Home

Forums

Topics

Members

Tattva-viveka

words of sadhu and sastra

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - September 25, 2006 3:58 pm

I was discussing with one devotee the fall issue. I started to quote Bhaktivinoda Thakura Jaiva Dharma, where he is discribing us as being emanated from Maha Visnu. This devotee asked me however if I could quote sastras not just sadhu. I was litlle bit unsure what to say, because I was considering writings of Bhaktivinoda Thakura as a sastra, similarly as writings of Goswamis, but actually now I am not sure what to think.

We know that Krsna can empower some Vaisnavas to write sastra, but when we can start to consider words of sadhu sastra? Some of devotees think that Srila Prabhupadas purports are sastra, and Prabhupada himself was saying that it was Krsna who wrote it. So is it sastra?

We consider writings of Goswamis sastra, but what´s the diffrence between their words and Prabhupad´s?

Thanks.

I hope you will not get fed up of my questions, however silly and unmature they may seem sometimes

Madangopal - September 25, 2006 4:39 pm

I think you have some really good questions prabhu. Don't be shy about asking!

What I think at first glance is:

1) You should have told that devotee that in Bhagavad Gita Krsna says "Once having gone there (His abode) one never returns. A better question to ask (for this devotees particular interpretation of sastra) is where in sastra is it said that devotees fall? The only instance involves lila, Jaya and Vijaya.

2) As for sastra, there is a distinction made sometimes within Hinduism between different types of scripture. Sruti is said to have been spoken, or manifest directly from the absolute. Certain people will classify the Veda only as belonging to this category. It can be said that the Brahmana class argued this way to keep their exclusive "rights" over sastric interpretation, and therefore social structures in place that may favor them.

The other category of sastra is Smrti which consists of commentaries, the works of sages, the puranas, itihasa, etc. These are primarily what Hinduism today uses for its sastra base, and what we heavily rely upon. Sages in our lineage comment on the sruti and smrti and we consider their interpretations the greatest sastra. Often times commentary by a sage can benefit the audience more than the scripture alone because he/she is the "active" agent, applying the teaching to the audience.

We would argue though that depending upon smrti is not a fault, and I believe in Tattva Sandarba Jiva Goswami gives a detailed argument about the value of smrti and the lack of available sruti. We also say that the Gita can be considered sruti because it is directly manifest from the mouth of the absolute, even though it is contained within a history - Mahabharat.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - September 25, 2006 5:08 pm

2) Sages in our lineage comment on the sruti and smrti and we consider their interpretations the greatest sastra. Often times commentary by a sage can benefit the audience more than the scripture alone because he/she is the "active" agent, applying the teaching to the audience.

 

We would argue though that depending upon smrti is not a fault, and I believe in Tattva Sandarba Jiva Goswami gives a detailed argument about the value of smrti and the lack of available sruti. We also say that the Gita can be considered sruti because it is directly manifest from the mouth of the absolute, even though it is contained within a history - Mahabharat.

Thank you Madan Gopal for encouragement. I am very happy to come across this forum, and company of such nice devotees. I hope I will be able to meet all of you personally one day.

I understand the point that commentary of pure devotee has even more value for us, providing us with explanations that are more accessible for us then sruti itself, but can we use their words as an evidence? In one discussion here, I forgot which one Swami says that Prabhupada´s words are words of sadhu and guru, not sastra so it shouldn´t be used as a scriptural evidence.

So my particular questions:

- What is the difference between writings of Goswamis and Prabhupada (what makes one of it evidence, and the other not) ?

- Are writings of Bhaktivinoda Thakura in sastra category, or words of sadhu category?

- The same with Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Maharaja

PS As the further argumenting with that devotee I´m giving up. It is like "throwing beans at the wall"- like we say in Poland meaning whatever you say it just bounce away. Whatever I say, he´s not listening.

We would argue though that depending upon smrti is not a fault, and I believe in Tattva Sandarba Jiva Goswami gives a detailed argument about the value of smrti and the lack of available sruti. We also say that the Gita can be considered sruti because it is directly manifest from the mouth of the absolute, even though it is contained within a history - Mahabharat.

This argument can be used as well by devotees quoting fragments of Prabhupada´s books where he´s saying we can actually fall from spiritual world, and as far as I know there are numerous statement like this made by him. So how we understand it?

