A short time back I was having a discussion with a person who practices Sr Vaishnavism and also has appreciation for GV. The one thing he is uncomfortable with is that the divinities attributed to each and every personality in Gaur Lila are a prerequisite for belief in GV. I claimed it is the same for the divinity of Sri Ramanuja as Ananta but he said it is not true; one can practise Sri Vaishvism even with the belief that Sri ramanuja is a great teacher and acarya. He was saying atleast Gauranga Mahaprabhu is known by a lot of saintly people in India but it is inconceivable for him to understand divinity of Sri Advaita as Mahavisnu. An incarnation of Mahavisnu(who breathes thousands of universes) who came on the planet and nobody hardly knew about it.
Also he said Advaita Acarya's identity as Mahavisnu is not set till the C.C. In the C.B he is identified as Siva.
He was asking that isn't the belief in Advaita Prabhu's identity as Mahavisnu, Sarvabhauma identity as Brihaspati(the guru of Uddhava) and Haridas Thakur as brahma a prerequisite for practicing GV? I didn't know the answer.
He said if it yes that will make it harder and harder for people to accept GV.
I would hope devotees will help me in this answer.
He said if it yes that will make it harder and harder for people to accept GV.
Overall I am not sure but I think it will be a very, very small margin that says, "hmm, I don't know, I like Mahaprabhu and the overall philosophy, BUT i just cannot commit to Sarvabhauma being Brhaspati."
The term "prerequisite" definitely seems incorrect. I bet you can find practicing devotees for many years who don't know who is who, I didn't know about Sarvabhauma before this but I don't think it prevented me from taking to prema-bhakti-sadhana in some degree. I don't think my practice is all of a sudden going to became more sincere now that I have heard it. Gaura Ganodesha Dipika (which I think is where the who-is-who is all laid out) is not primary reading in any mission that I know of.
Lastly, to embrace Mahaprabhu's divinity because alot of people consider him saintly is just silly. More people probably worship Britney Spears.
Thinking more, it definitely is not a prerequisite. Acharya's have seen these things differently. I think different acharya's have said different things about both Haridas Thakur (Prahlad and Brahma) and Ramananda raya (Vishaka and Arjuna). Who knows how many others...
O
Lastly, to embrace Mahaprabhu's divinity because alot of people consider him saintly is just silly. More people probably worship Britney Spears.
Not a lot of people but lot of saintly people among other traditions(eg ramana maharishi, sivananda or sri vaishavas etc) consider him to be saintly. so there is a difference.
I agree with Nitai that to have faith in every aspect of a path is not a prerequisite for taking to that path. As he mentioned, not knowing Sarvabhauma's identity as Brhaspati has not hindered him in his practice. That said, what is the problem with having faith in Advaitacarya as Maha-Visnu? Every path has its articles of faith, this is one of the articles of faith that makes Gaudiya Vaisnavism what it is. It's a matter of faith that Krsna is svayam-bhagavan, and that Mahaprabhu is Krsna, so why is it such a stretch to believe that Advaita is Maha-Visnu as well? Sri Vaisnavas interpret the sastras in such a way as to say that Krsna is an avatara of Visnu, and we say the exact opposite. Each path has its arguments to back up their respective sastric intrepretations, and some people will be attracted to and develop faith in one and some the other.
I agree with Nitai that to have faith in every aspect of a path is not a prerequisite for taking to that path. As he mentioned, not knowing Sarvabhauma's identity as Brhaspati has not hindered him in his practice. That said, what is the problem with having faith in Advaitacarya as Maha-Visnu? Every path has its articles of faith, this is one of the articles of faith that makes Gaudiya Vaisnavism what it is. It's a matter of faith that Krsna is svayam-bhagavan, and that Mahaprabhu is Krsna, so why is it such a stretch to believe that Advaita is Maha-Visnu as well? Sri Vaisnavas interpret the sastras in such a way as to say that Krsna is an avatara of Visnu, and we say the exact opposite. Each path has its arguments to back up their respective sastric intrepretations, and some people will be attracted to and develop faith in one and some the other.
Main problem is that Advaita Acarya was not known as the incarnation of Mahavisnu when he was alive and this identity was attributed after his life was over. No this article of faith is essential because there is a story of how somebody was in trouble for not believing in the divinity of nityananda prabhu but believing in the divinity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Also the identity of each person in Gaur Lila is seen differently by different people like Nitai pointed out so it is hard for the outsider. Obviously we can;t always just refer to sastra as GM pointed out. There is no reference of Advaita Acarya as an incarnation of mahavisnu in sastra per se before C.C. He is identified as Siva by Vrindavan das thakur.
He was saying atleast Gauranga Mahaprabhu is known by a lot of saintly people in India.
I missed the part about saintly, I agree there.
The one thing he is uncomfortable with is that the divinities attributed to each and every personality in Gaur Lila are a prerequisite for belief in GV.
This is the problem. This simply is not true. Perhaps you are mistakenly using the word prerequisite. The prerequisite for bhakti is faith and that has been explained as "simply by serving Krsna one's life will be perfect". Can one not serve Krsna without knowing how all of his Parishads in each lila relate to other lilas?! What about all the Prabhupada disciples who did not even have CC or CB for years? Gurudas tells on his memory video how a Godbrother decided to paint the Panca Tattva...but he thought they were women and he painted them with breasts. Was he not practicing GV to some degree, being initiated already by Srila PRabhupada and chanting Krsna nama under his guidance?
