Tattva-viveka
The two different stories of Maharaja Parikshit
Yamuna Dasi - July 29, 2008 8:55 pm
Hari bol to everybody here!
I would like to ask if you could tell me please why there are two completely different stories about the death of Maharaj Parikshit - the one in Mahabharata, saying that he had locked himself in a tower trying to escape the death of being bitten by a snake (as he was cursed) and the one in Bhagavatam, where he goes to Naimisharanya to listen the isntructions of Shukadeva Goswami - they are diametrically opposing and I see no way to combine them in terms of point of view. The mind is asking "when he knew he will die in a week did he hide in a tower to avoid death or did he go to Naimisharanya to listen Bhagavatam? Which one? He could certainly not do both in the same time." Actually the deeper problem in these versions contradiction is regarding one's faith. Often people say that devotees are nice and sweet, but unfortunately believe in myths and legends. And in a case of such contradiction of a basical story as the one of Parikshit Maharaj told by Mahabharata and Bhagavatam, one might get very confused in his faith. Why did Vyasadeva had to retell the "same" story so differently in Mahabharata? I have read in Sanga that some parts of the Scriptures we can take alegorically, but where is the borderline? What could make us accept the idea that Vyasadeva was alegorical describing Parikshit Maharaja hiding in a tower in Mahabharata and literal in describing him going to listen from Shukadeva Goswami in Bhagavatam? What purpose could possibly have an author in writing 2 diametrically opposing stories in which no doubt the mind would crash?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 30, 2008 1:26 pm
I must say this is a great question which hardly has any convincing answer. But most devotees are not exposed to these controversies to their faith remains secure. There are very few devotees who can take the truth of interpolation of scriptures as prabhupada strongly emphasized that scripture is perfect flawless and everything is given there. I don't know why all these interpolation issues whether in bhagavata or other places were not brought in front of prabhupada so that he could soften his presentation a little bit. The too much "loyalty" towards prabhupada has hurt GV in long term according to me.
Madan Gopal Das - July 30, 2008 1:56 pm
What purpose could possibly have an author in writing 2 diametrically opposing stories in which no doubt the mind would crash?
One purpose is if the author is directing the stories to different audiences. Through the story of Pariksit hearing from Sukadeva the bhakta's get Srimad Bhagavatam, a dear treasure to them. The Mahabharat audience likely wants/needs something different. That presentation is filled with adventure, intrigue, social commentary, and through its teaching and stories may direct some towards piety, dharmic life, social considerations, etc. This may be an explanation for why stories from two different scriptures don't mirror each other.
Bhrigu - July 30, 2008 4:15 pm
I don't think this is a question of interpolation. The traditional way of explaning such differences is that the different versions are from different kalpas, days of Brahma. History repeats itself, but not in exactly the same way. Vyasa will use versions of stories that suit the particular purpose he has in mind. There are different versions of almost every story, meant for different people, different points, etc. If we combine this explanation with Madan Gopal Prabhu's answer, we can think that in the Mbh case, the story is meant to teach us that there is no escaping from death. In the Bhag. version, Parikshit has already learnt that (perhaps as Parikshit in the last kalpa?), resigned himself to death, and now wishes to know what a man who will die in seven days should do.
Brahma Dasa - July 30, 2008 7:29 pm
This Q and A from Sanga might be helpful.
From Sanga: Rice Once High in Price Has No Value
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2002/2002_9.php
Q. Could you please tell me where I might find the original Mahabharata? Is it in some temple or museum or is it lost?
A. According to Srila Madhvacarya, the Mahabharata current during his presence (12th century) was full of interpolation. Thus it is unlikely that the original manuscript is available anywhere today.
From Sanga: Arya Samaj and the Bhagavatam
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2002/2002_2.php
Q. Arya Samaj scholars demonstrate how each Purana is propaganda for a particular deity and how in each a different deity is declared supreme. They also show how the stories of creation found in various Puranas thoroughly contradict each other. They say that the Puranas were written by unscrupulous people whose aim was to suppress people. They claim that only the Vedas and Upanishads are of Vyasa and all the rest is mumbo-jumbo. They also declare all avataras as concoctions and say that the Vedas mention nothing of avataras or that God has or ever takes form.
A: A word about Vyasa may be in order. Vyasa did not write all of the scripture. He compiled and edited it, as the title Vyasa suggests, and there may be more than one Vyasa. Parasara was also known as Vyasa. It is conceivable that others over time have written “scripture” and attributed their work to Vyasa. This might not always be a questionable act, but rather one of integrity. Why? Because such authors would have felt that they themselves did not write the book, but that Bhagavan Vyasa inspired them to write what they did, that it was Vyasa who actually wrote the book through them. It is possible.
The apparent contradictions found in the Puranas do not prove that they are the work of different authors, or that unscrupulous persons whose aim was to suppress people wrote them. Is that what happens when people read the Puranas? This is not my experience. Different Puranas glorify different deities because they were written for persons who were primarily influenced by different gunas. This and much of the above is explained in great detail by our Gaudiya acarya Sri Jiva Goswami in his Tattva-sandarbha (read the Pramana-khanda of my edition). (Tattva-sandarbha can be found at http://swami.org/sanga/Books/pages/TattvaSandarbha.html)
Different creation stories are merely different ways of explaining esoteric truths through analogy. Indeed we find at least two such stories in the Bhagavad-gita: at the beginning of chapters 14 and 15—the glance of God and the Banyan tree, respectively.
From Sanga: Vaisnava Controversies
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2003/2003_20.php
Q. I have read many of Srila Prabhupada's books and find that he repeatedly says that Lord Krsna is the Supreme Godhead. In Bhagavad-gita, Krsna is talked about as such and it is stated in the Bhagavata Purana, krsnas tu bhagavan svayam: “Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
But in the Siva Purana I found a statement that mentions Lord Siva as “Isvara.” In that Purana Lord Siva explains that “I (Siva) have two forms: the manifest and the unmanifest. No one else has these two forms. Hence all else are non-Isvaras.” Later he says: “I am the Supreme Brahman.” Other Puranas also speak of their principal Deities as “the Supreme.” Can you please explain this?
A. This question has been addressed by Sri Jiva Goswami in his treatise Tattva-sandarbha. The Puranas were written with different people in mind. Some Puranas were written for those worshiping in the mode of ignorance, some for those worshiping in the mode of passion, and some for those worshiping in the mode of goodness. As such, each Purana extols the manifestation of Godhead that best suits those for whom the Purana was written, and even minimizes the position of higher manifestations of God described in other Puranas. The idea is to encourage people to worship by allowing them to conceive of their Deity as supreme. Everyone has to start somewhere.
Within the Puranas the virtues of the Bhagavata Purana, or Srimad-Bhagavatam, are repeatedly sung. No Purana enjoys Puranic praise to the same extent. It is the supreme and spotless Purana, dealing with only the highest ideal of transcendent life. Thus to be understood in context, all Puranic statements must be considered in light of the statements of the Bhagavata Purana. Furthermore, no lineage praises and embraces the Srimad-Bhagavatam more fully than the Gaudiya Vaisnavas.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 30, 2008 7:53 pm
I don't think this is a question of interpolation. The traditional way of explaning such differences is that the different versions are from different kalpas, days of Brahma. History repeats itself, but not in exactly the same way. Vyasa will use versions of stories that suit the particular purpose he has in mind. There are different versions of almost every story, meant for different people, different points, etc. If we combine this explanation with Madan Gopal Prabhu's answer, we can think that in the Mbh case, the story is meant to teach us that there is no escaping from death. In the Bhag. version, Parikshit has already learnt that (perhaps as Parikshit in the last kalpa?), resigned himself to death, and now wishes to know what a man who will die in seven days should do.
Kalpas argument is not good enough according to me bhrigu and it is hard for any reasonable person to accept a kalpa argument or saying that anything which is contradictory exists in a different universe. For exam dasratha had two wives in a different kalpa as prabhupada said that. It is just not good enough
Bhrigu - July 30, 2008 8:20 pm
It is just not good enough
Fair enough, then gives us another! 
Yamuna Dasi - July 30, 2008 8:25 pm
In the case of the New Testament for example the life of Jesus Christ has been retold by 4 different direct disciples of his, each of them quite matching with the others. They rather contribute to each other for giving the whole picture with the slight differences allowed by the different angles of view.
Such a contradiction of story between Mahabharata and Bhagavatam can be one more argument in advantage for the scientists who do not accept the authorship of Vyasadeva of all the Vedic literature including Mahabharata and Bhagavatam. They consider that Vyasadeva did not write all this but it's a compilation of half-true half-legendary stories... maybe parables with good ideas inside, but definitely not true stories and definitely not written by one person. Nice parables and fairy tales.
I consider myself a vaishnava, but I have to admit that if somebody gives me all these arguments I feel very helpless in terms of what to say... in defense of Vyasadeva's authorship and in scriptures not being just nice stories and parables. I wish I could...
Syama Gopala Dasa - July 30, 2008 8:45 pm
Fair enough, then gives us another!
