Embedded Files
TADIPATRI GURUKULA
Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (denoted by KT), Smt.Meera Tadipatri (denoted by MT), Shri Prasanna Tadipatri (PT)
Hare Sriinivaasa! Namaskaara Acharyare. What is the litmus test for Veda Vaakyam/Veda sentence? If someone says a sentence and claims it is part of infinite vedas how do we find out it is correct or not? Are there any characteristics which it has to abide by? Please advise.
KT: First prerquisite is that such a person must ne Aparoksja jnani. Secondly must have minimum 16 sAmudrika lakShanas. Vayu deva has 32. They are lusted in TSS. Thirdly , it will be cross verified by devatas. Then they will approve. It is not something they will invent. It is discovery of existing one.
Thanks Acharyare. Is that 16 Lakshanaas should be first 16/32 or last 16 of the following or any of the 16 or specific 16 - also came to know that Manushothamas has only 4 lakshnaas? In that case it looks like they cannot be Mantra Drashtaas? Please advise .
KT: Any 16. Yes ManuShyottamas cannot be Mantra draShTas.
1. How do we reconcile epistemological flawlessness of shruti with its ontological pAratantrya ?
KT: Ontologically if that is categorized as paratantra, then it implies that such ontological flaw is there. If epistemological flawlessness need not imply ontological flawlessness, then where is the need to reconcile? They are two different things.
"apUrNatA" is described as one of the four destructions in case of sentients. apUrNatA and asvAtantrya go together and likewise pUrNatva and svAtantrya go together.
2. How do we address upajIva virOdha in this case of ontological conclusion of vEdas are dependent on Brahman, when such conclusion itself being depending on prior acceptance of faultlessness of vEdas?
KT: I am restating the problem and also adding one more question.
2E is expansion of 2. Question 3 is added; 3E is expansion of 3.
2A and 3A are answers.
2. Is "upajIvyavirodha" posited as follows ?
KT: 2E: Why are vedas faultless? Because they are not composed by any author and so is devoid of the flaws of an author. If they are not composed, they should have been independent. However, it is stated that God alone is independent and so Vedas are not independent. If they have the fault of dependence, how can they be faultless?
2A: The problem is with the following conclusions:
2A-1: "If they are not composed, they should have been independent."
2A-2: "If they have the fault of dependence, how can they be faultless?
"authorlessness" and "independence" can not be linked. Why?
We talk of "authorlessness" and "authoredness" only for "jaDa-s".
We talk of "independence" and "dependence" for only sentients.
If a sentient is dependent, then it has a flaw. It can be seen that dependence flaw automatically leads to apUrNata. The faultlessness of vedas is not "absolute flawlessness", but just epistemological flawlessness.
Hence there is no upajIvyavirodha. They are not composed and still they are dependent. They are eternally dependent on the Lord and yet they are flawless in their contents.
3. Also an additional question/doubt is whether it has the flaw of AtmAshraya or anyonyAshraya or chakrakAshraya?
KT: 3E: Why Vedas are flawless? Because there is no author. Why should 'not mentioning author' in Vedas and hence its authorlessness is to be taken as true? Because they are flawless.
3A: The problem is with the following conclusion:
"Why should 'not mentioning author' in Vedas and hence its authorlessness is to be taken as true? Because they are flawless."
The authorlessness of vedas is not concluded 'just on the basis of not mentioning the author'. There are several arguments that go into it. So the question of "vedas declaring the authorlessness" does not arise. Then the next step "Because they are flawless" also is inapplicable.
Hence there is none of those flaws.
Apaurusheyatva not unique to Vedas?
1. Allah (they do not use the word 'God' even as a generic description of Almighty) is the Greatest. They use the word Allah in a way somewhat similar to the word 'Thath' that is used in Sanskrit.
2. Prophet Mohammad is only a 'Slave' (Rasool) of Allah and he is only a messenger who has dispensed the word of Allah.
3. When Allah gave the word or the message to the Prophet, it was deciphered by the Angel-Gabriel, who vocalised the message in Arabic so that the Prophet was able to understand. He was commanded by Allah to 'Wright it down', although the Prophet was an illiterate, with a Divine gift he was able to write the word of God easily without any difficulty.*** etc.
...that were not addressed in Quran, school of Ash'ariyyah proposed that Quran is eternal and uncreated. That indicates that it was not held that way prior to Ash'ariyyah 873-935 AD (founder of that school). This is obviously a clear indication of parampara abhAva, and such case is already refuted by our Achrya 'na cha kenachit.h kR^itvA veda ityuktaM vedasamaM paramparAbhAvAt.h '
KT: They may very well claim that school of Ash'ariyyah “accepted” what was already in parampara at that time and others deviated.
There is no parampara abhAva. We have to face that proposition as well. More over there can be some other schools, who may claim that. It will be difficult to validate the parampara. Instead we can try a different approach.
1. If Quran is Apaurusheya, according to this school, did it exist eternally, as the Vedas did in our theology?:
God (Allah) Himself is Apaurusheya Islam does not recognize a 'Personal God' with a shape which is super human and therefore His message is Apaurusheya and it exist eternally as the God Himself.
*** etc.
Therefore Islam recognizes that all new born babies are born as pure Muslims, but they are changed by their parents etc.