Advaita-tattva is tattva. GM has said I believe that one will not become perfect without clearing all misconception, like Advaita-tattva, or as he said it in relation to, the 'fall' of the jiva. So that is there, but prerequisite means beforehand. So just how much siddhanta must one know before they are eligible? Who decides/decided? This is all just on the mental platform, theoretical as opposed to applied. I think one needs however much tattva personally allows them to think that "simply by serving Krsna one's life will be perfect". To say one must have faith in all these things before they can practice is like saying they must be finished before they can begin. The whole process is a cultivation of faith, and it does not come from just reading Gaura Ganodesha Dipika. The person who you spoke with sounds like they have read things that do not correspond to their level of interest and faith in GVism.
The sentiment of "simply by serving Krsna one's life will be perfect" seems like an openness. An openness to what that service will bring. So not positively believing Advaita is Vishnu is not a disqualification, positively believing he cannot be might be a disqualification, because it is not an openness to what serving Krsna will bring.
No this article of faith is essential because there is a story of how somebody was in trouble for not believing in the divinity of nityananda prabhu but believing in the divinity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
This is the story of Krsnadasa Kaviraja's brother. As the author of C.C., he is using a personal example to demonstrate his own faith and most importantly to increase our faith. It is said in this story that there was daily sankirtana and krsna katha in the home of this brother of Krsnadasa, and that he had faith in Mahaprabhu, but not Nityananda. So he did not accept all of the tenets of the GV faith before practicing. Mahaprabhu had himself been clarifying the position of Nitai during his lila, so to believe in Mahaprabhu, but not what he says about his brother does not make a lot of sense. Despite this, the visit of Mineketana Ramdas to the home of Krsnadas's brother seems to me to be an essential point in the growth of the brother's faith. Just as we take to certain aspects of the practice, accept some precepts and then take the next step, this brother appears to have come to an important juncture in his faith that was to be tested by the Lord, through the visit of Mineketana Ramdas.
There is no reference of Advaita Acarya as an incarnation of mahavisnu in sastra per se before C.C. He is identified as Siva by Vrindavan das thakur.
Mahavisnu=Siva. Vrindavan das Thakur is talking about Sadasiva and there is no contradiciton there. I agree with Nitaisundara though that this person is jumping the gun on faith; he/she is aware of tattva that comes through faith (who is who in the lila) and working backwards, trying to stuff those "facts" into a brain that is thinking about GV intellectually. Won't work! The who's who of GV is discovered through faith and the only contradictions that arise come from the bhava of the visionaries who have already gone beyond the intellectual/logical sphere.
Mahavisnu=Siva. Vrindavan das Thakur is talking about Sadasiva and there is no contradiciton there. I agree with Nitaisundara though that this person is jumping the gun on faith; he/she is aware of tattva that comes through faith (who is who in the lila) and working backwards, trying to stuff those "facts" into a brain that is thinking about GV intellectually. Won't work! The who's who of GV is discovered through faith and the only contradictions that arise come from the bhava of the visionaries who have already gone beyond the intellectual/logical sphere.
I think the fact that this person is a Sri Vaisnava makes it more likely that s/he would go point for point on tattva so as to assess the degree to which GV is compatible (or not) with the theistic conclusions of his or her line. The early disciples of Srila Prabhupada described above did not necessarily have the inclination, vocabulary, or access to literature that would permit a grand (and futile) assessment of GV and its many details, such as this person might be attempting. It should go without saying that in the Sri Sampradaya there are pretty major theological rifts, bigger than questions about the identity of Gaura-parishads (which in any case Madan Gopal seems to have explained).
In Sri Vaisnavism the Alwars are considered to be incarnations of the club, conch, etc of Visnu. Is it a prerequisite that one believe this in order to embark upon the path of Sri Vaisavism. Gaura-vijaya, your friend says that it is not a prerequisite to believe that Ramanuja is Ananta avatara, but Ramanuja is someone in Narayana's lila. So it is surely part of Sri Vaisnavim to realize who he is at some point, and it seems that the advanced members of the sect have identified him as Ananta and that in this there is no second opinion.
The difference here between the two samparayas with regard to their founding members, Sri Caitanya and Sri Ramanuja, is that it is central to Gaudiya Vedanta to acknowledge the divinity of Sri Caitanya, whereas this is not the case with Ramanuja and the Sri sampradaya. Furthermore, it is central to Gaudiya Vedanta to acknowledge that Sri Caitanya is svayam bhagavan, Sri Krsna and moreover Radha Krsna combined. Without acknowledging this, one cannot be a Gaudiya Vaisnava in any real sense of basic sambandha jnana. Of course there are many Gaudiyas who lack even this basic sambandha jnana, but they will have great difficulty advancing.
Now if one really understands that Sri Caitanya is svayam bhagavan and one also understands what svayam bhagavan means, then one understands that svayam bhagavan is never alone. Indeed, all of the incarnations of Godhead have their entourage. Who is the entourage of svayam bhagavan? Will they not come with him when he appears? How could they not and how could he be what he is without them (bhedadbheda)? The blessed Kavi Karnapura has tried to answer these important question.
Sri Caitanya and his followers have brought so much attention to and regard for the Sri sampradaya in the 20th century. They should think deeply about this. Those who have, reach the conclusion based on the Vayu Purnana* that Sri Caitanya is the Godhead, and avatara of Mahavisnu. The most venerable Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja says about such devotees (of centuries past) that they are not altogether mistaken. There is some truth in this angle of vision but is not that complimentary. His entire argument in the second and third chapters of Adi-ila is largely directed towards the Sri sampradaya. If they do not find these arguments convincing, they should not bother to advise us that if we would only adjust our position slightly regarding the divinity of Sri Caitanaya and the primacy of Sri Krsna in relation to all avataras we would increase our capacity to market the sampradaya and even perhaps gain their stamp of approval.
Need we say more about Sri Advaita?
Are there any other Gaudiya Vaisnavas on this forum?