It's never going to be good enough when we try to fit every possible discrepancy in our head. Not to say there are not different explanations, but that is what they are; explanations to suit our rationality.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 30, 2008 8:47 pm
It's never going to be good enough when we try to fit every possible discrepancy in our head. Not to say there are not different explanations, but that is what they are; explanations to suit our rationality.
Yes it is better to say that this cannot be resolved rather than finding such ways of resolving.
Yamuna Dasi - July 30, 2008 9:13 pm
Yes it is better to say that this cannot be resolved rather than finding such ways of resolving.
Yes! I am trying to find a way of resolving it even if I have to change my all reasoning system.
And I have definitely a hope that I can find a satifying answer. My hope is based on a story which one disciple of Shrila Prabhupad and Shridhara Maharaj told me:
He was at one theological conference where a follower of Shankaracharya made his exposition which claimed that Shankaracharya has given the complete siddhanta. In his exposition of the vaishnavism my friend had to say that Shankaracharya did not give the complete siddhanta. Then just imagine - his follower stood up and said "Yes, he did! His last words were "o fools, just worship Govinda, worship Govinda , worship Govinda" so how can you say that he did not give the complete siddhanta even from vaishnava point of view? Certainly he did!"
My friend got speechless. He needed urgently to find the answer which could support his deeper feeling and conviction that Shankaracharya did NOT give the complete siddhanta even though saying these words at the end of his life. So he took the airplane and went to Shridhara Maharaj to ask him. Shridhara Maharaj instead of answering asked him with his finger pointed out to him:
SM: Do you think that Shankaracharya had given the complete siddhanta?
Gauranga (at that time this was his name) das: No Gurudeva, I don't think so!
SW: Why didn't he give the final siddhanta if he had said "bhadja govinda"? (please excuse my poor Sanscrit and if somebody knows the exact quote please do change it here)
Gd: This is exactly what I cannot answer and so here I am.
SM: Because their Govinda is NOT our Govinda!
This was the answer of Shridhra Maharaj.
My thoughts about his answer:
So no matter that they can say "bhadja govinda", their understanding and feeling of who is Govinda is not the same as that of the vashnavas. And even if they worship him, this would not be the same worship if not backed-up by the same understanding and feeling.
Syamasundara - July 30, 2008 10:54 pm
In the Bhag. version, Parikshit has already learnt that (perhaps as Parikshit in the last kalpa?), resigned himself to death, and now wishes to know what a man who will die in seven days should do.
Dang! A WHOLE kalpa just to learn that next bit from life? I am so discouraged...
As far as the contradictions in the Bhagavatam, as usual, it's a matter of the parameters and paradigms that are adopted. The message of the Bhagavata, more than understood, has to be embraced, applied, and ultimately lived and embodied.
The Bhagavata keeps telling us: "Transcend your reasoning, follow your heart, inasmuch as it's getting purified and redirected toward the supersubjective reality (reasoning implies that the reasoner is the subject)!"
But here we are, still at square 1, barring ourselves from divine service, perfection and happiness. What if all these contradictions are there exactly to mislead those who are so attached to reason, or rather encourage us to not rely much on reasoning?
Yamuna Dasi - July 30, 2008 11:31 pm
What if all these contradictions are there exactly to mislead those who are so attached to reason, or rather encourage us to not rely much on reasoning?
Great purpose no doubt!
But what could we gain if someone gets discouraged in the authenticity of Bhagavatam’s story because of being so attached to reason? We can somehow step by step learn not to rely much on reasoning, but at least now and at least when the whole story of Bhagavatam is put on question, I am not ready.
Somehow I would like to know clearly should I take all the Bhagavatam as a parable? I can do so... it's a nice parable no doubt! But I would prefer to be able to see it as a true story. And finally giving up all my personal preferences I would like to know the answer of "was it a true story"?
Sorry, the “different kalpa” explanation is not for me.
Syamasundara - July 31, 2008 12:53 am
But what could we gain if someone gets discouraged in the authenticity of Bhagavatam’s story because of being so attached to reason?
Ultimately, sincerity is invincible, and so is good guidance, I might add. Other than that, anybody can get discouraged at any time for any reason.
Your... reasoning and line of thought seem to imply that people like Swami, or so many other devotees I know, including me and you, are people of poor reasoning and intellect, that get easily satisfied or manipulated. So many of us have embraced the bhagavatam, or at least opened up to it, and never got discouraged, not on account of their good or bad reasoning, but of our immense good fortune and sukriti, that has come to us somehow or other because of some service or service attitude we've had. It's all through service that anything is achieved on our path, including scriptural understanding and realization. I believe Cakravarti Thakura said that every word of the Bhagavatam is about Radha; actually, the bhagavata is Radha. Krsna is Bhagavan, and she is bhagavati, belongs to Bhagavan. If we really must and need to understand, then, we have to flow at the same wave length of Srimati Radharani, which is the wave of divine service. Then one becomes bhagavata himself or herself, and when you live or are something, you know what is true and what is not.
Another point is that the Bhagavata is said to be (arising from) Vyasa's ecstasy. Once you have a solid knowledge of siddhanta, and through service you attain the level I am talking about, you sort of create your own reality and truth with Krsna; therefore SSM said in relation to Srila BVT's dream of him flying in the sky with Narada muni, that anything that appears in the mind of a Vaisnava is real, or as my GM says: "Absolute Knowledge has an agenda of its own, and you are on it", and there is a whole blank page where you get to write and direct the lila with Krsna.
So, although there are some parts that are obviously allegorical in the SB, we take most of it and respect it as what was true in Vyasa's heart, and try to get the message that's universal out of it with the help of Sri Guru, who is also bhagavata.
Swami - July 31, 2008 1:30 am
Of course it's a true story. If it appears in the heart of a realized soul is it something less than true? If he tells the story differently at different times to different audiences to teach different but related truths, is it any less true. I have had many objective experiences that are true in the sense that you speak of and then related them in slightly different ways to make different points, each of which the event/experience spoke to me of.
To me it also seems important that the Goswamis were not troubled by the differing versions of this event as related in the two books, both of which they found important, but especially the Bhagavata.
Yamuna Dasi - July 31, 2008 8:20 am
Your... reasoning and line of thought seem to imply that people like Swami, or so many other devotees I know, including me and you, are people of poor reasoning and intellect, that get easily satisfied or manipulated.
From which of my words did you draw this?
Yamuna Dasi - July 31, 2008 9:01 am
Thank you, Maharaj! Have to meditate on this... not easy to set my mind quiet about such kind of questionings. Still trying.
Swami - July 31, 2008 8:43 pm
Note also that according to Sanatana Goswami there is more than one version of the Mahabharata. He explains in his Brihat-bhagavatamrta that Pariksit’s son Janamejaya heard this itihasa from Vaisampayana first and then later heard it from Jaimini. The second hearing satisfied him much more than the first telling of the history because it was spoken with regard to bhakti-rasa, a history from this angle of vision—rasa vicara. The first telling of the history by Vyasa, the one that Vaisampayana repeated to Janamejaya, did not satisfy his spiritual hankering. Whereas the second edition spoken from a different angle of vision did. This second edition follows the story line of Srimad Bhagavatam with regard to Pariksit’s passing.
To me it seems quite understandable that Vyasa would tell the history of India to the general public in one way, leaving out or editing some important spiritual details or higher topics that might not be appropriate for such an audience or even of much interest to them. Let them be convinced as to the certainty of death, even for emperors. Later they can learn about life beyond death in greater detail—the whole story. As an aside, the two histories concept is certainly appealing to postmodern sensibilities.
Otherwise these books were written thousands of years ago with different sensibilities from ours today. Their perennial value lies in the essence of their teaching as revealed through the guru parampara.
Syamasundara - July 31, 2008 10:55 pm
From which of my words did you draw this?
The line I quoted.
Zvonimir Tosic - August 1, 2008 2:09 am
Hari bol to everybody here!I would like to ask if you could tell me please why there are two completely different stories about the death of Maharaj Parikshit - the one in Mahabharata, saying that he had locked himself in a tower trying to escape the death of being bitten by a snake (as he was cursed) and the one in Bhagavatam, where he goes to Naimisharanya to listen the isntructions of Shukadeva Goswami - they are diametrically opposing and I see no way to combine them in terms of point of view.
Thank you for this intriguing question. Indeed!
If you'll allow me, with your help I may try to present a view in which both Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatam are correct in their statements. I believe there's a harmonising answer. Symbols and metaphors. All ancient texts are full of them, and that's a reality to live with for all those who want to dig and grasp into the history of humankind.
What a 'tower' means? Tower is another word for a stronghold, a place with a signal fire at the top where tireless eyes gaze in the distance, looking for the enemy approaching. The whole structure is usually built with stone, wood, on strong slabs and with strong reinforcement. In battles, towers fall last; they keep even scarce forces in one place and allow for an another hour of resistance to the enemy.