..recognize 'Ibrahim' (Abraham) as the first recognized descendant of Adam and Eve. Ibrahim was recognized as worshipping that Impersonal One God. Later on his descendants got all their practices corrupted and their descendants became the Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus etc. It is the Prophet Mohammad who got the true and last revelations of Quran again as the real true vision and there can not be any other prophet who can reveal anything better. Quran is supposed to show to the world that it is the same religion that was practiced by the first Prophet Ibrahim.
According to Quran on the 'Judgment Day' only true Muslims go to Heaven. When pointed out that before Prophet Mohammed was born, there were so many people who did not hear the message of Quran, Muslims say that during his life time the Prophet Mohammed, when he was meditating in great mosque at Jerusalem, he 'ascended' to Heaven and called back all the departed Souls who were born in this world before prophets time and showed them that there is no god but Allah and spread to them the message of Quran. Therefore those Souls who received the message of Quran became posthumously Muslims.
KT: Let us grant all their arguments. Let us grant that there was no break in parampara. This apaurusheya Quran has to have self-validity.
It must not contradict any other pramaNa-s. This includes that itmust not contradict itself and it must not contradict any pratyaxa.
Or anupramANa.
Some simple problems in their school. If there is only one Judgment Day or more than one. My understanding is that ot is only one. What happens after the Judgment Day? Does the creation stop? What happens to the cyclic process of time? They may raise an objection – why should it be cyclic?
Then they claim that there is only one birth.
The the next question is what Judgment is given to a baby who dies as soon as is born. Their claim is that since all are born Muslims, they all go to heaven. Then what about all those who are lunatics or mentally retarded and those who have no ability to follow any religion? They put them in “de facto” of heaven-goers.
Then they claim that all the animals are in “limbo state” -neither heaven not hell ?
The biggest blow to them is that there are evidences that some remember prior life. Even if one such case is genuine (I guess that there are some documentaries which prove that), that completely throws Quran out of “this flawless apaurusheya” category.
Another argument that is in favor of prior life is that a newborn baby knows that by suckling mother's breast, its hunger goes away. How does it know. There is no prior experience in that life. It has to be prior life experience.
We know that variation of sound levels (like raised pitch, etc. Also carry meanings). Thus an eternal apaurusheya text must have intonations associated with it, which has tocome as “maukhika” parampara. Though they sing Quran, they don't have strict intonations associated with Quran text just as vedas have their own intonations.
They don't say that following Madhva per se is a grave sin (definitely not for one who is following dvaita from the beginning), but to switch from Gaudiya to Madhva school, by abandoning the guru in gaudiya school who introduced and trained the person for some time, is considered a guru-aparAdha by them,
MT: Why would it be an aparAdha to switch back to Madhva school if they claim Acharya as one of their guru-s?
which is considered a serious offense punishable by the Lord.
MT: If that were the case, by the same token, isn't it a graver mistake to abandon the highest guru, MadhvAcharya himself?
This point is discussed in Brahmasutra-s # 3.3.28
Abandoning a guru is not just a punishable offense, but can lead one to the worst narakas called raurava!
“gurutyage bhavenmR^ityuH mantratyAge daridratA | gurumantraparityAgI rauravaM narakaM vrajet.h ||”
Gist: If one gives up his guru, he gets death; poverty is the result if he gives up his guru-mantra [upadesha]. But if one gives up both the guru and guru-upadesha, he will end up in raurava naraka [one of the five worst temporary naraka-s!]
The question here is – who is a guru and what is the guru-tyagathat is being referred here in this context.
In the first place the gaudiya-s are not at all Vedantins – if they are, they would have at least be aware of Sri Vedavyasa's pUrva-vikalpadhikarana.
The kind Lord Sri Vedavyasa not only stressed the importance of guruprasada but follows it up with when one can leave a guru.
[Brahma Sutra “pUrva-vikalpa-adhikarana”].
It is not my place to go into all these forbidden territories, however, from what I understand [from my husband plus Dr. BNK's and Sri M. Ramarao's works], our Acharya-s [vAkyartha-muktavali] have analyzed this topic extensively in their sub-comm on BSB # 3.3.28 – especially the above mentioned quote “gurutyagebhavetmR^ityuH...”
There are valid reasons to give up one's 'guru':
Acharya quotes Maha-saMhita and Bruhat-tantra in this context:
1. If the second guru is superior in [bhagavat-vishaya] knowledge, without a second thought dump the first one.
2. If both the guru-s are equal in knowledge: Then optionally
a. one can just continue with the same [first] guru.
b. However, if the second one can give full instruction/”samagraha-anugraha”, then with the former's permission one can move on to the second one.
3. If the second guru is superior but for valid reasons doesn't do “samagra-anugraha”, then one should stick with his first guru only.
In this context, it is said that one who, accepts a second guru [even though higher than the first one] who does partial upadesha, and rejecting the first guru who is imparting full instruction with purna-anugraha, gets hell.
Thus the key for changing is “paripurna anugraha” to one's sAdhana.
Thus this guru referred here is the one who imparts not only theright knowledge but does pUrnaanugraha with full instruction.
One should not give up such a guru.
For example, Satyakama Jabala [Chandogya 4.9.ff] gets partial enlightenment from uttama devata-s [due to his yogyata], but doesn't accept them as his guru but takes their permission and goes back to his guru Gautama and gets full instruction.
In the present case, the Gaudiya guru is not in a position to do pUrNa anugraha due to lack of right knowledge.
The problem people generally run into is “how do I know I have a false guru?”
MT: We do come across useless teachers in mundane education-- it doesn't take too long for an high schooler to figure out if the teacher is ok or not. The Lord has given us some thinking and it doesn't take too long to figure out.