*
suddho gaurah-su-dirghango
ganga-tira-samudbhavah
dayaluh-kirtana-grahi
bhavisyami kalau yuge
In the age of Kali-Yuga, I shall come [bhavisyami kalau yuge] in a place on the bank of the Ganges [ganga-tira-samudbhavah]. I will be very pure [suddhah], have a golden complexion [gaurah], and be very tall [su-dirghangah] and chant the holy names of Krishna. (Vayu Purana)
This is the story of Krsnadasa Kaviraja's brother. As the author of C.C., he is using a personal example to demonstrate his own faith and most importantly to increase our faith. It is said in this story that there was daily sankirtana and krsna katha in the home of this brother of Krsnadasa, and that he had faith in Mahaprabhu, but not Nityananda. So he did not accept all of the tenets of the GV faith before practicing. Mahaprabhu had himself been clarifying the position of Nitai during his lila, so to believe in Mahaprabhu, but not what he says about his brother does not make a lot of sense. Despite this, the visit of Mineketana Ramdas to the home of Krsnadas's brother seems to me to be an essential point in the growth of the brother's faith. Just as we take to certain aspects of the practice, accept some precepts and then take the next step, this brother appears to have come to an important juncture in his faith that was to be tested by the Lord, through the visit of Mineketana Ramdas.
Mahavisnu=Siva. Vrindavan das Thakur is talking about Sadasiva and there is no contradiciton there. I agree with Nitaisundara though that this person is jumping the gun on faith; he/she is aware of tattva that comes through faith (who is who in the lila) and working backwards, trying to stuff those "facts" into a brain that is thinking about GV intellectually. Won't work! The who's who of GV is discovered through faith and the only contradictions that arise come from the bhava of the visionaries who have already gone beyond the intellectual/logical sphere.
Thanks for your answer but Mahavisnu=siva, really?
Thanks for your answer but Mahavisnu=siva, really?
This is one of the unique contributions of Gaudiya Vedanta. Read Sanatana Goswami in Brihat-bhagavatamrta. No sampradaya has as much to say on the intricacies of Siva-tattva as the Gaudiya sampradaya, especially not the Ramanuja sect. They will not even enter the temple of Mahadeva, whereas the great Srimad Bhagavatam tells us vasnavanam yatah sambhu, "Siva is a superlative Vaisnava." What can you expect to learn from the Sri sampradaya about Siva-tattva? They should be especially open to learning from us about Siva-tattva. And yes, Sri Advaita is a special manifestation of Sadasiva. He is Maha (Siva) Visnu. Also study the theology of Cc 1.6.
Again, the special position of Siva as Vaisnava, transformation of Visnu, and Sadasiva/Visnu, etc. is all found in the seminal work of Sanatana Goswami, who identifies Bb with a commentary on Mahabharata. The teaching on Mahadeva therein is well supported with sastra pramana. That Sri Advaita is later (by Kaviraja Goswami) identified with Siva/Visnu is ture, but his Cc is an absolutely orthodox explanation of the insight of Rupa and Sanatana on Mahaprabhu Sri Caitanya. There we find Sri Advaita as the external cause of Sri Caitanya's appearance in terms of the yuga dharma/yuga avatara aspet of Mahaprabhu. Thus the identification of Advaita with Mahavisu through whom the yuga avataras descend.
So if you understand Sri Caitanya as the Kali-yuga avatara as per the Bhagavatam and ekala isvara krsna ar sab bhritya, there is a place for Mahavisnu in his lila. If you really understand GV, you will understand the scriptural logic that reveals Advaita as Mahavisnu/Siva
Thanks for your answer but Mahavisnu=siva, really?
This is one of the unique contributions of Gaudiya Vedanta. Read Sanatana Goswami in Brihat-bhagavatamrta. No sampradaya has as much to say on the intricacies of Siva-tattva as the Gaudiya sampradaya, especially not the Ramanuja sect. They will not even enter the temple of Mahadeva, whereas the great Srimad Bhagavatam tells us vasnavanam yatah sambhu, "Siva is a superlative Vaisnava." What can you expect to learn from the Sri sampradaya about Siva-tattva? They should be especially open to learning from us about Siva-tattva. And yes, Sri Advaita is a special manifestation of Sadasiva. He is Maha (Siva) Visnu. Also study the theology of Cc 1.6.
Again, the special position of Siva as Vaisnava, transformation of Visnu, and Sadasiva/Visnu, etc. is all found in the seminal work of Sanatana Goswami, who identifies Bb with a commentary on Mahabharata. The teaching on Mahadeva therein is well supported with sastra pramana. That Sri Advaita is later (by Kaviraja Goswami) identified with Siva/Visnu is ture, but his Cc is an absolutely orthodox explanation of the insight of Rupa and Sanatana on Mahaprabhu Sri Caitanya. There we find Sri Advaita as the external cause of Sri Caitanya's appearance in terms of the yuga dharma/yuga avatara aspet of Mahaprabhu. Thus the identification of Advaita with Mahavisu through whom the yuga avataras descend.
So if you understand Sri Caitanya as the Kali-yuga avatara as per the Bhagavatam and ekala isvara krsna ar sab bhritya, there is a place for Mahavisnu in his lila. If you really understand GV, you will understand the scriptural logic that reveals Advaita as Mahavisnu/Siva
Gaura-vijaya, your friend should be encouraged to read Brihad-bhagavatamrtam.It is a comprehensive study on Bhakti per sastra pramana.