In ancient times, towers were built at the corner of every major city, as watch towers, guards and as well as a warning to everyone who dare to think about conquering the city or land. If you conquer the tower, you also conquer the land; people will surrender at the fall of their most important stronghold.
Pariksit is a king, and his quarters are always behind the walls of the city, which are protected and guarded by a tower. Now, what's the tower that king Pariksit have chosen to hide in? Where did he put his trust in his last days? It's the Srimad Bhagavatam and the lotus feet of sweet Sukadeva.
That's his tower. So Mahabharata praises king's choice, and covertly praises Srimad Bhagavatam. Whoever hides in such a tower will surely escape even the worst of deaths: in Bhagavatam, it's symbolised with a fiery snake; snake as a (1) symbol of passing time, (2) destruction of self by poisonous material indulgements and (3) destruction by the fire of burning lust (as Krishna himself explains in Bhagavad-gita). Because the snake has wings, it may strike you from any direction, not just crawling silently in the grass where you expect it. That snake is wholly unpredictable.
An unpredictable, ferocious threefold death, our greatest enemy. And Srimad Bhagavatam is the tower that can surely protect from it. Even if everything else falls, that tower will stand.
Yamuna Dasi - August 1, 2008 3:54 am
Sorry but I cannot see how these words of mine:
QUOTE(Yamuna Dasi @ Jul 30 2008, 04:31 PM)
But what could we gain if someone gets discouraged in the authenticity of Bhagavatam’s story because of being so attached to reason?
imply this:
Your... reasoning and line of thought seem to imply that people like Swami, or so many other devotees I know, including me and you, are people of poor reasoning and intellect, that get easily satisfied or manipulated.
Syamasundara - August 1, 2008 4:21 am
If people who are used to reasoning reject what our path has to offer, because it doesn't respond to reason, those who embrace it are people who reason poorly.
It's like when I tell people that I am a vegetarian and they become all defensive, because to them it sounds like: "And you who eat animals are the scum of the Earth!" Go figure.
So, I never meant that you think we are a little dull, nor do I think you understood so, since you wisely specified every time "my words", which is merely what I am referring to.
To answer your question again, who cares if people attached to reasoning are thrown off by the contradictions in the Bhagavatam? If they don't have the sufficient sukrti, they won't stay or they'll be thrown off anyway, if not by the contradictions, by who knows what else. On the other hand, those who did have some service attitude and sukriti stuck around, and they usually happen to be pretty bright people, sumedha, that can present GV in a thoughtful way.
Swami - August 1, 2008 1:32 pm
Thank you for this intriguing question. Indeed!If you'll allow me, with your help I may try to present a view in which both Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatam are correct in their statements. I believe there's a harmonising answer. Symbols and metaphors. All ancient texts are full of them, and that's a reality to live with for all those who want to dig and grasp into the history of humankind.
What a 'tower' means? Tower is another word for a stronghold, a place with a signal fire at the top where tireless eyes gaze in the distance, looking for the enemy approaching. The whole structure is usually built with stone, wood, on strong slabs and with strong reinforcement. In battles, towers fall last; they keep even scarce forces in one place and allow for an another hour of resistance to the enemy.
In ancient times, towers were built at the corner of every major city, as watch towers, guards and as well as a warning to everyone who dare to think about conquering the city or land. If you conquer the tower, you also conquer the land; people will surrender at the fall of their most important stronghold.
Pariksit is a king, and his quarters are always behind the walls of the city, which are protected and guarded by a tower. Now, what's the tower that king Pariksit have chosen to hide in? Where did he put his trust in his last days? It's the Srimad Bhagavatam and the lotus feet of sweet Sukadeva.
That's his tower. So Mahabharata praises king's choice, and covertly praises Srimad Bhagavatam. Whoever hides in such a tower will surely escape even the worst of deaths: in Bhagavatam, it's symbolised with a fiery snake; snake as a (1) symbol of passing time, (2) destruction of self by poisonous material indulgements and (3) destruction by the fire of burning lust (as Krishna himself explains in Bhagavad-gita). Because the snake has wings, it may strike you from any direction, not just crawling silently in the grass where you expect it. That snake is wholly unpredictable.
An unpredictable, ferocious threefold death, our greatest enemy. And Srimad Bhagavatam is the tower that can surely protect from it. Even if everything else falls, that tower will stand.
You certainly have a fertile imagination.
Swami - August 1, 2008 7:33 pm
To answer your question again, who cares if people attached to reasoning are thrown off by the contradictions in the Bhagavatam?
This is not a good answer to a valid question. While it may be good to point out the limitation of reasoning it is also important to make sense out of the text as far as possible. "Why are there contradictions?" This question deserves more of an answer than, "Don't try to understand with your reason."
Most people's reason will be satisfied with the idea that the books were written by different people at different times and over time the story changed to suit a particular theology. I do not necessarily agree with this idea, but I don't see why someone could not consider it the most plausible explanation, given the information available, and then proceed with the culture of Krsna-bhakti in the line of Mahaprabhu, keeping oneself open to other possibilities. Thakura Bhaktivinoda has taken a position similar to this.
While we cannot sort out to the satisfaction of the rational mind such distant events as the death of Raja Pariksit in terms of their historical accuracy by modern objective standards, we can take shelter of Sri Caitanya and his embrace of Srimad Bhagavatam. His idea is that scriptural statements must be understood in light of the Bhagavata Purana. If other scriptures differ from the Bhagavata, it is the Bhagavata version of any particular event we should accept. This then is what the Gaudiya Vaisnavas follow. So if we embrace Gaudiya Vaisnavism, this is in one sense a non issue.
Zvonimir Tosic - August 1, 2008 9:39 pm
You certainly have a fertile imagination.
Thank you. 
Many told the same about your Gita commentary as well. But I find your commentary fascinating.
I was exploring one possibility that may shed some light on imaginative metaphors and archetypes used by ancient writers.
We don't only find them in Vedic scripture, but everywhere*.
What was apostle John trying to say in the Apocalypse? Air tuning into a poison, rivers turning red?
Or what was Homer describing in Iliad? 50000 ships to rescue a princess? He tells of stars, distances and rivers that are not quite seen in Asia Minor, where is believed that Troy was.
What's the parable of Puranjana in Srimad Bhagavatam, for example?
Not long ago John's words were unimaginable but today people may connect John's prophetic words with global pollution, which is our reality.
Or some archeologists may carefully study Iliad and move Troy further north, into the Croatia, where even the Odyssey part of the story fits so much nicer. And there are some ruins too; ruins that were found later, after the careful reading, and not before. A challenge on which many archeologists reply as 'imagination' as well. But on which imaginations are based their facts, someone may rightfully ask? Their's or Homer's?
And story of Puranjana and his city, which is a beautiful parable that actually describes us.
===
Where imagination ends and reality starts?
And who is blind in all of these stories: Homers or their audiences?
All I can say is that we have to give our honest opinion, to show of effort in cracking some tough nuts, and leave the conclusions to generations that come. And the story will continue.
- - -
* I can't help it; it's my passion and I'm writing a book on that subject. The metaphor of 'the tower' I've borrowed from my other book, 'Postcards from Patmos'.
Margaret Dale - August 1, 2008 10:16 pm
All I can say is that we have to give our honest opinion, to show of effort in cracking some tough nuts, and leave the conclusions to generations that come. And the story will continue.
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you, Zvonimir. Guru Maharaja addressed this issue in a previous Sanga (August 11, 2001, Vol. III, No. 35) (the bold is my addition):
"Q. Why do we find so many contradictory statements in the scriptures of India? Sometimes Visnu is glorified as the supreme, sometimes Krsna and sometimes the impersonal feature. It all seems very ambiguous.
A. Sastra speaks directly and indirectly about one subject. Vyasa attempted to demonstrate this in his sutras on Vedanta, Vedanta-sutra. Therein he puts forth his logic. The book consists of numerous topics (adhikarnana/nyaya) that lead logically from one to another each of which consists of five elements: thesis (visaya), doubt (samsaya), antithesis (purva-paksa), synthesis or proper conclusion (siddhanta), and consistency (sangati) with all that proceeds and follows. This sangati is further subdivided into consistency with the entirety of scripture (sastra sangati), with the entirety of the book itself (adhyayaa sangati), and with the entire chapter (pada sangati).
This approach was also used by Jiva Goswami in his Sat sandarbha, in which he attempts to demonstrate the import of the scripture based on the evidence found in Srimad Bhagavatam, his primary pramana. Great souls have thus dealt with this issue systematically and reached a reasonable conclusion. For the most part they all agree on the common human malady of material attachment and the need to transcend it. However, it is true that in doing so great souls, while finding considerable common ground with one another, have also reached slightly different conclusions.
Thus we have different lineages. Insignificant persons like ourselves should follow the lead of those particular saints who have inspired us, while knowing that there are other logically valid ways of interpreting scripture. In following our own saints, we should practice and acquire our own spiritual experience as to the nature of reality.
Q. Why do the scriptures use a symbolic language that can be interpreted in innumerable ways according to the intention of the interpreter?
