In response to opinions on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and its conclusions
From the Bhakti List Archives
• April 21, 2000
Dear Vaishnavas, Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. Having read the various postings on the srimad bhagavatam and Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta vis-a-vis visishtadvaita, I would like to humbly state that the whole matter has been totally misunderstood by the writers. Gaudiya Vaishnava theology and the concept of achintya bheda-abheda is much deeper than as presented or projected by the writers of the articles. Their postulations as to what constitutes the Gaudiya position on Vishnu and Krishna are also not all that correct. It is only half the story heard and even that not from the lips or the pen of a Gaudiya Vaishnava but an external discourse. In fact, the way the presentation has been written is very superficial and appears to be half-truth at best of the actual Gaudiya Vaishnava conclusion. To explain these concepts on a posting list would not be totally feasible nor practical because these like any other esoteric aspect of siddhanta can only be understood from a serious Gaudiya Vaishnava sadhaka. This list is essentially for Sri Vaishnava siddhanta, visishadvaita. As such, I shan't post elaborate materials on Gaudiya Vaishnavism here. Anyone writing in the future on inter-vaishnava discussions could do so on another list meant for that purpose or write to a Gaudiya forum. The superiority of Lord Krishna's form when compared with His other features is not so much related to Vishnu tattva and serious differences amongst the forms. It is more related to rasa-tattva as elaborated by the sad-goswamis of Sri Vrndavana, the direct disciples of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. amongst whom appears Srila Gopal Bhatta Goswami, who originally hails from Srirangam and was the son of Sri Vyenkata Bhattar. By stating that it is only out of extreme love of Lord Krishna that we see other forms as inferior, the writer has indirectly thrust the allegation of sentiment without siddhanta upon the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. As a Gaudiya Vaishnava, I wish to add that we are not such fools as to do that. As explained earlier, the superiority is related to rasa-tattva which forms a very esoteric and sublime part of the Vedas, something that even the other sampradayas have not touched upon in as much detail as the Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharyas, especially in terms of the sweetness of parakiya rasa or unwedded paramourship as displayed in Radha-Krishna lila. Only in terms of the rasa is the form of Lord Krishna seen as more complete in terms of the Lord's manifesting the rasas in full. All the forms are complete. It is only a question of complete and more complete. never the case of deficiency. That does not make the other forms inferior. This is also the Gaudiya point of view. The Gaudiyas also agree that all forms of the Lord are similar in prowess and in all other opulences. That is not denied. Yes, the Lord has unlimited qualities. That is also admitted. What Srila Rupa Goswami enumerates as the 64 qualities of the Lord are the principal qualities, the pradhana kalyana gunas. Just as Parasara Muni defines Bhagavan as one endowed with the 6 principal qualities in full in the Vishnu Purana, so also has Srila Rupa Goswami highlighted 64 principal features. That does not in any way refute the fact that the Lord's qualities are ever expansive. As Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj states in his Sri Chaitanya Charitamrta, even Anantasesha despite glorifying the Lord with his many millions of mouths, is still unable to find the end. So there is no contradiction here. When it is stated that Lord Krishna is the original, it does not resemble the term "original" in terms of material calculation. It is much more than even subtle spiritual science. Just like in the case of pramanas which was brought up sometime ago. Pratyaksha pramana as Sripad Ramanujacarya or any other Vedic authority views it, should not be made a slave of our own sensory perceptions. Those grilled in Vedic understanding, even in terms of their pratyaksha experience, view the most mundane objects through shastra. Therefore, they are known as shastra-chakshu, i.e. those who see things through the eyes of shastra. As such, even the term "pratyaksha" and "anumana" as viewed by the Acharyas may not be narrow and akin to the modern day understandings of our paltry senses and mind. This being the case, what then are we to speak of their powerful understandings related to anumana and shabda. Essentially, we are like the dwarfs seeking to catch the moon. In that process, we should be careful not to bring the moon to the height of the dwarf. That would be impractical foolishness and disrespect at their best. Similarly, the term "original" or "svayam" is not to be mixed up with some material causative principle related to gross science. It is a different subject matter altogether and if one wants to actually understand the Gaudiya understanding of the word "svayam", then one should approach a Gaudiya sadhaka and seek clarification, not ask for wheat in the shop of a rice-seller (i.e. - not ask another sampradayic follower for clarification, prior to asking the original propounder or his followers and practitioners). Furthermore, the reason as to why Krishna is initially classified as an avatara in the Puranas and the Pancharatra Agamas and why later on He is referred to as the svayam Bhagavan and avatari, is also explained by Kaviraja Goswami in his Chaitanya Charitamrta, Adi Lila. I shan't elaborate too much on this for fear of being accused of making postings related to an external sampradaya on a Sri Vaishnava list. Those desiring to know more of this would do well to read this work as translated by my beloved spiritual master, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Your servant, R. Jai Simman Singapore ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE FREE! GET THE OFFICIAL COMPANION TO TELEVISION'S HOTTEST GAME SHOW PHENOMENON PLUS 5 MORE BOOKS FOR $2. Click for details. http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/2/_/716111/_/956300561/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@eGroups.com Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information
- Next message: Jayanthi Raghavan: "Please Check Out This Article"
- Previous message: Jai Simman s/o R. Rangasamy: "In response to opinions on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and its conclusions"
- Next in thread: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: In response to opinions on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and its conclusions"
- Reply: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: In response to opinions on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and its conclusions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]