This is one of the unique contributions of Gaudiya Vedanta. Read Sanatana Goswami in Brihat-bhagavatamrta. No sampradaya has as much to say on the intricacies of Siva-tattva as the Gaudiya sampradaya, especially not the Ramanuja sect. They will not even enter the temple of Mahadeva, whereas the great Srimad Bhagavatam tells us vasnavanam yatah sambhu, "Siva is a superlative Vaisnava." What can you expect to learn from the Sri sampradaya about Siva-tattva? They should be especially open to learning from us about Siva-tattva. And yes, Sri Advaita is a special manifestation of Sadasiva. He is Maha (Siva) Visnu. Also study the theology of Cc 1.6.
Again, the special position of Siva as Vaisnava, transformation of Visnu, and Sadasiva/Visnu, etc. is all found in the seminal work of Sanatana Goswami, who identifies Bb with a commentary on Mahabharata. The teaching on Mahadeva therein is well supported with sastra pramana. That Sri Advaita is later (by Kaviraja Goswami) identified with Siva/Visnu is ture, but his Cc is an absolutely orthodox explanation of the insight of Rupa and Sanatana on Mahaprabhu Sri Caitanya. There we find Sri Advaita as the external cause of Sri Caitanya's appearance in terms of the yuga dharma/yuga avatara aspet of Mahaprabhu. Thus the identification of Advaita with Mahavisu through whom the yuga avataras descend.
So if you understand Sri Caitanya as the Kali-yuga avatara as per the Bhagavatam and ekala isvara krsna ar sab bhritya, there is a place for Mahavisnu in his lila. If you really understand GV, you will understand the scriptural logic that reveals Advaita as Mahavisnu/Siva
Gaura-vijaya, your friend should be encouraged to read Brihad-bhagavatamrtam.It is a comprehensive study on Bhakti per sastra pramana.
Thank you for your clarification. I think I have discussed siva tattva in detail with you and I had read those sections in CC and Brahma Samhita but the equal sign used by Madan Gopal was kind of very vague to me. I really like sanatana gosvami's closeness to siva and I want to keep high regard for siva(your namesake) as well. I will ask my friend to look into Brihad-bhagavatamrtam. In fact my friend experienced a better feeling towards siva after hearing from me the GV perspective; he appreciated it a lot.
Only the need to accept divinities was bothering him. I was thinking about one perspective raised by you about christianity. GM you once said christianity;s insistence on the belief in the resurrection of Christ is the reason for its alienation from other people. Similar reason can be given for Islam's insistence on their religion viewpoint as the only way.
Does GV differ with them in the sense, it does not advocate eternal damnation for lack of faith in the divinities?
Also I think that people who don't have as broad understanding like me(like many people in ISKCON) have a stronger faith in GV than me as they can so much confidence in GV that they are able to deprecate everything else very easily. Is it better for a person to have stronger faith like many of the people who are slightly fanatic than to be openly listen to the argument of the other side?
Thank you for your clarification. I think I have discussed siva tattva in detail with you and I had read those sections in CC and Brahma Samhita but the equal sign used by Madan Gopal was kind of very vague to me. I really like sanatana gosvami's closeness to siva and I want to keep high regard for siva(your namesake) as well. I will ask my friend to look into Brihad-bhagavatamrtam. In fact my friend experienced a better feeling towards siva after hearing from me the GV perspective; he appreciated it a lot.Only the need to accept divinities was bothering him. I was thinking about one perspective raised by you about christianity. GM you once said christianity;s insistence on the belief in the resurrection of Christ is the reason for its alienation from other people. Similar reason can be given for Islam's insistence on their religion viewpoint as the only way.
Does GV differ with them in the sense, it does not advocate eternal damnation for lack of faith in the divinities?
Also I think that people who don't have as broad understanding like me(like many people in ISKCON) have a stronger faith in GV than me as they can so much confidence in GV that they are able to deprecate everything else very easily. Is it better for a person to have stronger faith like many of the people who are slightly fanatic than to be openly listen to the argument of the other side?
Fanaticism does not mean that one's faith is stronger, rather it's a symptom of weak (or at the very least, uninformed) faith. Who cares if they are able to deprecate other paths if they do so out of a rigid conformity to dogma? Those who are unwilling to listen to opposing arguments must in some way be afraid of having their faith challenged. Fanaticism is the death of progressive thought it should be clear that a genuinely open minded person is in a far better position than a fanatic.
Fanaticism does not mean that one's faith is stronger, rather it's a symptom of weak (or at the very least, uninformed) faith. Who cares if they are able to deprecate other paths if they do so out of a rigid conformity to dogma? Those who are unwilling to listen to opposing arguments must in some way be afraid of having their faith challenged. Fanaticism is the death of progressive thought it should be clear that a genuinely open minded person is in a far better position than a fanatic.
I am quite confused on that point; for example GM said an open minded person like George Harison may not have yet reached sraddha but obviously many fanatic people are performing even bhajan kriya so are they not more advanced than say George Harison or Huston Smith or Plato. It is hard for me to feel from within that the rigid fundamentalist people who are following a specific path are more advanced than open minded person who is sincerely trying to seek out a path but has not yet been completely sold on one yet. It may be just a product of my psychological conditioning.
I am quite confused on that point; for example GM said an open minded person like George Harison may not have yet reached sraddha but obviously many fanatic people are performing even bhajan kriya so are they not more advanced than say George Harison or Huston Smith or Plato. It is hard for me to feel from within that the rigid fundamentalist people who are following a specific path are more advanced than open minded person who is sincerely trying to seek out a path but has not yet been completely sold on one yet. It may be just a product of my psychological conditioning.