A. It is not the defect of scripture that it speaks of ultimate reality in poetic and symbolic language. What other language could come close to doing it justice? God is beyond the words of scripture, which while indicating something about him, implore us to reflect upon those words and thereby know and love. The apparent ambiguity of scripture is a testament as to the diversity of the Godhead. The gem of life has many facets."
With wonderful teachers like Sridar Maharaja and Guru Maharaha, I feel that we have enough work ahead of us to just come to understand their teachings before trying to come up with some speculative explanation on our own. And if we do want to do some interpretation, we should have solid sastra and support of previous gurus to back us up. Otherwise it is just mundane imagining.
Syamasundara - August 1, 2008 11:04 pm
This is not a good answer to a valid question.
So sorry my words sounded dismissive. i was concerned with making my other points, and I knew I hadn't said enough to balance them out with the fact that we do care about reasoning people, but I couldn't find the right words, so I posted it, hoping someone would correct me or fill in. Couldn't hope for anyone better. 
Syamasundara - August 1, 2008 11:12 pm
Thank you.Many told the same about your Gita commentary as well. But I find your commentary fascinating.
What the... ?
The syntax of that sentence tells a lot about you. :Party:
Yamuna Dasi - August 1, 2008 11:47 pm
Thank you, Maharaj!
Actually this was the idea of my question - when and to what degree to accept the story in the Scripture allegorically and when and to what degree literally. Because those who take the path of too much allegorical vision about the Scriptures in my observation never reach the shore of bhakti. They remain too theoretical and "above the things" sticking to the flow of their allegorically fascinated minds searching only the mental conclusion while the message could be rather emotional. So I've seen that somehow taking literally the Scripture brings up better results. Those who see it all allegorical miss the feeling because they just don't put too much feeling in some story, which is for them pure allegory. Arjuna feels the sorrow of having to fight with his own relatives on Kurukshetra and when a devotee reads it and views it as a true story he has much more feeling involved and this emotional frame gives him/her the better view point to hear the siddhanta which Krishna gives to Arjuna later.
in this way the heart melted by the feeling becomes the right recipient for the siddhanta. One who reads about the Kurukshetra’s battle seeing it just as an alegory of "the field of action" on which we all act like small “arjunas” will miss a lot due to the emotional distance, which he chose to keep. Will not "hear" everything from such a distance. Vyasadeva gave to Sanjaya the gift of being able to see not only what happens on the battlefield, but also what happens in the hearts of all the participants. So Sanjaya was telling the whole story from both literal and emotional aspect and this makes it much more valuable. What the participants in this battle felt is no less valuable to know than just what they did on the surface of "objective reality". Subjective reality inside their hearts is the root of what reveals on the surface of the objective reality.
Maybe Maharaja Parikshit felt fear hearing that in a week he has to die and his feeling was to hide and lock into a high tower to avoid death. And if Mahabharata was taking the emotional line of his fear narrating it as a real story in order to reach and stress the conclusion of the inevitable death... it's a valid story. Since it depicts a subjective reality in order to underline an objective truth - it's a valid story.
I especially appreciate this aspect of the Scriptures, that the heroes there are not some kind of empty Supermen who always win and feel neither fear nor doubt. This is not applicable for humans. When Jesus was praying in the Gethsimany garden to God "please let this bitter cup pass me by" but then still accepted the cross, this is much more powerful as a message. Same is valid about Arjuna having grief in his heart but taking the path shown by Krishna. No robots and no Supermen. And a person reading this gets a clear idea - even if I have fear, doubts or sorrow in my heart, I can still try to follow their example and succeed.
Prema-bhakti - August 1, 2008 11:50 pm
Thank you.Many told the same about your Gita commentary as well. But I find your commentary fascinating.
Dude, you are threading on thin ice here. Do you realize who you are talking to? It doesn't matter how much mundane knowledge you have it is no excuse for pompous behavior. Try some "trnad api sunicena" when addressing exalted vaisnavas. It will serve you better.
Yamuna Dasi - August 1, 2008 11:56 pm
Meditating these days on the question I put and the answers I got, I felt inspired to write an article (or a small booklet) named "Follow Plan "B"!", dedicated to my Spiritual Masters, who all knew plan “B” and followed it. In it I think to narrate 5 different famous stories in which the heroes had one thing in common - they all chose to follow Plan "B" - the spiritual solution. Plan "A" was always the same - run for your life, while Plan "B" was the spiritual solution in the face of the inevitable death.
The 5 stories included will be:
1. The story of the last days of Socratus, who accepted the sanction to death of the Athens tribunal and drank the cup of poison
2. The story of Mahatma Gandy who won a war without shedding blood
3. The story of Jesus Christ who accepted the crusification
4. The 2 stories about Parikshit Maharaj - Plan "A" narrated by Mahabharata and Plan "B" given through Bhagavatam
5. The story of Gita and Krishna's revelation to Arjuna of Plan "B" (fight) over Plan “A” (leave the battle)
Plan "B" always includes self sacrifice.
Ending with Shridhara Maharaja’s “Follow the Angels”… Follow those who followed Plan “B”!
The purpose of this article (or booklet) would be general preaching in a popular form provoking further interest in the readers for Gita, Mahabharata, Bhagavatam and Shridhara Maharaja's books.
How do you find the idea?
Citta Hari Dasa - August 1, 2008 11:58 pm
I have to second Prema Bhakti's sentiment here, Zvonimir. Finding Guru Maharaja's Gita commentary "fascinating" is fine, but keep in mind that here on Tattva-viveka you are in his house. Show some respect and be careful how you word what you say.
Swami - August 2, 2008 12:02 am
Thank you.Many told the same about your Gita commentary as well. But I find your commentary fascinating.
Well now, the difference is that I do not find your comments fascinating. I find them to be a disturbance, the likes of which scriptures speaks to us of when is says sruti smriti puranadi . . . Look it up. Nor do your imaginations constitute anything that remotely resembles the well supported conclusions (from a Gaudiya perspective) found in my Gita commentary.
Swami - August 2, 2008 12:07 am
It doesn't matter how much mundane knowledge you have it is no excuse for pompous behavior. Try some "trnad api sunicena" when addressing exalted vaisnavas. It will serve you better.
What mundane knowledge is that? I must have missed something.
Swami - August 2, 2008 12:12 am
be careful how you word what you say.
Ah! a freudian slip perhaps—parapraxis. There is more to be learned from this than anything else said. Edifying indeed.
Syamasundara - August 2, 2008 1:29 am
"A Freudian slip, or parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is believed to be caused by the unconscious mind.
Some errors, such as a man accidentally calling his wife by the name of another woman, seem to represent relatively clear cases of Freudian slips. In other cases, the error might appear to be trivial or bizarre, but may show some deeper meaning on analysis. As a common pun goes, "A Freudian slip is like saying one thing, but meaning your mother." A Freudian slip is not limited to a slip of the tongue, or to sexual desires. It can extend to our word perception where we might read a word incorrectly because of our fixations. It is important to note that these slips are semi-conscious. This is to say that these thoughts are consciously repressed and then unconsciously released. This is unlike true Freudian repression, which is the unconscious act of making something conscious."
Zvonimir Tosic - August 2, 2008 4:37 am
Dude, you are threading on thin ice here.
Dear ones, I didn't want to say anything wrong.
If you Google all the opinions about the Swami's Gita, you will find all kinds of comments, especially from ISKCON. Some harsh words too. Aren't we in the same sampradaya as them? Some people believe discourse about Vraja bhakti in Swami's commentary quite imaginative and out of place. Did I made this up? No. Yo can read about all that. But I didn't like those comments.
I like Swami's commentary. I find it very fascinating same as Swami's person. I believe he has captured something sublime and beautiful.
I have a great respect for him.
Why you judge me on just one statement which you take out of context completely and not judge me on what I really am? Why don't you ponder my other messages and efforts with this, and try to understand what I was trying to reach with my message? In this case, my aim was to support the idea of the supremacy of Bhagavatam, express one possible view on how can this contradiction can be explained, by using one of my previous experiences. In every science this is quite common.
And now I think, if I want to express before you my humble opinion on that there's a beautiful proof in Bhagavad-gītā, in Kṛṣṇa's own words, which describes the advent of him as Śrī Caitanya, you may think I'm an idiot par excellence with a ridiculous imagination! ISKCON guys would crucify me then! But, you see, that kind of excitement, finding the little proofs of my faith where it wasn't mentioned before, is what keeps me alive and trying to go forward in this process.
* * *
Now, what do you want me to do? Of course, I will apologise to everyone. And I may stop coming here because you think you know better than me what I was thinking. However, life tells that there's always more than one solution to any problem, and more than just one cause to yield same or similar result. I beg you, humbly, don't always take just one approach and not consider another, like in my case. (I'm telling you this because I've done it once before and will regret it forever.)
I'm not another tug around the corner. Perhaps I'm foolish sometimes, too excited, yes, but I mean you no harm. I sometime think we can all benefit from evaluating different perspectives. Probably that's where I'm too excited.