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - September 25, 2006 10:50 pm

This argument can be used as well by devotees quoting fragments of Prabhupada´s books where he´s saying we can actually fall from spiritual world, and as far as I know there are numerous statement like this made by him. So how we understand it?

A lot of statements which Srila Prabhupada made should be taken in consideration of the level of the audience. Srila Prabhupada was talking to mostly Christian audience who was comfortable and familiar with classical Biblical view of original sin (the Fall). How will you explain to the 4 year old child that Earth is a sphere 7,926 miles in diameter rotating around the Sun at a speed of 66,638 miles per hour, one of the billions planets in the Universe? Sometimes it’s easier to say that it’s flat. Not a lie, just a simplification.

Audarya-lila Dasa - September 26, 2006 12:34 am

I think the question of what is accepted as scripture depends on individual interpretation. When discussing philosophical and scriptural points with those outside the Gaudiya tradition, the Goswami Granthas cannot be used as valid scriptural evidence. However, they are definitely used that way within our tradition as are the writings of Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura.

The point that Guru Maharaja made about citing scripture not commentary is a good one to bring up in this context. I would like to hear Guru Maharaja's comments on this thread. It seems fairly obvious that a particular idea from scripture may be applied within the context of time, place and circumstance and will of necessity change as those things change. Therefore, commentaries that focus on applications based on those considerations will always be in need of adjustment and updating to remain current.

As far as the origen of the jiva and whether or not jivas fall from Vaikuntha goes - that type of question is a matter of siddhanta and doesn't depend on time, place or circumstance. To establish the truth in such a matter scriptural evidence is the standard. A spiritual master may say quite a few different things depending on time, place and circumstance. The context of statements must always be taken into consideration. At any rate, the standard for philosophical debate and to ascertain the siddhanta is to cite scripture.

There are many things that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur or Srila Prabhpuada said or wrote that don't fall into the absolute category and should not be used as 'evidence' in a debate over siddhanta. Unfortunately there are many fanatics that would consider such a statement as this to be blasphemous - but that doesn't make it any less true.

One of the things that Guru Maharaja stresses to his students who read the Chaitanya Caritamrita is that they pay attention to how Krsnadasa Kaviraja cites scritpure to support the points he is making. He recommends to all of us to look up those references and to understand the arguments carefully. This is the proper method of establishing truth.

Madangopal - September 26, 2006 12:38 am

Swami is making the point that taking the words of guru out of the context of sastra does a disservice to him. Though the commentaries of the acaryas are in a sense better than the sastra, they are nothing on their own. We do not value the words of the acaryas like the ritviks or other deviants who use the guru's words against the tenets of sastra. The commentaries of the guru bring out the meaning of sastra, they are integral to the understanding of sastra, but they have value because of their relationship to sastra. We do not separate guru's words from sastra and make them more important, rather they become more important when we see the connection to sastra.

There is an example given that the two eyes are like the sadhu and guru. The sun is like the sastra. You must have eyes to see - you must have the instruction of guru and sadhu to progress. But without the sun, the eyes have no power to see anything. The sun is the source of the sight, not the instrument- the eyeballs. Sastra is the foundation and the guru elucidates the meaning. When you have sunlight and the power to see, you can see so many beautiful things. To have sunlight but be blind is unfortunate as is having sight but living in darkness.

Yes, sastra is most important in one sense. Guru/acarya/sadhu commentary is more important only if you understand this first point. As Sridhar Maharaj would say, the two work together. Sastra is the passive agent, and sadhu/guru is the active agent, making sure you understand the sastra.

Prabhupada, Saraswati Thakur, Bhaktivinoda, any acarya; their words are most important, especially the closer they are to us because they are revealing sastra to us. Taken away from context of sastra they lose their importance.

Prabhupada said many things, but in context of sastra his statements make sense. Only when taken out of context do people become confused. His words must be verified by the sastra.

p.s. Good move on stopping the argument. If the beans are bouncing, better stop throwing!

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - September 26, 2006 6:14 am

Thank you all for taking part in this discussion. It is very enlighting.

p.s. Good move on stopping the argument. If the beans are bouncing, better stop throwing!