If I may add my 2 cents worth; persons who have undertaken Bhajana Kriya have accepted, with greater faith, the teachings of a form. Those who have not attempted to undertake Bhajana Kriya are deficient in their "immediate" faith (not to say it won't happen in the future). The question is, "What is it which caused a person to accept?". For some, the questions are more wholesome and in depth, and for others they can be superficial. These differences in questions and qualifications lead to differences in Nistha. While coming to the stage of Bhajana Kriya one is not free from the tendency of Vaishnava aparadha and, therefore, one cannot claim to have a "higher status". Essentially, Bhajana Kriya is a necessary function for the Jiva in their quest for Bhakti and Saranagati, but if anarthas are not weeded out and aparadha is embraced it will not lead to Nistha and Ruchi for Bhakti Yoga. Open-mindedness must come to a conclusion at some point unless you are content with simply existing and not acting. How long can one be open-minded for before they are crowned with the title, "indecisive"? In this way, Krishna Consciousness should be accepted with an educated and wholesome attitude, and not simply fanatically. Generally speaking, the more [non-argumentative] questions one has, the more in-depth their philosophical understanding will be.
Just to add the obvious point - bhakti and advancement in bhakti are not dependent on jnana. A person may be intellectually brilliant and very open minded but they have no faith in bhakti or in those who can give it to them. Advancement comes by service and surrender. One who has started on that path although he/she may be less advanced materially or intellectually is much farther along the path than one who hasn't.
Just to add the obvious point - bhakti and advancement in bhakti are not dependent on jnana. A person may be intellectually brilliant and very open minded but they have no faith in bhakti or in those who can give it to them. Advancement comes by service and surrender. One who has started on that path although he/she may be less advanced materially or intellectually is much farther along the path than one who hasn't.
Sure, I agree but they may not be yet sure because of not meeting a good sadhu. Seeing the fanaticism in the existing religious systems he may be waiting for the right sadhu instead of clubbing themselves with people who just need a rigid dogma or framework to feel good and deprecate everybody else. There is a chance that when a person is sincerely wanting to take a path he wants to examine options and he did not get a right option yet(GV). And if he is just the seeker of truth certainly even Krsna says that among four kinds of people jnani is the best. Once he takes up the process he will progress faster as he has some kind of material exhaustion. And I didn't say open-minded means that he is devoid of devotion. There is a difference between fanatic devotion and open-minded sincerity to look for a good path.
But yes maybe fanatic devotion is better than open-minded sincerity to chose the right path but maybe I have to accept that on faith.
And if he is just the seeker of truth certainly even Krsna says that among four kinds of people jnani is the best. Once he takes up the process he will progress faster as he has some kind of material exhaustion.
Sorry to deviate slightly from the main flow of the thread, but the above is an interesting point. Guru Maharaja has made the point in contrast to the above-mentioned that it's better to be a karmi than a jnani, because jnana-samskara is harder to get rid of, is more opposed to devotion, and has more dangerous consequences.
How do we reconcile this?
Sorry to deviate slightly from the main flow of the thread, but the above is an interesting point. Guru Maharaja has made the point in contrast to the above-mentioned that it's better to be a karmi than a jnani, because jnana-samskara is harder to get rid of, is more opposed to devotion, and has more dangerous consequences.
How do we reconcile this?
Well, first off I think the interpretation of the verses from the Gita that Gaura Vijaya is referring to is incorrect. In 7.16 Krsna is talking about those who take up the path of bhakti and in 7.17 Krsna makes it clear that the person of knowledge who is the topmost is one who is 'ever united with me in devotion' it is this 'jnani' who Krsna says is best. We have to be clear what we are talking about because the jnana in general is one thing and jnana-misra bhakti is quite another. Still higher is unalloyed devotion which is who Krsna says is 'best'.
You know that Guru Maharaja has pointed out many times and you can also find it in many of Srila Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhara Maharaja's books that he always made a strong point to those with strong intelligence and a tendency toward an approach through jnana - jnana sunya bhakti - that is the way - you cannot approach properly by relying on the intellect and those that are conditioned to try to do so have a difficult samskara to overcome. I believe that is the salient point.
Regarding religious fanatics within the general Gaudiya Vaishnava population - certainly this is a problem. Still, the impetus to take up the path of bhakti and engage in bhakti sadhana is present in them. With some sincerity of heart Krsna will guide them to a sadhu who can guide them and help them progress. Remember that namabhasais very powerful and higher than any type of jnana. Furthermore with a sincere heart it will gradually lead to a clearing of anarthas and suddha nama.
Well, first off I think the interpretation of the verses from the Gita that Gaura Vijaya is referring to is incorrect. In 7.16 Krsna is talking about those who take up the path of bhakti and in 7.17 Krsna makes it clear that the person of knowledge who is the topmost is one who is 'ever united with me in devotion' it is this 'jnani' who Krsna says is best. We have to be clear what we are talking about because the jnana in general is one thing and jnana-misra bhakti is quite another. Still higher is unalloyed devotion which is who Krsna says is 'best'.
You know that Guru Maharaja has pointed out many times and you can also find it in many of Srila Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhara Maharaja's books that he always made a strong point to those with strong intelligence and a tendency toward an approach through jnana - jnana sunya bhakti - that is the way - you cannot approach properly by relying on the intellect and those that are conditioned to try to do so have a difficult samskara to overcome. I believe that is the salient point.
Regarding religious fanatics within the general Gaudiya Vaishnava population - certainly this is a problem. Still, the impetus to take up the path of bhakti and engage in bhakti sadhana is present in them. With some sincerity of heart Krsna will guide them to a sadhu who can guide them and help them progress. Remember that namabhasais very powerful and higher than any type of jnana. Furthermore with a sincere heart it will gradually lead to a clearing of anarthas and suddha nama.
I don't think that kind of negativity was associated with the jnana marga as after the introduction of mayavada philosophy. V.S then begins with jnana "athato brahma jijnasa" so if you see it with some objectivity there is some merit to sincere inquiry.