I'll gladly talk to any of you much more about all this: let's not make quick decisions and conclusions about anything, please. We may even start a thread using me as an example. Please! I'm at your service. If you want to attribute this or that to me, just go, I don't mind. I'll try to explain my best then, just because .. if you stumble upon some similar people in the future, perhaps they won't be misunderstood.
And you may even consider them as friends.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 2, 2008 5:14 am
While we cannot sort out to the satisfaction of the rational mind such distant events as the death of Raja Pariksit in terms of their historical accuracy by modern objective standards, we can take shelter of Sri Caitanya and his embrace of Srimad Bhagavatam. His idea is that scriptural statements must be understood in light of the Bhagavata Purana. If other scriptures differ from the Bhagavata, it is the Bhagavata version of any particular event we should accept. This then is what the Gaudiya Vaisnavas follow. So if we embrace Gaudiya Vaisnavism, this is in one sense a non issue.
But then some things in Bhagavata itself like issues about women and cosmology have to be adjusted so I like BVT's position. Authors refer to Vyas as the author as he is the one who is inspiring them to shed new light on scripture. Vyasa himself is supposed to have dictated the Mahabharata to Ganesa. So there is a possibility that he had assigned a lot of work to his disciples which was completed over generations.
Another thing to note is that even Madhacharya( who doesn't embrace bhagavata that closely; he considered brahma's illusion to be interpolation) considered in his time that no orginal version of Mahabharata could be procured. What to speak of our time.
Prema-bhakti - August 2, 2008 5:33 am
Dear ones, I didn't want to say anything wrong.
Zvonimir, you missed the point. You are addressing the wrong person(s) in your post.
Syamasundara - August 2, 2008 5:35 am
All right, let's set things straight.
No one denied that some envious people might say that GM imagined things in his Gita commentary.
I made a very vague remark on your syntax, hoping you'd get my drift, as once I start speaking I, like you, may lose control of my mind and tongue.
So, here is the unabridged version.
It's true that we haven't met, and that's the only reason why I tried to check my opinion and impression of you, but so far (because, by the way, your posts have been following the same pattern for months, and we are not reacting to this single post) you seem like the epitome of passive aggressiveness.
There seems to be this façade to you, like you speak behind a hedge of honey-dripping flowers, and we hear your voice, but don't get to see the true expression of your face when you speak.
When people correct you (which, seen the context, is an act of mercy, not a race at who is right), we get treated to your molasses-covered ego, where you become super apologetic and grateful while at the same time jabbing us, or shuffling your words around to look like you meant something else and on different levels.
Go over all your posts. Always the same.
This last one is only the latest example.
You thank GM for commenting on your imagination, which implies it's a good thing, then you tell him that others think the same of him, BUT you find his commentary charming. That "but" means now that having such imagination is not so good after all, still, in spite of that, you like his commentaries. So, which is it? You seem to have very precise reactions whenever people bring up some inaccuracy of yours, but those reactions seem unbecoming to you, so you express the exact opposite. However, since your words and the feelings they express don't come from deep inside, no real change of heart or mind ensues.
And it keeps repeating itself. Now you apologize, and at the same time you imply that we are really short-sighted and wrong for taking your words out of context.
Don't take my words as cruel. I am dealing with my own traces of victimistic nature, passive aggressiveness and unchecked tongue, so I know quite well what I am talking about.
Feel free to leave, but if you have understood or experienced a mist drop of Krsna's sweetness, which you claim to be after, then you may want to reconsider yourself, reassess, listen, adjust, and restart. Short of that you'll be soon drifting and floating in your own "sweetness".
Try apologizing to my Gurudeva in a more heartfelt way; if heartfelt it is.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 2, 2008 5:36 am
"A Freudian slip, or parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is believed to be caused by the unconscious mind.
Some errors, such as a man accidentally calling his wife by the name of another woman, seem to represent relatively clear cases of Freudian slips. In other cases, the error might appear to be trivial or bizarre, but may show some deeper meaning on analysis. As a common pun goes, "A Freudian slip is like saying one thing, but meaning your mother." A Freudian slip is not limited to a slip of the tongue, or to sexual desires. It can extend to our word perception where we might read a word incorrectly because of our fixations. It is important to note that these slips are semi-conscious. This is to say that these thoughts are consciously repressed and then unconsciously released. This is unlike true Freudian repression, which is the unconscious act of making something conscious."
I think Citta hari manner of treating the issue was pretty appropriate. Here syamu you have indulged in selective targeting of a person with no constructive intent. There is no concern for his spiritual improvement and condition; just a slight intended to dissuade him. Just putting down the definition from wikipidea to humiliate the person.
I know that Z's wording was not appropriate but he would have thought about his mistake without you putting this note down. Also we can't forget that he is not a disciple of GM; he is more of a well-wisher so we can't expect him to have the same degree of respect for GM as us. I think what happened was that he actually was finding a way to harmonize two stories and found a way which could satisfy him. And a person with artistic and poetic sensibility has a good capacity to think creatively though it is not yet completely transcendental. But when others did not accept it then he reacted rather strongly and Citta corrected him rightly. So ultimately we would want that he would find good nourishment in spiritual life during his stay with GM. I also think atleast he was honest in airing his opinion and it is good to give him a real solution to progress in spiritual life rather than stifle him completely. There are many people who are not able to express any of their doubts to their gurus and this kills their devotional creeper.
Z, I feel these kind of discussions or concerns can be better addressed through an email where you can keep your opinions private and not unnecessarily upset everybody .
Syamasundara - August 2, 2008 6:02 am
When I posted that, Zvonimir was the last person on my mind. I had no idea what GM was talking about, so I looked up that word, and pasted the definition for everybody else, if they were also wondering. I still don't know what he meant by "More to be learned from this" and "edifying".
At some point I thought he was criticizing Citta Hari, but for sure, the last thought on my mind was to humilitate Zvonimir.
My initial reaction to his words is about his wording, like CH did, and after me, so what are you talking about?
Anybody who is granted access to TV is expected to know the basics of aparadha or at least etiquette with a sadhu. This is not an open Q&A forum.
As far as airing his honest opinion, read the previous post.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 2, 2008 6:11 am
When I posted that, Zvonimir was the last person on my mind. I had no idea what GM was talking about, so I looked up that word, and pasted the definition for everybody else, if they were also wondering. I still don't know what he meant by "More to be learned from this" and "edifying".At some point I thought he was criticizing Citta Hari, but for sure, the last thought on my mind was to humilitate Zvonimir.
My initial reaction to his words is about his wording, like CH did, and after me, so what are you talking about?
Anybody who is granted access to TV is expected to know the basics of aparadha or at least etiquette with a sadhu. This is not an open Q&A forum.
As far as airing his honest opinion, read the previous post.
Then I am sorry to have not understood your intent though it was hard for anybody to think that GM was criticizing CH in his post. You must also read what I said to Z, that he should address such questions through personal email.
Also we should allow only people who are in a disciple relationship with GM to join the forum if it has to be run without these kind of questions. There can be a separate forum for these kind of questions. Before joining this forum newer people can access that forum.
Zvonimir Tosic - August 2, 2008 6:24 am
I think Citta hari manner of treating the issue was pretty appropriate. Here syamu you have indulged in selective targeting of a person with no ...
Z, I feel these kind of discussions or concerns can be better addressed through an email where you can keep your opinions private and not unnecessarily upset everybody .
Thank your for your beautiful observation Gaura Vijaya. I concur. I'm not exposed directly to any devotional environment but this one here, which is on the Internet, and often I find it's hard to express feelings accurately through a keyboard because it takes forever sometimes and you have to explain you whole life. But again, no harm meant indeed. I accept all your notes, suggestions and take it as my learning curve.
I like your suggestions of two forums, or at least, a place where people can freely express their opinions and doubts without any offense to anyone. I think this is important in today's world.
My deepest respect unto all of you.
Syamasundara - August 2, 2008 6:30 am
Also we should allow only people who are in a disciple relationship with GM to join the forum if it has to be run without these kind of questions. There can be a separate forum for these kind of questions. Before joining this forum newer people can access that forum.
Prabhu, please stay with it. What questions are you talking about? Are you still talking about the tower? Everybody else is referring to the fact that Zvonimir implied that GM is not any different than him, since others find his words as off the wall. That's the issue, and it's connected to the overall tone of his posts.
Syamasundara - August 2, 2008 6:35 am
Then I am sorry to have not understood your intent though it was hard for anybody to think that GM was criticizing CH in his post.
Well, it's CH's words that he quoted. I just considered the option that he might be addressing CH, as the statement that followed was a little concise and cryptic.
"A lot to be learned" about Zvonimir from how he expressed himself? And what's edifying? I felt a little sick actually, I had to edit the first ten reactions in my mind, and eventually I just commented vaguely on his syntax.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 2, 2008 6:45 am
Well, it's CH's words that he quoted. I just considered the option that he might be addressing CH, as the statement that followed was a little concise and cryptic."A lot to be learned" about Zvonimir from how he expressed himself? And what's edifying? I felt a little sick actually, I had to edit the first ten reactions in my mind, and eventually I just commented vaguely on his syntax.