Yeah, but sometimes someone's arogance can really make you angry. But I guess if I come to the point of anger, it means that I am really not helping my spiritual life.

I saw interesting things talking with these dovotees. All discussion they were very patronizing, and not really paying attantion to my words. In one point I even posted "Illuminations on jiva tattva", but then I realized that noone even had a look. It makes me think that they were not really interested in knowing my arguments. And finally when I challenged them: show me quote saying that we fall from nitya lila of Krsna, they answered "It's enough for me that Prabhupada is saying this", and between lines it was judging me, that if I dont agree I am betraying Prabhupada.

I know that to talk about this kind of sensitive things require some tactfulnes, and I tryied my best not to provoke anyone, specially that I knew these devotees, so in this point I left discussion for good.

I dont want to make impression that I'm starting these kind of controversial discussions just to have a fun. The forum where I discussed these things is "my" place for years, and it was often my only sadhu-sanga I could have, so I just wanted to share, and to have healthy talk about controversial things, but this time it just turned very bad. Like I was touching some tabu topic. It is really dissipointing and depressing.

Any way thanks again. ____o_

Swami - September 26, 2006 4:29 pm

There are innumerable scriptural citations in which Mahavisnu is described as the source of the baddha jiva. One that everyone must accept is Bhagavad-gita 14.4. tasam brahma mad yonir aham bija pradah pita. Here Krsna has identified himself as Mahavisnu and stated that Mahavisnu is the source of the baddha jiva. Read Sri Visvanatha's tika. It is Mahavisnu who "glances" at material nature and "impregnates" her making possible the baddha jiva's apparent birth (see Darwin) from material nature.

Similarly Cc states

düra haite purusa kare mäyäte avadhäna

jiva-rüpa virya täte karena ädhäna

"The first purusa casts his glance at mäyä from a distance, and thus he impregnates her with the seed of life in the form of the living entities. (Cc 1.5.66)

Just prior to this Cc explains

‘jiva’-näma tatasthäkhya eka sakti haya

mahä-sankarsana—saba jivera äsraya

"There is one marginal potency, known as the jiva. Mahä-sankarsana is the shelter of all jivas."

The idea is that while Maha sankarsana is the resting place of all jiva sakti, he manifests as Mahavisnu for the sake of sristi-lila or creation and with him comes the jiva-sakti that he impregnates the material nature with. This is the lila that the baddha jiva 'originates" within.

Those who say that whatever Prabhupada syas on this issue is enough for them, must deal with the fact that he said different things at different times. Then they must see which of his remarks are in concert with sastra and siddhanta and which were employed for preaching in terms of time and circumstances, for preaching and siddhnata are not always one and the same. More beans on the wall perhaps, but at least you are learning something.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - September 26, 2006 6:04 pm

Thank you Maharaja.

Is in't that quotes you gave may speak about impregnating living beings into material creation in the beginning of every new creation, after they were "suck in" in the end of last creation, so they don't have to be evidence for jivas being originated from Maha Visnu? How to answer this point?

Swami - September 27, 2006 1:16 am

Thank you Maharaja.

Is in't that quotes you gave may speak about impregnating living beings into material creation in the beginning of every new creation, after they were "suck in" in the end of last creation, so they don't have to be evidence for jivas being originated from Maha Visnu? How to answer this point?

Well that is the point. The "creation" cycles are anadi, beginningless. Therfore the term nitya baddha jiva.

We have thre types of jivas, nitya siddha, sadhana siddha, and nitya baddha. If the sadhana siddhas do not fall (yad gatva na nivartante tad dhama paramam mama) and if the nitya sidhas do not fall (if they do, theoretically speaking Prabhupada maybe on his way down), then that only leaves the nitya baddhas, who have laways been here and whose souce is Mahavisnu.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - May 9, 2007 9:43 pm

I would like to refresh this topic, because I got litlle bit confused lately. So the possibility of falling from Vaikuntha is ruled out. Then there are two possibilities:

-we are in material world always, and in one point we can choose to serve Krsna

-we had a choice "once" in the untraceble point before the beginning of time, after being emaneted by Maha Visnu, and we choose material world.

