality, not by birth," if you are fine with being honest and not misrepresenting their success to promote your non-shAstric ideas.

If you persist on the idea that Satyakama had been initiated on account of his varna by birth,

I persist in my acknowledgement of Adi Shankara's, Ramanuja's, Baladeva's, and Madhva's comments on these mantras - Satyakama was initiated because he was deemed by Gautama to be a brahmin by birth. Dharma-shastras were quoted by all four commentators to establish that a shUdra cannot undergo samskaaras to become a brahmin and learn veda. In fact, this very episode was cited by all four commentators to explain that King Janashruti was not a shUdra, that the term "shUdra" by which he was addressed is more correctly understood in a secondary sense, and that shUdras do not have eligibility to learn vedas.

It is you who profess "caste by quality, not by birth" but are still unable to explain why Gautama bothered to ask Satyakama about his birth, and why Satyakama's truth-telling about his ignorance of his familial lineage was so significant. If birth did not matter, then there would be no need to ask Satyakama's gotra, and no great feat in Satyakama refusing to lie about not knowing his gotra. The obvious reason for Satyakama being praised is that, had he been unable to furnish his gotra, he would have been unable to prove his lineage, and thus unable to take initiation.

The highest aspiration of bhAgvata-dharma is to serve The Lord, in any capacity which is authorized for us, not to aspire for this or that varNa status. The latter is mundane.

2) Shudras and mleccha-s by birth were permitted to learn Vedas only if they have the aspiration (strong desire, longing) towards the spiritual life, and if guru estimates that their qualities (character, nature) are superior to the qualities of shudra.

No they were not. That was why the commentators quoted dharma-shAstra-s which explicitly refuted this point. Merely repeating the same falsehood over and over again will not make it true.

[brahma jijnasa]

I persist in my acknowledgement of Adi Shankara's, Ramanuja's, Baladeva's, and Madhva's comments on these mantras - Satyakama was initiated because he was deemed by Gautama to be a brahmin by birth. Dharma-shastras were quoted by all four commentators to establish that a shUdra cannot undergo samskaaras to become a brahmin and learn veda. In fact, this very episode was cited by all four commentators to explain that King Janashruti was not a shUdra, that the term "shUdra" by which he was addressed is more correctly understood in a secondary sense, and that shUdras do not have eligibility to learn vedas.

I see that you did not understand much of it, although as you say you've read their comments.

It is you who profess "caste by quality, not by birth" but are still unable to explain why Gautama bothered to ask Satyakama about his birth, and why Satyakama's truth-telling about his ignorance of his familial lineage was so significant. If birth did not matter, then there would be no need to ask Satyakama's gotra, and no great feat in Satyakama refusing to lie about not knowing his gotra. The obvious reason for Satyakama being praised is that, had he been unable to furnish his gotra, he would have been unable to prove his lineage, and thus unable to take initiation.

As I can see you did not read my posts, not at all, yet you comment on them. I have explained everything in great detail!

No they were not. That was why the commentators quoted dharma-shAstra-s which explicitly refuted this point. Merely repeating the same falsehood over and over again will not make it true.

I have to repeat, you did not understand much of what commentators have said.
Whatever commentators have said is not contrary to Bhāgavatam 7.11.35 which I have quoted. Since you do not understand that, your knowledge is one big, big "falsehood".

regards

[brahma jijnasa]

This is an example of the kind of arrogance I frequently see in Western Hare Krishna devotees.

Every vedAnta commentator that I know of, including the gauDIya vaiShNava commentator, accepts the idea of beginningless samsAra.

Every one.

We have already discussed this, but you did not give a single example that says "beginningless saṃsāra"!
Not a single example either from a scripture or a commentator! Who are these "Every one"?

Brahma-jijnasa continues to disagree with this, despite not having studied any vedAnta-sUtras, which is fine. Yet, he has been unable to find even one commentator on the vedAnta who supports his "fall from Vaikuntha" view, and then goes on to claim that those who believe in beginningless karma are non-vedAntic.

Yes, I have studied Vedanta-sutra, but although you have studied it, you have not understood it.

I just cannot respect people who continue arguing the truth of their unfounded beliefs when presented with evidence contrary to them.

What "evidence" did you gave? All that you gave was your misunderstanding of some commentators.
I have even gave you an example of Jaya and Vijaya, but you have ignored it completely!
In my last post I even gave 1st and 2nd reason of why the idea of bondage of the jiva soul in beginningless saṃsāra is wrong. That you have ignored completely too!
Ignoring of my arguments I would call "Cat got your tongue" kind of evidence.

regards

[philosoraptor]

I specifically addressed the case of Jaya and Vijaya in a previous response to you. More to the point, so did Sri Prabhupada, who wrote in his bhagavatam purport, "Aside from Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha."

I quoted that, too, but apparently you had no use for it, since it contradicted your thesis.

And I suppose you have no plans to even acknowledge the opinions of Madhva, Ramanuja, Adi Shankara, and Baladeva on the relevant sutra-s.

Just out of curiosity, what was the varNa of Ashvatthama when he murdered the 5 sleeping sons of the Pandavas? Please answer with explicit quotes from the shrImad bhAgavatam.

[brahma jijnasa]

I specifically addressed the case of Jaya and Vijaya in a previous response to you. More to the point, so did Sri Prabhupada, who wrote in his bhagavatam purport, "Aside from Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha."

I quoted that, too, but apparently you had no use for it, since it contradicted your thesis.

And I suppose you have no plans to even acknowledge the opinions of Madhva, Ramanuja, Adi Shankara, and Baladeva on the relevant sutra-s.

Had you actually read what Srila Prabhupada said, you would have seen that example of Jaya and Vijaya he gave as proof that anyone can come to this material world, although he lives in Vaikuntha.

Just show me which commentator among them Madhva, Ramanuja ... said something like "beginningless saṃsāra"?

And what about my 1st and 2nd reason of why the idea of bondage of the jiva soul in beginningless saṃsāra is wrong?

You can have the last word here. I understand that there is a need by many Hare Krishna devotees to always seem like the most knowledgable one, independent of actual cognizance of factual information.

Yes we are "the most knowledgable one". You do realize that, you just do not want to admit it.

regards

[philosoraptor]

And the varNa of Ashvatthaama when he decided to become a murderer was?

[brahma jijnasa]

Just out of curiosity, what was the varNa of Ashvatthama when he murdered the 5 sleeping sons of the Pandavas? Please answer with explicit quotes from the shrImad bhAgavatam.

I don't see the point. What are you alluding to?

regards