There should be some progress in one's quality of sAdhana.
Some simple problems in their school. If there is only one Judgment Day or more than one. My understanding is that ot is only one. What happens after the Judgment Day? Does the creation stop? What happens to the cyclic process of time? They may raise an objection – why should it be cyclic?
Then they claim that there is only one birth.
The the next question is what Judgment is given to a baby who dies as soon as is born. Their claim is that since all are born Muslims, they all go to heaven. Then what about all those who are lunatics or mentally retarded and those who have no ability to follow any religion? They put them in “de facto” of heaven-goers.
PT: I was kind of surprised when I read Dante's Inferno in high school.
Dante, an Italian, who described Hell according to Christianity in the vernacular (Italian as opposed to Latin), wrote about the “9 circles of Hell” - the first one being, believe it or not, for those people born before Christ.
In Christianity (not sure about Judaism/Islam), there is1) salvation only through Christ 2) Only 1 life time, then judgment – either an eternity in heaven or hell.
So putting these together:1)Those people born before Christ have no scope for salvation.
2)People of other faiths cannot attain salvation [Indeed, it's very common to hear people say “all religions say that those who follow their religion go to heaven, others go to hell” -- obviously by people who have never heard of reincarnation.
Why would reincarnation avoid both of these problems?1)No Vedantin would never say something like “Those people born before Shankara/Ramanuja/Madhva all go to hell”. There is no concept of salvation through a prophet, or else damnation. Instead, a soul takes several births until his 'saadhana' is complete. Also, none of these prophets started anything new – rather they commented on existing works (I believe all 3 schools agree on this point- ) to guide people in the right direction. So 2 interesting things here
• the scope for salvation existed long before
Shankara/Ramanuja/Madhva took birth (According to all 3 major Hindu schools of thought, I believe), in contrast to salvation to only those followers of Muhammad, Christ, etc.
• also, because of reincarnation there is always the possibility
that someone born several centuries before Madhva, to take several births, then be born as a follower of Madhva, and through the knowledge acquired, attain salvation.
2)So of course, no Eastern philosopher would say something like “only people who follow my religion attain salvation”, because they have the view that they themselves could have been born as a follower of some other faith in a previous life, or follow another religion in a future life. This kind of perspective of multiple lives is I think unique to Indian thought, though I've heard that there is some kind of reincarnation in Judaism as well.
Then they claim that all the animals are in “limbo state” - neither heaven not hell ?
PT: I believe animals are considered by some to not even consist of a body & soul! I could be completely wrong about this, but consider the fact that almost all Christians/Jews/Muslims eat meat. To say that all the animals that are slaughtered are capable of experiencing pain might be too much to accept. If animals are not comprised of a body & soul – 2 problems are solved at once: they don't experience pain, because only something that is conscious, such as a soul can experience emotion, and the question of what happens to animals does not arise because there is nothing that “persists” after death.
Again, I could be very much wrong about whether eating meat has anything to do with the position on whether animals have souls, but I think there are quite a few people who only hold that humans have souls.
The biggest blow to them is that there are evidences that some remember prior life. Even if one such case is genuine (I guess that there are some documentaries which prove that), that completely throws Quran out of “this flawless apaurusheya” category.
PT: I think a lot of them will probably dismiss the evidences of past-life recall as nonsense – they won't take it seriously. They'll probably ask why we all don't have memory of past lives.
The answer is very simple – would you want to have memories of a past life? Relationships of several decades, lingering from lifetime to lifetime? It would make this life nearly impossible if we were to have memories of some time & place that we couldn't get to.
The question I have is how memories are preserved. According to current science, the brain is held to be the repository for memories – memories are stored in the brain. If this is true, how could memories be passed from one lifetime to another? The brain doesn't pass from one body to another, the jIva does.
One interesting position that Sri Madhvacharya has on memory is that it's not something 'stored' – because when I recall something it is not the same as when I first observed it. I observed it as *happening*, when I recall it, I immediately know that it *happened*.
There is the element of time, obviously memories are not stamped as being past. How do we account for this shift in tense? According to Sri Madhvacharya, memory is a direct perception of the past, not through the senses, but through the mind. Note that this also gets around the difficulty of how something abstract (”my memory of grandma”, my “memory of going to LKG/UKG” ) can be reduced to electricity in the brain. Memories not stored at all, that is they are a form of direct pratyakSha. And as a result, unlike other schools of Indian thought, memories, since they come under pratyakSha, can be considered valid pramaNa.
I read about Sri Madhvacharya's position on memory as pramaNa in BNK Sharma's book “Philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya” - an excellent book, and it covers a diverse range of topics.
Another argument that is in favor of prior life is that a new born baby knows that by suckling mother's breast, its hunger goes away. How does it know. There is no prior experience in that life. It has to be prior life experience.
PT: This I'm a little skeptical about. Couldn't we say that it is simply instinct? Does it have to come from a prior experience. There are many creatures that can do certain activities right from birth. Suckling is one. Another example is ducklings following the first thing that they see. Usually it's their mother, but there was an interesting experiment where newly hatched ducklings saw a scientist first, instead of their mother, and followed the scientist around. One could argue that behavior like this is simply pre programmed into the creatures – it doesn't have to come from a previous life (I think I can digress into Intelligent Design – pre programmed by who? Not by random mutations, someone with foresight had to design these creatures. But I'll resist digressing...)