There are four kinds of people-a seeker of absolute, distressed etc and he says that among the 4 jnani is the best. Obviously jnana-misra bhakti is better than karma-misra bhakti(the other people). How does it make you think that all people who are practising devotion in GV are doing suddha bhakti.
Secondly in Jaiva Dharma BVT shows a person with jnana background attains nistha faster after coming in contact with devotee as some of his anarthas have been removed through jnana already.
Also in the other thread(12.12) we can see that jnana is accepted as krsna as a good step. So I think there is a history of mayavada which makes it important to downplay jnana. Otherwise sambandha jnana is required and some of the concepts of jnana marga are similar to GV. The four kumaras and sukhdeva progressed very fast once they came to bhakti. Once you are in brahma bhuta platform(achieved through bhakti,yoga or jnana) then you will start doing suddha bhakti if and when you start bhakti.
Free from all contaminations of material desires, the distressed, the inquisitive, the penniless and the seeker after supreme knowledge can all become pure devotees. But out of them, he who is in knowledge of the Absolute Truth and free from all material desires becomes a really pure devotee of the Lord.(from purport of SP)
On the whole I think there is merit to arguments on both sides some things from jnana are damaging and some can be beneficial though mayavada is not beneficial at all. And like GM the path of bhakti is not straight; so we can leave this as a mystery.
I don't think that kind of negativity was associated with the jnana marga as after the introduction of mayavada philosophy. V.S then begins with jnana "athato brahma jijnasa" so if you see it with some objectivity there is some merit to sincere inquiry.There are four kinds of people-a seeker of absolute, distressed etc and he says that among the 4 jnani is the best. Obviously jnana-misra bhakti is better than karma-misra bhakti(the other people). How does it make you think that all people who are practising devotion in GV are doing suddha bhakti.
Secondly in Jaiva Dharma BVT shows a person with jnana background attains nistha faster after coming in contact with devotee as some of his anarthas have been removed through jnana already.
Also in the other thread(12.12) we can see that jnana is accepted as krsna as a good step. So I think there is a history of mayavada which makes it important to downplay jnana. Otherwise sambandha jnana is required and some of the concepts of jnana marga are similar to GV. The four kumaras and sukhdeva progressed very fast once they came to bhakti. Once you are in brahma bhuta platform(achieved through bhakti,yoga or jnana) then you will start doing suddha bhakti if and when you start bhakti.
I don't think that all people who are practicing GV are doing suddha bhakti. Where did you get that idea? The potential is there, but few reach that stage - it is very rare. Still, those who do take up the path and have faith instilled in them by a suddha vaishnava are definitely better situated than a seeker who is following the jnana marg and has no faith in bhakti.
What did Rupa Goswami say about the paths of jnana and karma? Since we accept that the Srimad Bhagavatam is a natural commentary on Vedanta Sutra we certainly do not accept the idea you are suggesting by the first aphorism. Inquiry into Brahman means inquiry into who is Krsna and how to please him. In the bhakti marg jnana is not given much importance. It has it's place in helping in early stages but, at least according to Srimad Bhagavatam, one who engages whole heartedly in bhakti yoga - to that person causeless knowledge and detachment come. For the devotee the interest in jnana is simply to increase devotion, other than that there really is no use in the pursuit. Krsna is unlimited and therefore the search for jnana can go on unlimitedly without ever developing faith in bhakti devi. Vedanta Sutra also points out the limits of logic and reason and ultimately points to revelation and bhakti.
I really think the point is rather simple and I don't agree that it is a response to advaitavada. The point rather is that pursuit of truth through the excercise of the mind and by gathering information has it's limits. What can the mind, which is finite, really know of the infinite? It is really a fools pursuit but the more one pursues it the more one becomes enthralled with the process. The mind can be very captivating and the idea of knowing through the mind so strong that it is difficult for those who are conditioned by that to get beyond it. We use our minds in bhakti with the goal of getting past the mind's demands and the impediments it puts in the way of our progress.
I don't think that all people who are practicing GV are doing suddha bhakti. Where did you get that idea? The potential is there, but few reach that stage - it is very rare. Still, those who do take up the path and have faith instilled in them by a suddha vaishnava are definitely better situated than a seeker who is following the jnana marg and has no faith in bhakti.
What did Rupa Goswami say about the paths of jnana and karma? Since we accept that the Srimad Bhagavatam is a natural commentary on Vedanta Sutra we certainly do not accept the idea you are suggesting by the first aphorism. Inquiry into Brahman means inquiry into who is Krsna and how to please him. In the bhakti marg jnana is not given much importance. It has it's place in helping in early stages but, at least according to Srimad Bhagavatam, one who engages whole heartedly in bhakti yoga - to that person causeless knowledge and detachment come. For the devotee the interest in jnana is simply to increase devotion, other than that there really is no use in the pursuit. Krsna is unlimited and therefore the search for jnana can go on unlimitedly without ever developing faith in bhakti devi. Vedanta Sutra also points out the limits of logic and reason and ultimately points to revelation and bhakti.
I really think the point is rather simple and I don't agree that it is a response to advaitavada. The point rather is that pursuit of truth through the excercise of the mind and by gathering information has it's limits. What can the mind, which is finite, really know of the infinite? It is really a fools pursuit but the more one pursues it the more one becomes enthralled with the process. The mind can be very captivating and the idea of knowing through the mind so strong that it is difficult for those who are conditioned by that to get beyond it. We use our minds in bhakti with the goal of getting past the mind's demands and the impediments it puts in the way of our progress.
But you have to go beyond the mind even in jnana marga. Jnana without yoga is useless according to sankara. So even a person who is accepting jnana marga will accept that he can't understand everything through the mind and intellect(B.G chapter 3). Even an advaita person will accept this. When I say jnana it doesn;t mean advaitavada and it is never meant like that in the B.G.