I know it is simplification saying "we were once", takieng under consideration that karma is anadi, but what to do with such statement?:

A jiva is a spark of the eternal consciousness. A jiva is first situated on the line of demarcation between the material world and the spiritual world. There those jivas who do not forget their relation with Krsna derive the power of consciousness and are drawn into the spiritual world-they come in eternal touch with Krsna and enjoy beatitude arising from the worship of Krsna. And those who forget Krsna and give themselves up to maya's enjoyments, maya'with her own force draws them into herself. It is from that very moment that we fall into the misery of this world. (Jaiva Dharma, chapter 7, page 95-96)

It looks like there was a moment that we had a choice before entering this material world? From this statement it seems that in the very beginning when Maha Visnu brought us to being, some of the souls saw beatifull light of spiritual world, and they were drown to it, and some of jivas (we) were attracted to the dark side of the river, so we came here.

I know it is not all important thing, but I would like to know, for the sake of preaching, and discussion, so please give me a hand here.

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - May 9, 2007 11:55 pm

Then there are two possibilities:

-we are in material world always, and in one point we can choose to serve Krsna

-we had a choice "once" in the untraceble point before the beginning of time, after being emaneted by Maha Visnu, and we choose material world.

We don’t choose, we get blessing to serve Krsna which comes from the above, only bhakti begets bhakti -- “bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya”. Another point is that we are here for mercy, not justice. So, asking “Why I’m suffering here while others are enjoying nityalila in the company of the Lord and his associates?” is folly. Tatastha sakti is the line between the ocean and the shore, sometimes it’s on the land and sometimes it’s in water because of waves or a tide. We get mercy with that wave, so we have to ride it to the ocean or we will be stranded on dry land. There is no beginning to the tide; important thing is to catch that wave!

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - May 10, 2007 8:27 am

We don’t choose, we get blessing to serve Krsna which comes from the above, only bhakti begets bhakti -- “bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya”. Another point is that we are here for mercy, not justice. So, asking “Why I’m suffering here while others are enjoying nityalila in the company of the Lord and his associates?” is folly. Tatastha sakti is the line between the ocean and the shore, sometimes it’s on the land and sometimes it’s in water because of waves or a tide. We get mercy with that wave, so we have to ride it to the ocean or we will be stranded on dry land. There is no beginning to the tide; important thing is to catch that wave!

In the beginning I had some problems with accepting this point (“Why I’m suffering here while others are enjoying nityalila in the company of the Lord and his associates?”), but after listening to Swami addressing this issue so many times, from so many angles I accepted it, and it seems to me the most acceptable explanation. However here I am concerned with the particular statement by Bhaktivinod Thakur, that I quoted earlier. What is he referring to?

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - May 10, 2007 9:11 am

We don’t choose, we get blessing to serve Krsna which comes from the above, only bhakti begets bhakti -- “bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya”.

I just read your post again and saw these words. How to undesrtand that we dont choose? I know- we have to get in touch with Krsna's devotee, and his bhakti will wake bhakti in our hearts, but when we get to meet him? Not when we are ready? Not when after all the lessons in the material world, after so many births, we "decide" somehow, deeply in our hearts that we want to finish our buisness here? We say sometimes that this material world has educational value, showing us that we can not be happy being "married" to matter, but if we couldnt choose on some level, that "that's it, we are done here", what would be the value of the lessons we get here?

PS. Looking at other religions - I am thinking that though Gaudiya Vaisnavizm is the highest expression of theism, still bhakti exists in them, on some level. Like Swami said in on of the sangas (I can not find this sanga, it says about how Gaudiya Vaisnavism is non sectarian) that we should see different religious ideas as a different levels of great mountain of Truth, and as noble steps to the highest ideal of Krsna Consciousness. I understand it in this way, that bhakti exists in each and everone of us in more or less hidden form, being able to manifest in different religions, and pure devotee is bringing it up to the full light.

Would you elaborate on this guys, and share your thoughts and realizations? Thanks!

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - May 10, 2007 5:41 pm

How to undesrtand that we dont choose? I know- we have to get in touch with Krsna's devotee, and his bhakti will wake bhakti in our hearts, but when we get to meet him? Not when we are ready? Not when after all the lessons in the material world, after so many births, we "decide" somehow, deeply in our hearts that we want to finish our buisness here? We say sometimes that this material world has educational value, showing us that we can not be happy being "married" to matter, but if we couldnt choose on some level, that "that's it, we are done here", what would be the value of the lessons we get here?