We know that variation of sound levels (like raised pitch, etc. also carry meanings). Thus an eternal apaurusheya text must have intonations associated with it, which has to come as “maukhika” parampara. Though they sing Quran, they don't have strict intonations associated with Quran text just as vedas have their own intonations.
PT: Yeah it's quite impressive how for the Veda-s the intonation has been strictly preserved. If the intonation has been so meticulously preserved, if there had been an author/authors, how could they have been lost?!
In fact, I feel the position paper was a job very well done, which caught my attention too eventually, once I decided to overlook the personal remarks about Prabhupada.
...I was particularly talking about the remarks in the review [not the position paper] used for Prabhupada, which appeared very graphic.
KT: The remarks seem personal only if one has affinity to Prabhupada and does not see the context. No doubt that they are powerful and placed so so due to the need of the hour. There are two remarks there and in both the instances the reason is given. One is due to his claim that his purports followed a “disciplic succession” from Madhva school, which obviously is not true. The second is from his ideas like the “so-called stars” are reflected objects like the moon, etc. and his statements like the Apollo didn't land on the moon. Thus the points have nothing personal in there.
Without those remarks, the Gaudiyas would not have found an excuse to seek support from the Udupi Sannyasis.
KT: And likewise, without such remarks from Prabhupada, Dvaita site would not have fond an excuse to make such comments.
I am not trying to debate about the right-ness or wrong-ness of those comments, I am trying to point out the practical result that I see it has had in terms of the Ashta Matha letters, which have diverted both the gosai people and Swamijis into an issue that would have been non-existent.
KT: And without those comments, the deceptive statements from them would not have come to the limelight.
For example, if you look at what the gosai.com people wrote to Sri Vishvesha Tirtha -
KT: As you can see that they have followed the foot prints of their founder.
Amongst other things, these young men have publicly declared that Swami Prabhupada is 'not even a Vaishnava' and have vilified him as a 'liar'
KT: Please note that they have not given any details.
The fact is “Prabhupada lied in claiming that his purports followed a disciplic succession from Madhva”.
denounced his books as 'ludicrous' and 'very poor'.
Furthermore, they have condemned Gaudiya vaishnavism as 'a perverted kali-yuga philosophy which is rubbish.'
KT: These not from the website, but from postings. Even then, the context and the contents are not mentioned, but intentional filtering is done.
All this they do in the name of Madhva and the Ashta-mathas.
KT: Though, it is explicitly mentioned that the site is not affiliated with any matha, they made this statement to kindle their rage. Their intent is clear.
This unfortunate situation is breeding unnecessary hostility between our communities and projects the Madhva community in a very bad light...
KT: Please look at their intent of cashing on a false charge of “hostility-mongers”, while ignoring the root cause as such.
these young men have crossed the boundaries
KT: How do they know that all are young men. There are many aged ones also. Again their intent is to cash on such statements there by implying that the task is by some small kids.
of proper sad-achara by hurling low-class insults at our acharyas and sampradaya.
KT: Is it not low-class insult to claim that Madhvacharya got Chaitanya in his dream and then cried like a baby when the dream ended abruptly and the like.
They do not behave like brahmanas, Vaishnavas nor even decent human beings.”
KT: Please look at the coal calling the kettle black.
At least dvaita site never made an attempt to make such remarks against Prabhupada. This kind of remarks are personal.
Their complaint was about the manner in which Prabhupada was criticized.
KT: Which they have done without seeing the context and the background.
But they apparently did not make a distinction between the personal remarks and the position paper [which had nothing they could object to] in whatever they conveyed to the Swamijis [a typical Gaudiya approach to criticism, based on training].
KT: I am glad that you noticed that even though stated mildly.
In other words they embellish the truth according to how they see fit.
** responses from swamijis ** In all these responses, I see only a rejection of the language used to criticize Prabhupada.
KT: As you can see the rejection is of what has been projected to the swamijis by the Gaudiyas. They did not read the language used as such and they do not know the full details as they were not given. When some additional details were given, the response was http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf
I feel that the Swamijis are separating human relationships (or more specifically, Vaishnava relationships) from philosophical criticism.
KT: When a criticism is made of the philosophy as propounded by a person, how can it be called a personal criticism? In all the remarks about Prabhupada, only his statements are criticized.
When one says “lied”, that is with regard to the statements made by him. How can it be called personal? If personal/social aspects are criticized, they can be called historical documents, which is not the case here.
I do not see why the Swamijis are blamed for being worldly, at least for this issue.
KT: Because they are fed incomplete information and if it is not some hideous intent, what else is it?
They seem to be merely trying to point out that strong language against Prabhupada is not proper, considering the positive influence he had on people all over the world who were totally into drugs and sex, and the emphasis on Krishna-bhakti that he imparted.
KT: If that were the case, why should they resist if someone intends to change over from Gaudiya to Madhva or Srivaishnava? They must agree with a smile.
we also find examples like Vedanta Desikan (who...
it is better to follow Dvaita than to become an advaitin. Similarly, the Swamijis feel that it is better to follow Prabhupada and become Vishnu-bhakta than to stay a materialist or become an advaitin.
KT: In the same lines the gauDIyas must feel that for what ever reason one wants to give up Gaudiya, they must welcome with open mind. Why should they make it ”once you are in, you cannot go out”, by bringing in “this guruvyabhichara argument”. If that same argument were used prior to initiation into Gaudiya, no one can enter Gaudiya system.