Jnana is not about gathering information, it is about realizing its limits. you are confusing jnana with information gathering which is not the way it is used in B.G. I was talking about sincere inquirer of truth but you want to club all sincere inquirers to jnana(information gatherers) then don't you think you are making too generic a statement. This is the maximum an individual soul can do until bhakti devi descends unto him. Sincere inquiry is the maximum limit of the soul.At that point his sincerity is his devotion. If somebody is sincere is greece and there is no devotee with deep realization there then what option does he have until he meets a sadhu like GM? And the person who is fanatic is abusing the opportunity granted by bhakti devi by offending devotees and everybody.
But you have to go beyond the mind even in jnana marga. Jnana without yoga is useless according to sankara. So even a person who is accepting jnana marga will accept that he can't understand everything through the mind and intellect(B.G chapter 3). Even an advaita person will accept this. When I say jnana it doesn;t mean advaitavada and it is never meant like that in the B.G.Jnana is not about gathering information, it is about realizing its limits. you are confusing jnana with information gathering which is not the way it is used in B.G. I was talking about sincere inquirer of truth but you want to club all sincere inquirers to jnana(information gatherers) then don't you think you are making too generic a statement. This is the maximum an individual soul can do until bhakti devi descends unto him. Sincere inquiry is the maximum limit of the soul.At that point his sincerity is his devotion. If somebody is sincere is greece and there is no devotee with deep realization there then what option does he have until he meets a sadhu like GM? And the person who is fanatic is abusing the opportunity granted by bhakti devi by offending devotees and everybody.
I have no idea why I am up so late. I can't seem to sleep. Oh well. Gaura Vijaya, I am not trying to argue with you really just addressing the doubt you expressed. You started this line to conversation saying you couldn't feel right with the idea that a practicing vaishnava fanatic could be more advanced than an open minded person and gave three examples of such as George Harrison, Huston Smith and Plato. That led me to point out the clear distinction between intellectual open-mindedness and bhakti. There are many people with all sorts of different backgrounds that have sukriti for bhakti due to association with sadhus. They have taken up the path but are in the clearing stage. You may resonate more with one type of practioner than another due to your own conditioning but don't let that cloud your vision such that you cannot see the difference between one engaged in bhakti sadhana and one who has no such faith.
You're obviously correct that jnana marg is not equivalent to all types of information gathering or intellectual pursuits. I was purposefully mixing them up a bit, although technically it's incorrect. My reasoning for that was to keep the connection to your comment/question that started this line of discussion in the first place. Look at the verse in the 12th chapter of the BG where Arjuna asks about the two paths, specifically jnana and bhakti paths. Krsna is clear on his answer and in Srila Prabhupada's commentary he makes the same point that Guru Maharaja has made, one conditioned to approach the truth through the path of jnana is troubled by that samskara even after taking up the bhakti path.
I would ask you now to direct your attention to Guru Nistha's comment/question. How to reconcile your contention that progress is swift and those who come to bhakti from the jnana marg are better situated than others with Guru Maharaja's point about the difficulties of having that type of samskara in taking up bhakti? I don't think your examples of the four Kumara's or Sukadeva fit here because clearly they are exceptional in that they are realizers of the truth and not 'practicioners' in the sense we are discussing. Talking about, reading about, hearing about transcendence is much different than experiencing it. One engaged in bhakti sadhana is talking about Krsna, reading about Krsna, hearing about Krsna, chanting about Krsna etc. and because Krsna and his name, form and pastimes are non-different from himself, such a devotee has direct experience of Krsna. The devotee transcends the mental and intellectual planes by direct engagement in bhakti under the guidance of the sad guru. The person trying to approach transcendence through jnana has no such direct engagement. Krsna sums it up by saying that advancement on that path is very difficult for those who are embodied.
I don't think your original comment about open minded would include devotional, but even if it did, surely you are not talking about bhakti. Plato and Huston Smith have no such devotion to my knowledge. They are both seekers and both very open minded, much more than most devotees to be sure, but they do not have sraddha in Krsna bhakti. Afterall, that is what we are talking about when we speak of devotion as gaudiya vaishnavas - we aren't talking about a generic feeling of dependence on a higher power or a simple acknowledement that there is someone/something greater than us.
I have no idea why I am up so late. I can't seem to sleep. Oh well. Gaura Vijaya, I am not trying to argue with you really just addressing the doubt you expressed. You started this line to conversation saying you couldn't feel right with the idea that a practicing vaishnava fanatic could be more advanced than an open minded person and gave three examples of such as George Harrison, Huston Smith and Plato. That led me to point out the clear distinction between intellectual open-mindedness and bhakti. There are many people with all sorts of different backgrounds that have sukriti for bhakti due to association with sadhus. They have taken up the path but are in the clearing stage. You may resonate more with one type of practioner than another due to your own conditioning but don't let that cloud your vision such that you cannot see the difference between one engaged in bhakti sadhana and one who has no such faith.
You're obviously correct that jnana marg is not equivalent to all types of information gathering or intellectual pursuits. I was purposefully mixing them up a bit, although technically it's incorrect. My reasoning for that was to keep the connection to your comment/question that started this line of discussion in the first place. Look at the verse in the 12th chapter of the BG where Arjuna asks about the two paths, specifically jnana and bhakti paths. Krsna is clear on his answer and in Srila Prabhupada's commentary he makes the same point that Guru Maharaja has made, one conditioned to approach the truth through the path of jnana is troubled by that samskara even after taking up the bhakti path.