I think "edifying" meant it is a good lesson to learn that we should be careful about what we speak. I just said if he had personal reservations then Z could express them through email to GM.
Zvonimir Tosic - August 2, 2008 11:30 am
That's the issue, and it's connected to the overall tone of his posts.
GOD FOR THE REST OF US
There's Kṛṣṇa, and there's Kṛṣṇa for the rest of us. It's rough, unfortunate analogy but it will help me explain something.
My dear Syamu can expect his guru's letter in the letterbox even if he doesn't ask for one, but in my letterbox I'll find just bills. No one writes to the rest of us. By associating with his godbrothers and godsisters many doubts may disperse for Syamu automatically, and many questions he doesn't have to ask at all, but the rest of us must learn to live with such doubts and answer the questions ourselves, praying to God the answers we come by are the good ones. They're good at least if they do no harm. It's a reasonable compromise. Living with doubts and facing unique challenges helps us to live with compromises.
Compromises are our reality. We on the other side have to accept them or otherwise we won't move any further and probably understand nothing. We'd feel devastated then. But people are willing to understand and experience the reality Gaudiya Vaisnavas talk about to sweetly. As mentioned in another thread, it's unfortunate that a Gaudiya Vaisnavism still has that "take it or leave it" attitude, which forces many people to take such compromises in all walks of life. Such people are often afraid to admit what they do, how they think, what's the "standard of their faith", or how they home looks like before those who are initiated. Many are afraid, few will say it even covertly, but it's obvious it troubles them deeply. Often they think their Kṛṣṇa is not the same one experienced by the initiated, or in other words, they perceive their reality is less enlightened than the initiated one. But they're so happy to have at least something, at least a part of Kṛṣṇa for the rest of us.
* * *
Vaisnavas have to deal with that problem because it's them that have created it. How is that possible, one may ask? Didn't Gaudiya Vaisnavas want to spread the good word of Kṛṣṇa throughout the world? Now when we have a dream come true, in the world where information spreads around at the speed of light and where even a school child can access to any kind of information, and where we live surrounded with all the different cultures and world views, Vaisnavas have to take further steps -- deal with all the new challenges that arise from such an accomplishment. It's not easy at all, I admit.
Vaisnavism used to be mainly an intimate guru-disciple relationship, with a certain codex, or set of rules of behaviour, set in a certain environment. But that's changing now as well. Vaisnavism now exists in a wholly different environment. If Vaisnavas challenge the views of the world around them, and they often do it boldly, they also should answer some challenges themselves. If you throw a gauntlet to the world, you should at least expect the same in return. If Vaisnavas put every tidbit of the society and people around them under magnifying glass, are they afraid if someone does the same to them?
It's not unfair at all. It's a sporty game, the game where a healthy relationship may take place if both parties accept the challenge and are willing to sacrifice. People may rightfully ask are the rules of conduct set sometime in 16th century India under the Muslim's government something we have to use to build our communication channels today? If people want something different, more modern, open, dynamic, very direct and talkative, are Vaisnavas ready to accept it?
People who answer back are not necessarily the offenders. And what that word means in today's world? Innocent people get killed in the streets today because to some terrorists they're offenders and infidels by their own impure existence. World has gone so far in that. But we don't want to encourage such reasoning, even in a slightest, indirect way. Many people are simply very curious and they have a right to challenge, to bridge the world of differences with their own means. They're willing to bridge the differences and Vaisnavas shouldn't always stop them. In fact, they perhaps should be encouraged because they can then be a bridge between the Vaisnavism and the rest of the world. If we treat them as offenders or inadequates, we then have a problem because we make any communication impossible. As mentioned in another thread, it creates a vacuum which no one can penetrate. Who can live in vacuum forever? I've wanted to talk about this in many different posts.
* * *
Living on this other side gives us an opportunity to take some unique approaches when inquiring. It's not always all so bad; at least God gives us a chance to inquire everywhere, taking us from one place to another to follow his bread crumbs. If a scientist wants to talk with another scientist, they don't necessarily have to follow a guru-disciple relationship and codex. They can even challenge each other and shake hands afterwards. So I can say that you, dear Syamu, had your opportunity; once you had a chance to ask questions in a different way, but now you don't. You've accepted a certain relationship with Swami and that means you have to follow a certain attitude and way of communication. If I did same as you, I'd follow your example. To others who still have an opportunity to ask and challenge slightly, this attitude doesn't make them offensive necessarily. I beg you humbly, don't observe me from your perspective then, because I will always look offensive. I can't stand a chance in anyone's eyes then and everything I try to explicate is useless.
It's something like in school; there are PhD professors and there are college lecturers and teachers with different backgrounds and experience. Professors may sometime be challenged by lecturers on some topics, but must students always think they're quarreling? If a lecturer decides to accept the professor as the new mentor afterwards, and wants to become a student of such a fine professor, then the lecturer will also become submissive to the professor and take quite a different attitude. It's a rough analogy, but illustrates my point.
I hope this will rise our communication to a much better level of understanding. But I wholeheartedly apologise if I misunderstood the purpose of this forum: if this forum was mentioned to follow the guru-disciple codex only, then some of my posts might've been misinterpreted as inappropriate. I admit, they are slightly challenging, but with no bad intentions. If you don't want such attitudes, I apologise to everyone and it won't happen again.
Sometime someone may step on our feet and we may instantly think that person wants to hurt us. But that person may be limping and can't walk properly. My humble obeisances to everyone and especially to Swami.
Citta Hari Dasa - August 2, 2008 2:27 pm
Zvonimir,
The fact that you have not addressed what Guru Maharaja said to you, only what his disciples have said, is telling. At any rate, you are missing a big point in Gaudiya Vaisnavism: the process of approaching the Absolute--and those who represent the Absolute--is pranipata, pariprasna, and seva. Pranipata means a humble approach, pariprasna is asking questions with a view to make spiritual progress, and seva, service, arises out of the knowleged we are given with regard to how to spend our human life. You seem to miss indirect references to your attitute, so I'll tell you straight. Your approach is flawed, and your attitude is not submissive. If you want to gather information to suit your purposes, and then try to look clever with your interpretations of Gaudiya philosophy then you are in the wrong place.
Consider yourself lucky; we are taking the time here in an effort to educate you and thus save you from yourself. It is true that your relationship with my Guru Maharaja is different than mine or others here who are initiated, but as I mentioned before, you are in his house. And in his house, his rules apply--for everyone. We're telling you what the rules are so you can do the right thing. You have not made a worthwhile apology to my Gurudeva yet, which is very much in order; rather, you try to use your misguided intelligence to explain your mistakes away and make it sound like you did nothing wrong. For your own sake I hope you can understand what is happening here and change your approach, otherwise I don't see much future for you in Gaudiya Vaisnavism, regardless of who ultimately accepts you as a disciple.
Prema-bhakti - August 2, 2008 2:29 pm
Zvonimir, you missed the point again. The hole is getting deeper. Simply put this is a forum for disciples and friends of Tripurari Swami. Whether friend or disciple there is a certain etiquette and respect to be followed. You transgressed that. An apology to Swami is in order.
Margaret Dale - August 2, 2008 2:33 pm
BG 4.34
"TRANSLATION
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.
PURPORT
The path of spiritual realization is undoubtedly difficult. The Lord therefore advises us to approach a bona fide spiritual master in the line of disciplic succession from the Lord Himself. No one can be a bona fide spiritual master without following this principle of disciplic succession. The Lord is the original spiritual master, and a person in the disciplic succession can convey the message of the Lord as it is to his disciple. No one can be spiritually realized by manufacturing his own process, as is the fashion of the foolish pretenders. The Bhagavatam (6.3.19) says, dharmam tu sakshad bhagavat-pranitam: the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help lead one to the right path. Nor by independent study of books of knowledge can one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge. Such a spiritual master should be accepted in full surrender, and one should serve the spiritual master like a menial servant, without false prestige. Satisfaction of the self-realized spiritual master is the secret of advancement in spiritual life. Inquiries and submission constitute the proper combination for spiritual understanding. Unless there is submission and service, inquiries from the learned spiritual master will not be effective. One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple, he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding. In this verse, both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned. Not only should one hear submissively from the spiritual master, but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries. A bona fide spiritual master is by nature very kind toward the disciple. Therefore when the student is submissive and is always ready to render service, the reciprocation of knowledge and inquiries becomes perfect."
The question seems to be what your desire is, Zvominir. If it is truly your desire to reach Krsna and to be a student of Guru Maharaja, then the rule of etiquette and advancement are clearly laid out. This is not just GM's devotees trying to discourage you. To me, however, it seems that your desire is to use your mind to reach understandings of the world and scripture that work for you. It is good that you are questioning the world, but your approach is not that recommended by Krsna; it is not the approach of bhakti yoga.