I do not believe ISKCON is a place to stay forever, but I do feel that at least they [or to be more specific Prabhupada's words] provided me Nursery level education, so that I could proceed onto more important things. I cannot say that it wasn't a stepping stone for me.
KT: How can it be a stepping stone, if they do not let people out of their grip easily? Why do they bring in the arguments of “guruvyabhicharadoshha” so as to tie down the people? Why don't they say “Hey, if you could leave your earlier faith and come here, likewise you are free to leave and go to another faith, which appeals to you more”?
With a dissemination of Tattvavada books and lectures in simple English, much of the problem with Gaudiyas should get resolved automatically.
KT: Hmm. I doubt it until the policy of “once you are in, you cannot go out” changes.
I only meant to suggest a change in the language used against Prabhupada, because it attacks someone who never had the opportunity to deal with this issue,
KT: The language may be harsh, but is meant to drive the point and it is attacking only his statements. His personal life has not been mentioned. As it concerns his statements, others have an opportunity to defend and with equal opportunity.
those who claim to represent him today fairly in ISKCON are only fanatically quoting him as they please as if he is a prophet.
KT: That is unfortunate for ISKCON. Also considering the facts, they have no other choice as it is impossible to defend his statements. That is why they are resorting to these cheap techniques.
The people responsible for misrepresenting Tattvavada even after coming to know about it are present-day Gaudiyas, not Prabhupada, who may not have understood Tattvavada properly, and who did not probably even understand that this would be an important issue in the future.
KT: Unawareness that the fire would burn is not an excuseto touch the fire.
If Prabhupada had stuck to his stance after this being brought to his notice, matters would have been different [I do not think he would have done nothing about it, like ISKCON].
KT: If he intends to start a new school, and if he claims disciplic succession to Madhva, he must at least know the basic points like all incarnations are the same and Chaitanya, who is only a devotee is not Sri Krishna.
since he is no more, and it is clear that his writings are not in scholarly English, Madhvas could attribute the flaws they see to his lack of knowledge of siddhanta, but not to evil intentions.
KT: We did not talk about his intentions, but his actions.
They don't say that following Madhva per se is a grave sin (definitely not for one who is following dvaita from the beginning), but to switch from Gaudiya to Madhva school, by abandoning the guru in gaudiya school who introduced and trained the person for some time, is considered a guru-aparAdha by them,
Why would it be an aparAdha to switch back to Madhva school if they claim Acharya as one of their guru-s?
Because they have a derogatory view of referring back to a purvacharya's works beyond one's own immediate guru, without the explicit permission of the immediate guru. It is called “bypassing the guru”. One can get the mercy of Krishna only down through the disciplic chain, with one's own immediate guru serving as the tap. One cannot directly get Krishna's mercy.
KT: That is wonderful. Then by the same argument, the very first guru in Gaudiya tradition, who had dIxa from the Madhva lineage (as per their claim), must not have bypassed their guru. They have done several mistakes:
1. They have bypassed their Madhva guru in not being sincere to him.
2. While going to another guru itself is considered sinful, they have gone to the extent of calling another person as God. This is not just “Guru-vyabhichAradosha”,but total dishonesty as well, especially when a claim is made that they have Madhva parampara. When a deviation happens, it is not a parampara any more. Then people can say Dvaita belongs to Advaita parampara since, MadhvAchArya's guru, achyutaprexa, was an adviatin to start with.
3. Thus they themselves are guilty of breaking thedisciplic chain, the accusation that they level against those who deviate from them or who see the teachings of someone other than what their immediate guru recommends.
4. What is the source for Chaitanyacharitamrita? In this approach, it is quite feasible to call anyone, whose name can be seen in Bhagavata or Mahabharata in describing or addressing God, as the Supreme God, hidden (channa).
5. If you know that your immediate guru deviated from his immediate guru, what are you supposed to do? Are you entitled to question or not? Even if you question, that guru can say “I know enough to deviate from my guru, but you don't deviate from me.” This is clearly double standard. Since the present teaching is different from original teaching, someone broke the rule.
Thus, the position that Gaudiyas emphasize is not direct service to Krishna, but service to the servant of his servant of his servant...
KT: That is perfectly fine. The real problem springs up when all these servants preach diametrically opposite things or completely variant things or conflicting things.
Sri chaitanya for instance, says in Caitanya Caritamrta that he wishes to become the dust of the feet of the servant of the servant of the servant of the gopis.
KT: Is that sufficient to make Chaitanya as God. May be some think so and so, there is a competition to indiscriminately announce thru mere lip statement this servile attitude. However the true feeling is non-existent most of the time. There has to beproper discrimination, instead of everyone bowing to everyone else like crazy.
They also say that different acharyas write according to their realizations and what is suited to their time and place, and it is only the present living acharya in the parampara who can correctly put the teachings of the past acharyas in the right perspective.
KT: This is where the problem comes. There are too many paramparas and too many Acharya-s? No shortage what so ever for the “Acharya-s of present day”. Now this”suited to place and time” goes against “non-deviation from immediate guru”. If strict adherence is maintained, the thought stream remains frozen. Doesn't it?
There are valid reasons to give up one's 'guru':
Acharya quotes Maha-saMhita and Bruhat-tantra in this context:
1. If the second guru is superior in [bhagavat-vishaya] knowledge, without a second thought dump the first one.
2. If both the guru-s are equal in knowledge: Then optionally
a. one can just continue with the same [first] guru.
b. However, if the second one can give full instruction/”samagraha-anugraha”, then with the former's permission one can move on to the second one.