I would ask you now to direct your attention to Guru Nistha's comment/question. How to reconcile your contention that progress is swift and those who come to bhakti from the jnana marg are better situated than others with Guru Maharaja's point about the difficulties of having that type of samskara in taking up bhakti? I don't think your examples of the four Kumara's or Sukadeva fit here because clearly they are exceptional in that they are realizers of the truth and not 'practicioners' in the sense we are discussing. Talking about, reading about, hearing about transcendence is much different than experiencing it. One engaged in bhakti sadhana is talking about Krsna, reading about Krsna, hearing about Krsna, chanting about Krsna etc. and because Krsna and his name, form and pastimes are non-different from himself, such a devotee has direct experience of Krsna. The devotee transcends the mental and intellectual planes by direct engagement in bhakti under the guidance of the sad guru. The person trying to approach transcendence through jnana has no such direct engagement. Krsna sums it up by saying that advancement on that path is very difficult for those who are embodied.
I don't think your original comment about open minded would include devotional, but even if it did, surely you are not talking about bhakti. Plato and Huston Smith have no such devotion to my knowledge. They are both seekers and both very open minded, much more than most devotees to be sure, but they do not have sraddha in Krsna bhakti. Afterall, that is what we are talking about when we speak of devotion as gaudiya vaishnavas - we aren't talking about a generic feeling of dependence on a higher power or a simple acknowledement that there is someone/something greater than us.
I was just sympathetic to people who are sincere but bhakti has not descended unto them opposed to people who got the bhakti devi and abuse this opportunity to offend everybody else and be in a ego trip that they are the greatest, only their guru is greatest etc.
That is my personal opinion. That is all.
I don't think your original comment about open minded would include devotional, but even if it did, surely you are not talking about bhakti. Plato and Huston Smith have no such devotion to my knowledge. They are both seekers and both very open minded, much more than most devotees to be sure, but they do not have sraddha in Krsna bhakti. Afterall, that is what we are talking about when we speak of devotion as gaudiya vaishnavas - we aren't talking about a generic feeling of dependence on a higher power or a simple acknowledement that there is someone/something greater than us.
I think you are more in tune with Gaudiya siddhanta represented by acaryas than me. I need to be vary about not offending krsna's devotee. When I reflect, I see that many so called "fanatic" devotees are doing more sadhana than me( all chanting in the morning, never eating outside, sleeping less) so I need to learn from that. Best thing to do for me is get inspired by this example set by devotees though they maybe fanatic and at the same time keep up the sincere inquiry attitude of Socrates.
I think even though I have seen the example of violent Islamic fundamentalism in Kashmir there were some people who were fundamentalist but not violent and they practiced prayer 5 times a day, had no alcohol, no television etc. In that sense they are more devoted than me towards their sadhana. Similar is the case with Christian fundamentalist who have great faith in Christ and practice very sincerely.
At least personally I feel that Rumi and Plato are more sincere and spiritual realized than me even though I may be following a higher path than them. If they take up the opportunity of practicing GV then they will advance faster than me. So I try to speak up for such people so that they are afforded the opportunity the practice GV and their progress is not hampered by the fanatic elements in GV.
But in the end this is a personal discussion and not a tattva discussion so I stop.
The fact that a jnana samskara is not favorable to bhakti is evident in a person like Smith, a jnana practitioner who has had considerable exposure to bhakti but cannot identify with its logic. Still he may be more spiritually advanced than many devotees, and should he convert, he may make more rapid advancement than many devotees. Of course we do not know how spiritually advanced Smith is and most likely he is not very advanced spiritually but is educated, broadminded, sincere, and possessed of considerable personal integrity—a good catch.
As for those who are actually spiritually advanced on the jnana marg, should they come to bhakti they will definitely make rapid advancement. So devotees should understand this and respect such people knowing them to be more spiritually advanced, while they themselves are more fortunate due to their samskara for bhakti. More fortunate, that is, to the extent that they take advantage of the opportunity they have, and in doing so they can also get some inspiration from jnanis who are spiritually advanced—who have advanced further in that which is common to bhakti and jana, such as sense control, etc.
Gurunistha, a month or so ago we were reading from Sermons of the Guardian of Devotion and SSM make an interesting comment as to how jnana smaskara is more problematic than karma samskara. Perhaps you could locate that comment and post it.
Sermons of the Guardian of Devotion, Vol.1, Chapter Faith in the Land of Sacrifice:
Of exploitation and renunciation (bhukti and mukti), renunciation is more dangerous, because it holds a greater position than exploitation. It can exploit more, just as half-truth is more dangerous than falsehood. It can misguide the devotees more. It has its own special glamour, over and above exploitation. It can capture the scholars. One who wants relief can think, "Oh, this is the conception of relief; there is no further." Renunciation captures those who may have been making real progress towards their good, and tells them, "Yes, you have come here, you have succeeded." It captures them in the name of the higher plane. Renunciation holds some prestige over exploitation; people think, "Oh, that must be the highest goal." So, in this way, half-truth is more dangerous than falsehood.
se du 'era madhye visayi tabu bhala
mayavadi-sanga nahi magi kona kala
(Saranagati, 27)
"The association of a materialist is preferable to that of a mayavadi"
If the mayavadi can make you enter into the cell of sayujya-mukti, the liberation of merging with the Absolute, you are finished. There is no calculable time when you will be able to emerge from it. But if you are in materialism, visaya, the recruiters may come to you. You may get a chance of meeting a preacher in this material world. But in sayujya-mukti you are nowhere. It is very difficult and rare to awaken you from the deepest possible sleep.
This is somewhat of an obvious point but it was not directly brought up: In GM's Gita it is completely clear in the commentary on the verses from the 7th chapter that Krsna is referring to the fully realized jnani who takes to bhakti. I think Gaura Vijaya's reference to the Kumaras and Sukadeva is appropriate. In the commentary to 7.18 GM even illustrates his point with a story about the Kumaras.