Seems like you looking for fixed point in time again. Time is irrelevant. You are primordial so is Krsna. It’s not done by strength of will or strength of mind. Change of taste occurs – I like Krsna, I’m attached to him now, I would like to serve him. We do not want to “finish our business here” if it pleases him. Heaven or hell, doesn’t matter. Change of taste occurs, as soon as you change the angle of your vision picture changes. But if you want to get technical then eligibility for bhakti is developed by acquiring devotional piety: ajnata-sukrti -> jnata-sukriti -> sraddha -> sadhu sanga -> bhajana kriya. Do not mix eligibility with right, mercy is needed.

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - May 10, 2007 6:10 pm

However here I am concerned with the particular statement by Bhaktivinod Thakur, that I quoted earlier. What is he referring to?

“Forget their relations” a figure of speech, it’s like falling from Vaikuntha. How can you forget your relation with Krsna? Absurd. Some are nitya-baddha-jiva, so they never knew their position or relations with God. And that’s us. But we are getting better

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - May 10, 2007 6:32 pm

Seems like you looking for fixed point in time again. Time is irrelevant. You are primordial so is Krsna. It’s not done by strength of will or strength of mind. Change of taste occurs – I like Krsna, I’m attached to him now, I would like to serve him. We do not want to “finish our business here” if it pleases him. Heaven or hell, doesn’t matter. Change of taste occurs, as soon as you change the angle of your vision picture changes. But if you want to get technical then eligibility for bhakti is developed by acquiring devotional piety: ajnata-sukrti -> jnata-sukriti -> sraddha -> sadhu sanga -> bhajana kriya. Do not mix eligibility with right, mercy is needed.

I am not sure if you got my point. I understood that you said that bhakti it is something that comes to us from outside, while my impression was that all living beings have it in more or less developed form, and prove for it are different religious ideas that we can see in humanity. Saying "finish our buisness" I didnt mean actually just liberation, but generally realizing that material life is useless.

I dont underestimate the power and necesity of Krsna's devotee "giving" (is he giving it to us, or waking up something what is already there?) us the seed of bhakti, but my point was that it is rather not accidental, but it comes when you are ready for reciving it. At least it is what I think now.

I dont think that I am really into technical details, I just would like to develope some taste for Krsna Nama, but in the same time I would like to understand clearly our siddhanta, not to be in the future the cause of embarassment for Swami So please help me.

Thank you for your energy Nanda-tanuja prabhu

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - May 10, 2007 8:15 pm

I am not sure if you got my point. I understood that you said that bhakti it is something that comes to us from outside, while my impression was that all living beings have it in more or less developed form, and prove for it are different religious ideas that we can see in humanity. Saying "finish our buisness" I didnt mean actually just liberation, but generally realizing that material life is useless.

I dont underestimate the power and necesity of Krsna's devotee "giving" (is he giving it to us, or waking up something what is already there?) us the seed of bhakti, but my point was that it is rather not accidental, but it comes when you are ready for reciving it. At least it is what I think now.

Jiva has dormant potential to do bhakti, which is not necessarily realized. Mercy is definitely is not accidental -- it requires two sides -- mercey from Bhagavan and accumulated sukriti by sadhaka, mercy overrules though. Love is based on reciprocity -- you take one step toward Krsna and he takes ten steps toward you. "Ready" is a flow, your state, you get (and give) all the time, it's not one time deal, it's not static.

Thank you for your energy Nanda-tanuja prabhu

I’m not a tattva-vit, I’m posting with one thing in mind -- to be corrected by senior devotees, to clear my misunderstandings, that’s all.

Swami - May 10, 2007 9:06 pm

You are drawing a dependency between existences of different religious ideas and developed form of bhakti in living beings. I’m not sure I see how it works. Besides bhakti there are also karma-marga and jnana-marga, all of which are bona fide ways of realizing God (attaining salvation). Because of his infinite mercy God comes to people in different forms to satisfy all tastes and approaches that’s why we can see so many religious ideas.

This is a good point. We see karma and jnana in people, and these two take the forms in some instances of various religious conceptions. Bhakti is altogether other worldly. Although we do have the potential for it given the right association. We love, that is, in this world however imperfectly.