A practical issue that arises is “how to determine that the second guru has equal or more knowledge than the first guru?” That requires one to go and hear from the second guru. What if the first guru does not give permission at all to go and hear from second guru?
KT: You cannot listen to the second one as a guru as that tendency may assign you many gurus and there will be confusion. However God has given intellect to all to think. There is nothing wrong in questioning yourself to start with and when you get the doubt, make those questions to your guru. The main criterion for a guru, is that he has to be “asamshaya” and “samshayachetR^i”atleast to a reasonable extent. If a guru says “don't listen to any one else and don't read anything else”,it is an indication that he is not capable of being a guru. This giving permission has to work in the following way only (otherwise the entire concept of pUrvapaxa and siddhAnta does not make sense).
1. To start with X does not have any guru and with not much of knowledge base, X has accepted G1 as guru.
2. X has G1 as guru and G1 gives instructions. If the Saxi of X has problems with those instructions, X will and must ask his doubts to G1 and G1 must clear the doubts of X to the satisfaction of X. Since X has accepted G1 as guru, X must not do this to test G1.
3. X happens to listen to P1 or reads W1 (some work).
X needs permission of G1 to listen to P1 as a student, but not for a search of “sthira j~nAna”. X has not taken P1 as Guru. X has not taken W1 for granted.
4. X gets doubts and so goes to G1 and expresses his doubts. G1 must smilingly clear the doubts of X, but must never tell “don't listen to anyone and don't read any work other than what I say”. This is practically shutting off the world. How can blind lead the blind?
5. This is where X realizes that G1 is unfit to be aguru. X need not accept P1 as guru, but continue the search until someone who can clear his doubts comes to him. If X doesn't find, the search goes on until a satisfactory guru is found, may be in the form of a person or in the form of some grantha-s.
6. Self-study is preferable to a wrong guru, but nota substitute for a right guru. How to know who is a right guru? The search goes on until X finds one, who can clear his doubts.
“purANamityeva na sAdhu sarvaMna chApi sarvaM navamityavadyaM | santaH parIxyAnyataradbhajantemUDhaH parapratyayaneya buddhiH ||”
“All that is ancient need not be good/accurate. Nor everything that is new need be contemptible. The wise analyzes and chooses appropriately and the dull or unwise gets driven by the faith of others.”
This issue has been a source of conflict between the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON, since ISKCON forbids its members from going and learing lectures of Narayana Maharaja and other God brothers of Prabhupada, alleging that they deviate from Prabhupada's teachings.
KT: All these hassles arise because, they pawned their intellect either for blind faith or for personal gains.
The Gaudiya Math alleges that ISKCON is afraid of losing followers
KT: A clear indication of misplaced priorities. Instead of determining, which is right path, they are worried about popularity and personal gains.
(as they have lost in the past to Gaudiya Math as a result of more and more gurus falling down,
KT: An inevitable consequence of selfishness galore.
prompting people to leave it and go to Gaudiya Math)
KT: Choice between the devil and the deep sea. The inevitable predicament of being caught between Scylla and Charybdis and the reluctance to avoid both.
because the people who hear Narayana Maharaja's lectures realize that he is a very advanced devotee, which they cannot hope to find anywhere in ISKCON.
This whole issue is brought out in detail in the letter to ISKCON in the final part of the book “The True conception of Guru-tattva” available online at http://www.purebhakti.com/library/index.shtml
KT: Even looking superficially, one can see lot of self-contradictions. Just one example. Lord Sri Krishna clearly told in BG “nAnavAptamavAptavyaM”. God does not crave for anything. In this overboard attachment for “mAdhryarasa”, they make Him also crave for mAdhurya, etc. There is no j~nAna or tattva. The bhakti rasa will increase with proper knowledge.
It is always possible for a guru to give the impression that the disciple is not putting enough effort, which is why he is not advancing. The blame of not advancing is often put on the lack of effort on the part of the disciple, citing one or two examples of disciples who have advanced so much (showing that it is possible to advance like them if one is sincere).
KT: That is totally different. That does not relieve the guru from clearing the doubts of his disciples.
Thus, one is forced to wait for that time to come, year after year, when some miracle will happen and Krishna's special mercy will dawn.
KT: The gems of knowledge are there in front and it is meaningless to show a “black-box” and put on an infinite wait.
How does one determine if a guru is giving partial-anugraha or purna-anugraha? By asking him directly?
KT: The purNa-anugraha is in the form of ever-willingness to clear the doubts, rather than shutting off the senses.
PUrNa-anugraha is not empty promises.
What happens if a guru has 50% right knowledge and 50%wrong knowledge, and does purna-anugraha? How does that compare to the partial anugraha of a guru who has 99% right knowledge?
KT: For any one to say or to know that his guru has 50%knowledge or 99% knowledge, that person must have 100% knowledge, in which case He does not need any guru. Only God knows what percent of knowledge one has.
The mortals like us have infinitesimally small amount of knowledge. For any one to decide upon guru and to stick with one's guru, the main criterion is the” ever-willingness of the guru” to clear the doubts.
No true guru will ask his disciples to shut off the world itself and to shut off the sAxi itself.
For instance, in my case, my Gaudiya guru was guiding me in all aspects of my life, including minor things like which house to rent (that would be conducive to get more students to come and hear Krishna-kathA).