You speak of having no association and having nothing but bills in your mailbox. I also live in the world and have nothing but bills (and GM's CDs) in my mailbox. Tattvaviveka is the place I can go to get the sadhu sanga I need on a daily basis. There are lots of websites that would welcome your challenging spirit, and I'm sure that there are plenty of philosophy and religious studies students you can find to debate with. Bringing the attitude of jnani and disrespectful challenge into Tattvaviveka takes away the refuge that GM set up for his devotees, and that is what is not fair. If we tried to speak on any ISKCON site, we would face derogatory comments about our beloved guru and a constant attitude of superiority and opposition. That is exhausting. We NEED our space to associate in a supportive environment that doesn't force us to defend our most basic beliefs. There are lots of threads on here where you can find lively debates about the interpretation of various scriptural points; the difference is that the debates are based on sruti and smriti and not on mental exercises. And when GM stops by and provides us with a better understanding, we don't tell him he's wrong.
You will not find the good association you need unless you approach with an attitude of humility.
The devotees here do want to help people who are not of our lineage, but if they are not favorable to the overall sanga of this website, then I think the discussion might better be held individually (instant messaging, email) or on another forum.
Syamasundara - August 2, 2008 3:21 pm
My humble obeisances to everyone and especially to Swami.
It's not that we are ignoring your continuous apologies on this thread. It's your premises that don't substantiate your apology.
Also, please keep in mind everyone's benevolent nature toward you. You are walking on the edge of a cliff, and we are not scared to even whip you if that makes you step away from it.
Audarya-lila Dasa - August 2, 2008 4:23 pm
Zvonomir,
I believe you have been give ample instruction and you should certainly take the good advice. The issue is this - spiritual life is not a mental exercise. There are superlative devotees, who by dint of their service and surrender and by Krsna's infusion of his Svarupa shakti into their hearts can truly help us - because like the Gita verse quoted above says - they have seen (darshana) the truth. They have spiritual eyes. That much faith you must have if you really want to make any tangible progress in spritual life.
If everyone is the same and it's only a matter of who has collected the most information, or who has a fertile mind, then your idea could hold some weight. But spiritual life and genuine realization is nothing at all like mundane knowledge.
You don't like to be criticized - who does? When Guru Maharaja criticizes a post of yours, try to think deeply about it. Chant and pray and look very deep within - get beyond the ego which wants to defend and counter criticize. It is his mercy that he gives you good advice, even if it is hard for you to swallow.
The fact that you aren't a disciple doesn't excuse your insults. Our Guru Maharaja has spent almost 40 years following closely as a sincere disciple of his Gurus - it stands to reason that by his practice and self sacrifice he has something to say about this lineage. Don't be so pompous as to compare yourself to him. You haven't taken up Gaudiya vaishnavism in earnest - be honest. One of the very first instructions from Rupa Goswami in his Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu is to take shelter of Sri Guru and learn under him/her. That means, at the very least, inquiring submissively from those who are in a position to guide you. It isn't about scare tactics or a way to silence you or stunt your growth - on the contrary - it is the only way you will actually grow. No one says honest and sincere inquiry should be stunted or discouraged - that is what is required. If you have doubts - put them forward submissively - it is with a humble and submissive heart that the answers can be received and actually take their place in your heart.
Babhru Das - August 2, 2008 6:50 pm
Zvonimir, I've kept quiet on this thread until now, but I want to make a couple of observations. I think you may do well to carefully consider the responses you've gotten from Swami and several of his beloved disciples. You've made a couple of comments I'd like to address.
Your comment about some people finding Swami's Gita commentary imaginative rubbed me (and, apparently, not only me) the wrong way. We all know about these criticisms, and we've dealt with the harshest of them. The fact that those critics betray only ignorance and perhaps envy is clearly addressed in a 7000-word response I wrote almost five years ago. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you google my name and "vraja bhakti." This piece has the distinction of being the only article ever posted on what were then the three main Gaudiya vaishnava Web sites--VNN, Dipka, and Chakra--at the same time. In fact, it was posted on Dipika, Umapati Swami's very ISKCON-friendly site, for two or three reasons. One is that the article to which I responded was posted on that site. Another is that Umapati Maharaja took it as the official response from Swami's side. And a third is that Umapati Maharaja and I have been friends for a long time (we once went together to a big Guru Maharaj-ji meeting in LA, along with our Godbrothers Nara-Narayan and Ragavendu, with the intention of challenging the incarnation on his own turf. It turned out that, because we were there in dhotis and tilak, the "premis" warned him and the guy actually circled the block until, rather late in the evening, we left so we could get up the next morning for mangal-arati.) In fact, the Vraja connection in the Gita is well supported by the insights of Srila B. R. Sridhara Maharaja, Swami's siksa guru.
In another post you made remarks I find even more revealing of the attitude that has raised hackles here. You wrote:
As someone with many years of experience teaching in the university, my immediate reaction was, "Does he imagine himself an assistant professor, or even a lecturer, here?" It's a very rough analogy indeed, and I fear it illustrates the point being made by Citta Hari, Margaret, Syamasundara, Prema Bhakti, Audarya-lila, and the others. Moreover, it strikes me as pretty cheeky. Here's the deal: This site is a place for Swami's disciples and friends to discuss a wide variety of things together. We're kind of spread out, and I don't think any of us has the means for running around all the time. So Swami and some of his students created Tattva Viveka as a place for us to associate among ourselves and with him. New folks are invited in, but the mood should be something like Kenneth Burke's analogy of a parlor conversation. When we attend a parlor gathering and find an interesting conversation going on, we listen for a while to get a sense of where the conversation has been, its tenor, etc. Then you weigh in yourself, someone will respond to you (or not), someone will respond to them, etc. Whether your comments become well integrated with the rest of the conversation is not certain. Eventually, some folks invited to TV decide this isn't really their place for one reason or another and lose interest.
The thing is that here we accept as our tenured professors luminaries such as Srila Prabhupada, Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and our Swami. We will naturally, as vaishnavas, show them certain deference in all our dealings. That doesn't necessarily mean the kind of submission a disciple is expected to show, but at least a sense that, as Citta Hari pointed out, this is Swami's room--he has convened the parlor. And you should be sensitive to the sensibilities of the other members. I consider myself a student here, although I'm sometimes treated as a lecturer (non-tenure-track faculty). That's despite my having considerable experience and having for many years been given teaching responsibilities (among devotees).
It's one thing to express doubts in order to see if they can be clarified somehow, and to share creative ideas about how to explore and present aspects of Gaudiya vaishnava philosophy and practice. It's something different altogether to be invited (perhaps as an auditor) and expect the same respect the professor gets.
I don't mean to be harsh. None of us here does. If we didn't care, we'd probably just ignore you in the hope you'd go away. I'd simply like to suggest that a certain tone is appropriate among this group of devotees. Otherwise, it's not surprising that someone may cause some disturbance.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 3, 2008 1:13 am
with comments by VrindaranyaGOD FOR THE REST OF US
There's Kṛṣṇa, and there's Kṛṣṇa for the rest of us. It's rough, unfortunate analogy but it will help me explain something. My dear Syamu can expect his guru's letter in the letterbox even if he doesn't ask for one, but in my letterbox I'll find just bills. No one writes to the rest of us. By associating with his godbrothers and godsisters many doubts may disperse for Syamu automatically, and many questions he doesn't have to ask at all, but the rest of us must learn to live with such doubts and answer the questions ourselves, praying to God the answers we come by are the good ones. They're good at least if they do no harm. It's a reasonable compromise. Living with doubts and facing unique challenges helps us to live with compromises.
Comment: Here you appear to being trying to elicit pity for "the rest of us." No letters from Gurudeva, no godsiblings to help out...such people are forced to do the best they can with the crumbs that are left for them. Since you didn't mention otherwise, one wonders if you realize that this is a condition that you brought upon yourself? You also say that "living with doubts" and "facing unique challenges" help "the rest of us" "live with compromises." But doesn't everyone, the initiated included, have to live with doubts and face unique challenges? Why is it noteworthy or unfair situation that a guru would generally "write" or address his or her disciples; after all, they are the ones who through the act of initiation have made clear their desire to have that influence in their life. This relationship is open to anyone with faith in guru and scripture. (This doesn't have to be perfect faith; after all, sambandha isn't complete until asakti. It is a matter of submissiveness, not perfection.) Others don't want this relationship anyway; what's the loss?
You say that "the rest of us" have to "live with our doubts" and "answer the questions ourselves," concluding that "It's a reasonable compromise." Is it? Are not the doubts just our own ideas that run contrary to absolute truth (is there absolute truth or only relative truth)? Is there no way given in Gaudiya Vaisnavism to clear doubts? Is the only option really just to "answer the questions ourselves," i.e. take our own mind as our guru?
Comment: Compromise is generally understood to be a good thing. Is there a shade of implication that "the rest of us" are actually in a better position for their ability to compromise and their stoicism in facing a harsh reality? Are the others, the minority (through some quirk of nature or perhaps lack of depth and intelligence), able--rigidly, without compromise--to accept everything uncritically?Compromises are our reality. We on the other side have to accept them or otherwise we won't move any further and probably understand nothing. We'd feel devastated then.
