Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: In response to opinions on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and its conclusions

From the Bhakti List Archives

Anand Karalapakkam • April 21, 2000 


Sri:
Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN-
SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 Dear SrI Jaisimman,
 namO nArAyaNa.

 
> 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.

  SrI VaishnavAs are also not fools in not understanding the
  rasa tattvas. When you say that Lord KrishNa's superiority is 
  due to the rasa tattva, it means that sweetness as in parakiyta 
  rasa / mAdhurya rasa is exhibited more only by Lord KrishNa (ie.
  reciprocation of such rasa with the jIvAtmas are more sweet with
  Lord KrishNa). According to you, Lord KrishNa is one with two 
  hands etc and this invariably puts the constraints unto other
  forms as being not manifesting so much sweetness as in 
  Lord KrishNa's form. There is no Sastric authority for these
  theories. These are only sectarian theories of GVs.

  Moreover, these rasAs are experienced by baddha jIvAtmas in
  various ways. Based on the lIlas displayed by Lord in some
  vibhava avatAra, don't pass judgements on the experience of
  a mukta. It is in 100% contradiction to Upanishads and Brahma
  sUtras (refer esp.4th adhyAya, 4th pAda esp. "SankalpAdEva 
  tat SrutE" => mukta is satya sankalpa and is free to serve
  Lord the way he wants, etc) to say that muktAs have intrinsic 
  differences within themselves based on the rasAs ie. as though a 
  mukta will only experience mAdhurya rasa with Lord in particular 
  form, another mukta will only experience sAnta rasa with Lord in 
  a particular form etc. All these are sectarian theories of GVs 
  which has no authority in the prashna traya viz. Upanishads, 
  Brahma sUtras and Bhagavad gIta. I will elaborate with pramAnams 
  on this issue later.
 
  You certainly don't know head or tail of whats in AzhwAr
  pAsurams. Whatever rasAs you GVs say are also experienced by
  AzhwArs. Be it parakiya rasa, vipralambha bhAva etc all are
  commented very well by SrI VaishNava AchAryas. Don't make
  such irrational statements in this SrI VaishNava list as if we 
  SrI VaishNavas haven't touched upon the rasA theories quite well 
  etc. But, you also don't know the tattva behind these things and
  mixes up the lIlas displayed in the vibhava avatAra to that
  of the experience in the mukta state.

  VEdas say "rasO vai saha" and it doesn't advocate the theories
  as explained by GVs for the muktas etc. The means to attain 
  Lord is explained in the 3rd adhyAya of the Brahma sUtras.
  The sUtras explain well the nature of many Brahma Vidyas 
  ie.upAsanas prescribed in the Upanishads as the means to attain 
  Him. There is no advocation of the rasa theory/nAma-sankeertanam 
  etc as the means for attaining Lord. These UpAsanAs (meditations) 
  are futher clarified in Bhagavad gIta as "bhakti yOga" and we get 
  some more information on the nature of upAsanas. One has to
  know how all these are interlinked and failure in 
  understanding this leads to many misconceptions and becomes
  the reason for advocating theories which contradict many 
  pramAnas. Having a narrow look into BhAgavatham devoid of
  understanding esp. Upanishads, Brahma sUtras and Bhagavad gIta 
  will not fetch any good understanding of the tattva, hIta and
  purushArtha. Only those who understand the prashna traya well
  can appropriately interpret the upabrahmanas like SrImad
  BhAgavatham such that it doesn't contradict the facts 
  established in the prashna traya.

  Please go through the following article for understanding
  the tattva behind rasas : 
   
 http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jul99/0056.html


  I have also read GV books and even the MAdhurya KAdambani of 
  SrI ViSwanAtha Chakravarthi. Don't make dogmatic statements
  as if we SrI VaishNavas haven't dealt with rasa theory well
  etc. It only exposes your utter ignorance of the SrI VaishNava
  works.

 
> 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.
  
  Answered above. There is no SAstric pramAna to say that
  only in Lord KrishNa's form all the rasAs are manifested in
  full etc. Moreover, the state of mukta is different from
  the experience in the state of a baddha. 


> 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).

  Well, you then please tell me as to what is meant by "Svayam",
  in the private mail. No amount of beating around the bush
  will help. 


> 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. 

  Lord rAma is svayam bhagavAn, Lord RanganAtha is svayam
  bhagavAn, LOrd KrishNa is svayam bhagaAn etc. All are 
  bhagavAn themselves. Lord KrishNa is definitely a 
  vibhava avatAra as per pramAnas and no amount of sectarian
  logic and arguments will change the fact.  

  All these misunderstandings arise from the unawareness of the
  difference between the DivyAtma Swaroopa of Brahman and
  the form of Brahman. I will elaborate it in my document.

  I also have read your GV literature quite well. I will
  address all those issues in the document later.

  Lets close the discusion on this issue in the list. If 
  you (Or any GV) want to say something, write to me in a 
  private mail and I will incorporate them in the document.
  Thanks for your understanding. 
      
  adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
  anantapadmanAbhan.
  krishNArpaNam.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get paid for the stuff you know!
Get answers for the stuff you donÂ’t. And get $10 to spend on the site!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2200/2/_/716111/_/956316275/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@eGroups.com
Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information