KT: If a Maths teacher is there, who clears all the doubts in maths, he can continue to be so and need not become a science teacher. If the maths teacher puts a condition that the student must not read any other maths book, the student, who has certain level of maturity can analyze if the guru is saying because he does not have capacity to clear the doubts in maths or because of some other reason. If the student perceives incompetency in that guru then the student has to reluctantly give him up only.
But no Madhva-guru is available to me to give me any guidance. Thus, it is a case of purna-anugraha of a person who may have partial right knowledge vs no anugraha.
KT: purna-anugraha does not mean 100% of what he can give.
That can be the case with anybody. It is 100% of what the student expects. If the student does not find one, he has to go with one who is closest to his “100%” and continue the search until he finds the right one. As I said before, it is better to have self-study than the wrong guru. He may satisfy all the physical needs, but to be a philosophical guru, he must satisfy all the philosophical needs as well.
“brahmAntA guravaH sAxAdishhTam daivaM shriyaH pataiH |”
Neither he, nor any guru of present day can give 100% of anugraha all by themselves. They must imbibe the thought that they are just gateways to the guru parampara and have no right to prevent any higher ones being venerated, as that itself will be sinful.
There are two possible mistakes:
1. Some think “as all the gurus of present day do not satisfy the definition of guru as told in Brahmasutras and other places, respecting gurus means respecting great ones of yore only and no need to respect the less efficient ones of present day.”
2. Just respect the immediate guru and if the immediate guru says not to bother about the great ones of yore, then do not bother about them.
The right thing is to have great respect for the immediate guru, but increasingly higher devotion for increasingly higher ones until Brahma and as Brahma directly worships Lord Vishnu, Sri Hari is the ishhTadaiva for us.
The litmus test is no guru should say “ignore the higher ones, unless I tell you to do so”.
When people say that they are not progressing, the ... Hasn't he become more disciplined in that time? If this isn't progress, what else is?
KT: With this kind of argument, every one can claim progress, including a tribal worshipper. Isn't it? The real sign of progress is not to restrict the inquiring mind. Why stop the inquiry itself or why restrict?
It is also notable that for Gaudiyas, aparoxa-j~nAna, or even paroxa-j~nAna for that matter, is not a necessary prerequisite to get moxa. It is the grace of the Lord descending through the guru that is the most important thing.
KT: A tribal guru also claims that only thru him God will be pleased. That is why j~nAna is given so much importance. Without it, the devotion cannot reach its climax. “nAnyaH panthA ayanAya vidyate”.
Without right knowledge, Lord will not grace.
They often cite “yasya deve parA bhaktir yathA deve tathA gurau” from ShvetAshvata Upanishad (even if they don't know or can't explain any other verse of that Upanishad). Thus, the only criterion to judge one is progressing in one's sAdhanA is whether the guru is increasingly getting pleased or not, in other words, the judgment of the guru about whether he is progressing.
KT: The above statement “yasya deve...” is misunderstood.
The increasingly pleasing of increasingly higher gurus will lead to eventual highest pleasing of the Highest One.
The true criterion is whether the “gurus” are getting increasingly pleased. One who shuns the higher ones, is facing the wrath of them and one who tells to shun so, is not doing any anugraha, but harming a lot. To shun the works of higher learning is no progress.
There is no experience or realization that has to necessarily come before moxa.
KT: This contradicts the scriptural statements.
It is only complete dedication through word, deed and thoughts, to the guru that is the standard of progress.
KT: The guru, who shuns the gurus is no guru at all.
The more one learns to see his own happiness as one with the guru's happiness, the more he is advanced.
KT: Hypothetically, if the guru takes to bad ways, should the disciples follow suit? Even if a guru is “socially good”, that is not enough. What example does he set? What example his guru sets and what his and so on? If he claims that “between Madhva and me, some one improved the teachings of Madhva”, then he must be prepared to explain “how”.
This is considered to be the very definition of advancement.
KT: Only if the guru is worthy of it. How do we know if one is worthy? By the example he sets. “He respected his guru”.
“His guru?”. If the chain were true, why there is breaking chain? If the chain were not true, then it is true that inquiry is important. No guru stops inquiry. MadhvAcharya himself kindles the inquiry in several ways. He had never set the example “Listen to me because I say so.”
Shastra pramana for infinity of Vedas
Please tell me where in sastra is it written that Vedas are infinite ? Give me the name and verse number of the text one quotes.
MT: Bhagavata purANa says:
bhA.pu: 11.21.36-40
shabdabrahma sudurbodhaM prANendriyamanomayam.h |
*anantapAraM* gambhIraM durvigAhyaM samudravat.h || 36||
[gist based on shri Sudhindra tirtha's comm. on Acharya's BTN]
Without the blessing of the abhimAnidevata-s of prANa, Indriya-s and manas [i.e, Brahma Vayu-s] it is very difficult to grasp Veda-s. Both in kAla[time] and
quantity it is ananta and nitya. Like a sea, it is unfathomable and vast.
The entire chapter deals with Veda-s.
Following may be of interest though not very relevent to what you seek.
mayopabR^iMhitaM bhUmnA brahmaNA.anantashaktinA |
bhUteshhu ghoshharUpeNa biseshhUrNeva lakshhyate || 37||
Gist:
The Lord who is bhUmna brahmaNA[very HUGE]with His ananta shakti has pervaded it. In people it exists as sound. Just like the the stalk of the lotus flower
holds the filament[?], the meaning is hidden inside the shabda.
chhandomayo.amR^itamayaH sahasrapadavIM prabhuH |
ON^kAreshhvaJNjitAM sparshasvaroshhmAntasthabhUshhitAm.h || 39||
Vayu as amR^ita and Chandas[and with the help of Laxmi, verse # 38] pervades the vedas which has countless verses.