Again, is not the compromise the degree to which we have our own separate ideas? Don't the initiated have these compromises (doubts) until their sambandha is complete? Our distance from Guru and Gauranga is measured by our anarthas, our false values, our ideas that run contrary to siddhanta. So what is the difference between the initiated and "the rest of us"? An openness to the idea that there is someone who knows more than our own minds, manifested as a level of submissiveness despite the fact that one doesn't have perfect sambandha/perfect surrender from the beginning. It is an openness to change--not all at once, but with time and spiritual progress.
But people are willing to understand and experience the reality Gaudiya Vaisnavas talk about to sweetly. As mentioned in another thread, it's unfortunate that a Gaudiya Vaisnavism still has that "take it or leave it" attitude, which forces many people to take such compromises in all walks of life.
Comment: People are willing to understand and experience Gaudiya Vaisnavaism, but others (can we presume the opposite of "the rest of us" here, i.e. the initiated?) won't allow people to have doubts, thus "forcing" the poor, sincere common man to the harsh compromise of following his own mind and realizations? Is this really true? Or is it not, as I've already mentioned, that even the initiated have doubts but relate to those doubts in a different way?
Comment: My God, is the pity running thick here. The initiated devotee--no, should I not say the beast!--is frightening and troubling the poor common man, desperate but happy to have been left at least a crumb ["a part of Krsna for the rest of us" (and don't we suspect that it is implied that this "part of Krsna" is actually the higher realization of Krsna)]. The poor common man is oblivious to the fact that he is afraid not of something outside of him but his own feelings about being different (when in actuality he is not different because--as he senses--everyone has some doubts). But no, I don't think I've pinpointed the real situation of "the rest of us" here: I suspect that "the rest of us" actually has not doubts but actually firm faith in his own realizations, is not a poor, misunderstood seeker pushed to the fringe of spiritual society but is himself--surprise, surprise-- the very guru of "the rest of us." Jagat guru ki jaya!Such people are often afraid to admit what they do, how they think, what's the "standard of their faith", or how they home looks like before those who are initiated. Many are afraid, few will say it even covertly, but it's obvious it troubles them deeply. Often they think their Kṛṣṇa is not the same one experienced by the initiated, or in other words, they perceive their reality is less enlightened than the initiated one. But they're so happy to have at least something, at least a part of Kṛṣṇa for the rest of us.
Vaisnavas have to deal with that problem because it's them that have created it. How is that possible, one may ask? Didn't Gaudiya Vaisnavas want to spread the good word of Kṛṣṇa throughout the world? Now when we have a dream come true, in the world where information spreads around at the speed of light and where even a school child can access to any kind of information, and where we live surrounded with all the different cultures and world views, Vaisnavas have to take further steps -- deal with all the new challenges that arise from such an accomplishment. It's not easy at all, I admit. Vaisnavism used to be mainly an intimate guru-disciple relationship, with a certain codex, or set of rules of behaviour, set in a certain environment. But that's changing now as well. Vaisnavism now exists in a wholly different environment. If Vaisnavas challenge the views of the world around them, and they often do it boldly, they also should answer some challenges themselves. If you throw a gauntlet to the world, you should at least expect the same in return. If Vaisnavas put every tidbit of the society and people around them under magnifying glass, are they afraid if someone does the same to them?
Comment: As the plight of the poor common man at the hand of the cruel initiated devotees has now been established, we can now properly understand the karma that is biting them in the butt.
It's not unfair at all. It's a sporty game, the game where a healthy relationship may take place if both parties accept the challenge and are willing to sacrifice. People may rightfully ask are the rules of conduct set sometime in 16th century India under the Muslim's government something we have to use to build our communication channels today? If people want something different, more modern, open, dynamic, very direct and talkative, are Vaisnavas ready to accept it?
Comment: What exactly does our advocate of "Krsna for the rest of us" propose? Though he isn't specific, something "different, more modern, open, dynamic, very direct and talkative" is hard to refuse. He boldly asks, "Are Vaisnavas ready to accept it"? Well, let me think about that. I guess implicit in accepting it would be to agree that the present system is archaic, closed, static, indirect, and closed-down. Hmmm.
[Note: quotations will be in bold from here on.]
People who answer back are not necessarily the offenders. And what that word means in today's world? Innocent people get killed in the streets today because to some terrorists they're offenders and infidels by their own impure existence. World has gone so far in that. But we don't want to encourage such reasoning, even in a slightest, indirect way. Many people are simply very curious and they have a right to challenge, to bridge the world of differences with their own means. They're willing to bridge the differences and Vaisnavas shouldn't always stop them. In fact, they perhaps should be encouraged because they can then be a bridge between the Vaisnavism and the rest of the world. If we treat them as offenders or inadequates, we then have a problem because we make any communication impossible. As mentioned in another thread, it creates a vacuum which no one can penetrate. Who can live in vacuum forever? I've wanted to talk about this in many different posts.
Comment: We should understand that Jagat Guru Of The Rest Of Us is showing extreme mercy here. Not only is he the guru of the larger group (the rest of us), he is now mercifully preaching to the minority initiated section here. Do you want to live in a vacuum forever?
Living on this other side gives us an opportunity to take some unique approaches when inquiring. It's not always all so bad; at least God gives us a chance to inquire everywhere, taking us from one place to another to follow his bread crumbs.
Comment: What humility. What freedom. What intimacy with God.
If a scientist wants to talk with another scientist, they don't necessarily have to follow a guru-disciple relationship and codex. They can even challenge each other and shake hands afterwards. So I can say that you, dear Syamu, had your opportunity; once you had a chance to ask questions in a different way, but now you don't. You've accepted a certain relationship with Swami and that means you have to follow a certain attitude and way of communication. If I did same as you, I'd follow your example. To others who still have an opportunity to ask and challenge slightly, this attitude doesn't make them offensive necessarily. I beg you humbly, don't observe me from your perspective then, because I will always look offensive. I can't stand a chance in anyone's eyes then and everything I try to explicate is useless.
Comment: Has Syamu really missed his opportunity? Is there not still a chance to be a scientist and not a closed-minded, judgmental schoolboy?
It's something like in school; there are PhD professors and there are college lecturers and teachers with different backgrounds and experience. Professors may sometime be challenged by lecturers on some topics, but must students always think they're quarreling? If a lecturer decides to accept the professor as the new mentor afterwards, and wants to become a student of such a fine professor, then the lecturer will also become submissive to the professor and take quite a different attitude. It's a rough analogy, but illustrates my point.
Comment: Already expertly addressed by Babhru.
I hope this will rise our communication to a much better level of understanding.
Comment: It certainly clarifies your position.
But I wholeheartedly apologise if I misunderstood the purpose of this forum: if this forum was mentioned to follow the guru-disciple codex only, then some of my posts might've been misinterpreted as inappropriate. I admit, they are slightly challenging, but with no bad intentions. If you don't want such attitudes, I apologise to everyone and it won't happen again.
Comment: Should not the above be properly read as follows: I you really can't understand my enlightened position and are dead-set in antiquated close-mindness, then please accept my obeisances at your lotus feet (and don't fail to notice my extreme humility and genteel nature).
Sometime someone may step on our feet and we may instantly think that person wants to hurt us. But that person may be limping and can't walk properly. My humble obeisances to everyone and especially to Swami.
Comment: We don't accept that you are lame, only clumsy. Please don't take our attempts to correct you as anything but an effort to help you in walking the spiritual path such that you may some day dance. However, don't fool yourself into thinking that the day for dancing has arrived. Krsna isn't leaving a path of crumbs for you. He has already said that the path to him is paved by following his pure devotees, to whom he has given himself completely. Krsna comes to people who are ready through his devotees. Leave the bridge-making to him.
Come doubts and all. It isn't the doubts that bother people anyway. It's the inordinate faith in yourself, i.e. the way you approach your doubts. As long as people see that, they will likely try to smash it down. It isn't you they are trying to smash, only your false ego. The real you isn't burdened by doubt or the guru-bhava...jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya dasa.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 3, 2008 2:19 pm
Meditating these days on the question I put and the answers I got, I felt inspired to write an article (or a small booklet) named "Follow Plan "B"!", dedicated to my Spiritual Masters, who all knew plan “B” and followed it. In it I think to narrate 5 different famous stories in which the heroes had one thing in common - they all chose to follow Plan "B" - the spiritual solution. Plan "A" was always the same - run for your life, while Plan "B" was the spiritual solution in the face of the inevitable death.
How do you find the idea?
I think it would be more engaging if you took a more hidden/surprising angle. For example, I recently read an analysis of the death of Socrates and Jesus as expressing an unconscious death wish. Although this isn't the explicit understanding, there is still a nuanced, spiritual angle that can be taken from such an apparently reverent viewpoint (which is so juicy to the postmodern reader).