It is manifested as 'OM'[cf.chAn. 2.23.2 and 4.17 -- from the 3 loka-s the essence/vyAkhyAnarUpa took the form of vedas and from the three vedas the essence
flowed as bhU etc., and the essence of it is praNava] and contains
sparsha ['ka' to ma varga -25],
svara [a to aH -16],
ushhma ['sha' varga] and antastha [in between letters 'ya' varga].
vichitrabhAshhAvitatAM chhandobhishchaturuttaraiH |
anantapArAM bR^ihatIM sR^ijatyAkshhipate svayam.h || 40||
[Here, Acharya quotes bhAshhAviveka to explain that Veda uses three languags like samAdhi[as is],
darshana [shruti virodha vAkhya-s found in shruti as other's darshana] and guhya [hidden] and they are further divided into 4 like
samadhi-samadhi-samadhi-samadhi etc., --
3 to the power of 4 totalling 81["ekAshIti vibhAditA"].
Acharya gives example of how a shruti vAkhya given in darshana bhAshhya should not be taken by giving a skAndndapurANa quote].
The Veda is written in a complicated language with 14 chandas. This huge and limitless Veda becomes available and withdrawn at His will.
Swaras in Vedas:
Can you please let me know why Vedas needs to be recited with proper swaras? It is always said that we have to recite 'sa-swara-veda-mantra' - but I am very eager to understand what are the benifits of the same.
MT: The injunction, whether it is mandatory or prohibitory, has to be followed while reciting the veda mantras. Proper pronunciation, proper svaras and proper procedure are all important. This is one of the prerequsites to recite veda mantras. Just as the chandas (or meter) has "chando abhimAnidevatas", the svaras have "svaraabhimAni devatas". Also vedas have veda abhimAni devatas. Following the rules will please the corresponding AbhimAni devatas and thereby their Antaryami, Sri Hari. The true benefit of sasvara veda mantras is "grace of Sri Hari". Proper way of reciting them will have to be done "as an act of worship to Sri Hari" and no expectations should be there.
Does it provide us with any special meanings? Any examples?
MT: Only thing is one may take up a mantra and say "where udAtta (raised pitch) comes, where anudAtta (not raised pitch) comes, where svarita (a blend of the two) comes etc." There are also others like prachaya (which is unudAtta following svarita), ekasruti (monotone), sannatAra (lower than anudAtta) and quite a few more.
Accent (or stress) is also critical.
"sukR^ita" - if a stress is on "su", then it will mean well done (indicative) and if the stress is on "a", then it will mean "good deed (noun)".
If a sandhi produces independent svarita in a word, it is called "nitya or jAtya".This can be xaipra (quick), prashlishhTa (coalescence) or abhinihita (close contact).
There are others like "kampa (tremolo)", shuddha (pure) svarita, etc.
Here, Sri Chalari Acharya illustrates the idea using the word 'vAyo' in the Rk (1.2.1) 'vAyavAyAhi darshata'. Here, etymologically vAyu is derived from two letters, va (which means strength and longevity) and yu (which means motion). Of these, va is in udAtta while yu is in anudAtta. Since udAtta implies superiority, the 'va' here refers to the superior strength of Vishnu and since anudAtta impliesinferiority, the 'yu' here refers to 'dR^iDha-gamana-kartR^itvaM'.
What is meant by 'dR^iDha-gamana-kartR^itvaM'? Also, you said that anudAtta implies inferiority whereas in the following you quoted Acharya saying that anudAtta denotes stability. Could you pls. clarify?
dArDhyamevAnudAttArtha udAttasyochchArthatA
nIchatA svaritasyArthaH prachAyasya yathAsthitiH |
samAhAre.akhilAH arthAH svarArthAnAmiyaM sthitiH |
anudAtta denotes stability;
udAtta, superiority;
svarita, inferiority;
prachaya, normalcy; and
samAhAra has all these.
Also, Acharya in Aitareya BhAshhya [dvitIya praghaTTaka, adhyaya 1], explains with example as to how
each sound denotes Bhagavan.
"[...]bherIdhvaniH prabhoH
anudAttasvarUpatvAdaudAryaM vadantishituH
tadapekshhayA.anyanIchatvaM ghaNTAdyAH svaritAtmakAH
uchchasthitimudAttastu svarNachJNvAdikaH svaraH
The anudAtta [low pitch] sound of the instrument bheri[kettle drum] speaks of the audarya[magnanimity] of Bhagavan.The svarita svara [combination of high
and low pitch] of the bell denotes the inferiority of the jIva with respect to God. Udatta [high pitch] svara of the Nagasvara refers to the superiority of Bhagavan.
In addition to the above, Acharya, in his R^igbhAshhya cites HariNa/R^iksaMhita and gives the meaning for [tR^i]kampana/tremolo notation -- usually
marked as "3" .
Acharya says that this kampana/tremolo denotes the following:
1. "asheshha grahana"[full power of the word should be taken].
2. lajja [shyness]
3. puraatana [time immemorial]
4. adhR^ishya[invincible?]
Shri KrishNArpaNamastu !!!
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse