When mentors' assertions cannot be interpreted literally ...
March 2, 2014
By HG RKDB 'ĀV' -
The profound persusal of the following essay can also be done by visiting Sri Radhakrsnadasa Brahmacari AVs personal web-blog at the following link -
http://rkdb.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/when-acaryas-assertions-cannot-be-interpreted-literally/
RKD: Our interpretation of certain passages from the compositions of classical and recent mentors stands wholly correct because, one aspect has to be understood clearly that any textual criticism based on eclectic analogy should only be considered as bona fide practice when application of such a textual criticism does not undermine the ‘mula-bhuta siddhanta’ or ‘the fundamental principles of Vedic culture and philosophy’. Many times in the sastras, we find that certain statements which are found written, if, are interpreted according to the eclectic way of textual criticism that you follow, they sharply contradict the fundamental siddhanta. Though, there are many examples, we shall cite one of them.
[PADA: Great idea. We need to follow the shastra. The problem with Radha Krishna das's GBC's guru program is, they claim their acharyas are (A) Pure devotees, Krishna lingita vigraha (embraced by Krishna) -- simultaneously their gurus are, (B) Voted in, voted out, censured, monitored, if not "excommunicated for fall downs and rejecting Srila Prabhupada."
Where do we find from shastra that acharyas are often debauchees, criminals, deviants and so on and so forth? For example, one of RKD's acharyas was "censured" for bringing his young woman "assistant" to Mayapura, but he still goes back to Mayapura with the same female assistant. How can RKD tell his "voted in gurus" they are deviating, when they think they are gurus and are above all deviations?]
RKD: Example --- Background --- In the gaudiya vaisnava literature and esp. in the Bhakti-sandarbha of Jiva Gosvami, it is strictly prohibited for a vaisnava sadhaka following bhakti-marga to undergo any sort of aham-graha-upasana. Visvanatha also elaborates on this aham-grahopasana within his commentary to B.G. There are many types of aham-grahopasanas. They are also described in the Puranas and Upanisads. But these aham-grahopasanas are prohibited for devotees performing pure devotional service. The most famous form of aham-graho-pasana is when a sadhaka considers himself as same as the deity he is worshiping and consequently starts worshiping and contemplating on that deity considering it to be non-different from one's own self.
[PADA: Right, as soon as a sadhaka considers himself as "non-different from Krishna in purity" (i.e. he is as pure as an acharya is), then he sets himself up for all sorts of serious aparadhas and deviations. Problem is, that is what Radha Krishna das's GBC gurus are doing all the time. The conditioned souls GBC's gurus are considering themselves as worshipable "as good as God" aka the deity. For example, they have a policy that we have to offer bhogha to their photos, because they claim that their photos are equal to deities. So the GBC's gurus have self-deified themselves with no authority.]
RKD: But there are some variant off-shoots of aham-grahopasana too. One of them is properly called as “guru-svarupa-anavabodha-upasana”. That is when a sadhaka considers his guru or some other bhakta to be identically non-different from either Bhagavan or His eternal associates and thus starts contemplating and worshiping one's guru or other vaisnavas in the same way. Such guru-svarupa-anavabodha-upasana is also prohibited for suddha-bhaktas.
[PADA: This is confusing. "Aham grahopasana" -- or worship of one's self -- is normally associated with the Mayavadis. This is not normally a problem in Vaishnava circles. The only examples we find of people making themselves worshiped as "good as God" are -- Radha Krishna das's guru sabha. Where do we find this "considering oneself to be as pure as Krishna" problem going on in the Vaishnava circles, save and except for the bogus gurus promoted by the Radha Krishna das bogus guru's sabha?]
RKD: Now we shall see, that if we apply the antagonists’ theory of direct textual explanation based on the way of eclectic analogy, we will fail to uphold the pure Gaudiya standard of BVT's writings. Because, Gaudiya sampradaya does not accept any tinge of aham-grahopasana or its offshoot variant, we will have to resort to an indirect explanation of BVT's statements found in the below cited excerpt of Jaiva Dharma. Such an indirect explanation will not be based on the textual criticism of eclectic analogy.
Normally, when BVT states something in his philosophical novel like Jaiva Dharma, he states everything in a very straight forward way. In the example cited below, he will also use his same straightforward typical style (SP also had a straightforward style of speaking as the antagonists and we both accept) of presentation. But, if that passage of Jaiva Dharma is interpreted in a plain way based on their textual criticism, the said interpretation of BVT's writing will become infested with the venom of aham-grahopasana and its variants.
[PADA: Right, for a sadhaka to establish the worship of oneself as "good as God" is to be "infested with venom." That the whole problem with Radha Krishna das and his false gurus, these gurus are at best sadhakas while promoting themselves as "shaksad hari tvena" "qualitatively identical to God." Even RKD says, this imitation is venemous and a dangerous poison for the society.]
RKD: In order to avoid that, no option remains except for an indirect interpretation of BVT's text. There are two-fold factors of interpretation in the traditional Sanskrt literature. One is known as sabda-sakti and the other is known as artha-sakti. So, when a statement is interpreted by the power of its words, it is known as sabda-sakti-ghatana. This is the same textual criticism that the contenders are alluding to. However, when a text is interpreted according to the implication and intention of that statement, then it is known as artha-sakti-ghatana.
So, when the fundamentals of siddhānta seem cornered by an interpretation of a text following the method of sabda-sakti (this is their way), then such texts have to be interpreted following the method of artha-sakti and also by deploying various nyayas (ways of logic) and mimamsa rules. In the case of BVT, we shall see the same happening. We are citing from the page no. 266 of the Bengali edition of Jaiva Dharma of BVT found on the following website: http://ia601507.us.archive.org/9/items/SriJaivaDharma/jaiva_dharma_text.pdf .
First let us examine the original Bengali writing of BVT and then we shall talk about its interpretation. It is found at the end of the 21st Ch. of Jaiva Dharma. The excerpt is as follows. We are producing the roman transliteration of Bengali.
"’ascaryera viṣaya ei ye sei dina hoite vijaya kumārera citte srimati lalitara dasi bhava asiya upasthita haila. tini vrddha babajike sri lalita rupe darsana karite lagilena. brajanath sei dina hoite vrddha babajira svarupe subalake dekhite lagilena."
Background: Here, two disciples by the name of Vrajanātha and Vijaya Kumara are having a dialogue with their guru i.e. Bābājī. Vrajanātha is in the mood of a manjari and considers himself as a servant of Lalita Devi whereas, Vijaya Kumāra is in the mood of a sakha considering himself as a companion of Subala.
[PADA: Right, Radha Krishna das's GBC gurus are saying that they are direct assistants to the gopis: "Nikunjya yuno rati keli siddhas" no less. Meanwhile, they are constantly being exposed in all kinds of mundane anarthas. Radha Krishna das and his GBC guru program has never been able to explain how such elevated souls as the assistants to the gopis are constantly in a tail spin of skirt chasing, drug taking, watching football on TV, drinking schnops, ad infinitum. Radha Krishna das and his GBC gurus simply merge all these anarthas into the platform of pure devotional service.]
Staight-forward translation of BVT's text following the rule of textual criticism based on eclectic analogy (This translation will have serious philosophical defects and inconsistencies). "It was a matter of surprise that from that day on, that the mood of being Srimati Lalita's maidservant (dasi) arose within the heart of Vijaya Kumara. He (Vijaya Kumara) began to behold the old babaji (his guru) in the form of Lalita Devi. Brajanatha also started beholding Subala in the svarupa of that old babaji."
[...]
Translation: "Great demigods come and reside within the body of a pure devotee means that those great personalities who are related with the Supreme Personality of Godhead (tadiya orbhagavadiya) (related through the bond of devotional service) such as His eternal associates, heavenly demigods who are devotees of the Lord (like Brahmā, Siva etc.) and great sages (like four Kumaras, Narada etc.). They live (samasate) means they all come and inhabit within the personality of that pure devotee be becoming subjugated to him."
[PADA: Correct, the guru is the "sum total of the demigods." So its a mystery, why Radha Krishna das's program keeps saying the sum total of the demigods are debauchees, lower than the common man on the street? Why doesn't RKD know that pure devotees are not full of anarthas, despite his reading so many great texts of the acharyas? ys pd]
March 2, 2014
By HG RKDB 'ĀV' -
The profound persusal of the following essay can also be done by visiting Sri Radhakrsnadasa Brahmacari AVs personal web-blog at the following link -
http://rkdb.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/when-acaryas-assertions-cannot-be-interpreted-literally/
RKD: Our interpretation of certain passages from the compositions of classical and recent mentors stands wholly correct because, one aspect has to be understood clearly that any textual criticism based on eclectic analogy should only be considered as bona fide practice when application of such a textual criticism does not undermine the ‘mula-bhuta siddhanta’ or ‘the fundamental principles of Vedic culture and philosophy’. Many times in the sastras, we find that certain statements which are found written, if, are interpreted according to the eclectic way of textual criticism that you follow, they sharply contradict the fundamental siddhanta. Though, there are many examples, we shall cite one of them.
[PADA: Great idea. We need to follow the shastra. The problem with Radha Krishna das's GBC's guru program is, they claim their acharyas are (A) Pure devotees, Krishna lingita vigraha (embraced by Krishna) -- simultaneously their gurus are, (B) Voted in, voted out, censured, monitored, if not "excommunicated for fall downs and rejecting Srila Prabhupada."
Where do we find from shastra that acharyas are often debauchees, criminals, deviants and so on and so forth? For example, one of RKD's acharyas was "censured" for bringing his young woman "assistant" to Mayapura, but he still goes back to Mayapura with the same female assistant. How can RKD tell his "voted in gurus" they are deviating, when they think they are gurus and are above all deviations?]
RKD: Example --- Background --- In the gaudiya vaisnava literature and esp. in the Bhakti-sandarbha of Jiva Gosvami, it is strictly prohibited for a vaisnava sadhaka following bhakti-marga to undergo any sort of aham-graha-upasana. Visvanatha also elaborates on this aham-grahopasana within his commentary to B.G. There are many types of aham-grahopasanas. They are also described in the Puranas and Upanisads. But these aham-grahopasanas are prohibited for devotees performing pure devotional service. The most famous form of aham-graho-pasana is when a sadhaka considers himself as same as the deity he is worshiping and consequently starts worshiping and contemplating on that deity considering it to be non-different from one's own self.
[PADA: Right, as soon as a sadhaka considers himself as "non-different from Krishna in purity" (i.e. he is as pure as an acharya is), then he sets himself up for all sorts of serious aparadhas and deviations. Problem is, that is what Radha Krishna das's GBC gurus are doing all the time. The conditioned souls GBC's gurus are considering themselves as worshipable "as good as God" aka the deity. For example, they have a policy that we have to offer bhogha to their photos, because they claim that their photos are equal to deities. So the GBC's gurus have self-deified themselves with no authority.]
RKD: But there are some variant off-shoots of aham-grahopasana too. One of them is properly called as “guru-svarupa-anavabodha-upasana”. That is when a sadhaka considers his guru or some other bhakta to be identically non-different from either Bhagavan or His eternal associates and thus starts contemplating and worshiping one's guru or other vaisnavas in the same way. Such guru-svarupa-anavabodha-upasana is also prohibited for suddha-bhaktas.
[PADA: This is confusing. "Aham grahopasana" -- or worship of one's self -- is normally associated with the Mayavadis. This is not normally a problem in Vaishnava circles. The only examples we find of people making themselves worshiped as "good as God" are -- Radha Krishna das's guru sabha. Where do we find this "considering oneself to be as pure as Krishna" problem going on in the Vaishnava circles, save and except for the bogus gurus promoted by the Radha Krishna das bogus guru's sabha?]
RKD: Now we shall see, that if we apply the antagonists’ theory of direct textual explanation based on the way of eclectic analogy, we will fail to uphold the pure Gaudiya standard of BVT's writings. Because, Gaudiya sampradaya does not accept any tinge of aham-grahopasana or its offshoot variant, we will have to resort to an indirect explanation of BVT's statements found in the below cited excerpt of Jaiva Dharma. Such an indirect explanation will not be based on the textual criticism of eclectic analogy.
Normally, when BVT states something in his philosophical novel like Jaiva Dharma, he states everything in a very straight forward way. In the example cited below, he will also use his same straightforward typical style (SP also had a straightforward style of speaking as the antagonists and we both accept) of presentation. But, if that passage of Jaiva Dharma is interpreted in a plain way based on their textual criticism, the said interpretation of BVT's writing will become infested with the venom of aham-grahopasana and its variants.
[PADA: Right, for a sadhaka to establish the worship of oneself as "good as God" is to be "infested with venom." That the whole problem with Radha Krishna das and his false gurus, these gurus are at best sadhakas while promoting themselves as "shaksad hari tvena" "qualitatively identical to God." Even RKD says, this imitation is venemous and a dangerous poison for the society.]
RKD: In order to avoid that, no option remains except for an indirect interpretation of BVT's text. There are two-fold factors of interpretation in the traditional Sanskrt literature. One is known as sabda-sakti and the other is known as artha-sakti. So, when a statement is interpreted by the power of its words, it is known as sabda-sakti-ghatana. This is the same textual criticism that the contenders are alluding to. However, when a text is interpreted according to the implication and intention of that statement, then it is known as artha-sakti-ghatana.
So, when the fundamentals of siddhānta seem cornered by an interpretation of a text following the method of sabda-sakti (this is their way), then such texts have to be interpreted following the method of artha-sakti and also by deploying various nyayas (ways of logic) and mimamsa rules. In the case of BVT, we shall see the same happening. We are citing from the page no. 266 of the Bengali edition of Jaiva Dharma of BVT found on the following website: http://ia601507.us.archive.org/9/items/SriJaivaDharma/jaiva_dharma_text.pdf .
First let us examine the original Bengali writing of BVT and then we shall talk about its interpretation. It is found at the end of the 21st Ch. of Jaiva Dharma. The excerpt is as follows. We are producing the roman transliteration of Bengali.
"’ascaryera viṣaya ei ye sei dina hoite vijaya kumārera citte srimati lalitara dasi bhava asiya upasthita haila. tini vrddha babajike sri lalita rupe darsana karite lagilena. brajanath sei dina hoite vrddha babajira svarupe subalake dekhite lagilena."
Background: Here, two disciples by the name of Vrajanātha and Vijaya Kumara are having a dialogue with their guru i.e. Bābājī. Vrajanātha is in the mood of a manjari and considers himself as a servant of Lalita Devi whereas, Vijaya Kumāra is in the mood of a sakha considering himself as a companion of Subala.
[PADA: Right, Radha Krishna das's GBC gurus are saying that they are direct assistants to the gopis: "Nikunjya yuno rati keli siddhas" no less. Meanwhile, they are constantly being exposed in all kinds of mundane anarthas. Radha Krishna das and his GBC guru program has never been able to explain how such elevated souls as the assistants to the gopis are constantly in a tail spin of skirt chasing, drug taking, watching football on TV, drinking schnops, ad infinitum. Radha Krishna das and his GBC gurus simply merge all these anarthas into the platform of pure devotional service.]
Staight-forward translation of BVT's text following the rule of textual criticism based on eclectic analogy (This translation will have serious philosophical defects and inconsistencies). "It was a matter of surprise that from that day on, that the mood of being Srimati Lalita's maidservant (dasi) arose within the heart of Vijaya Kumara. He (Vijaya Kumara) began to behold the old babaji (his guru) in the form of Lalita Devi. Brajanatha also started beholding Subala in the svarupa of that old babaji."
[...]
Translation: "Great demigods come and reside within the body of a pure devotee means that those great personalities who are related with the Supreme Personality of Godhead (tadiya orbhagavadiya) (related through the bond of devotional service) such as His eternal associates, heavenly demigods who are devotees of the Lord (like Brahmā, Siva etc.) and great sages (like four Kumaras, Narada etc.). They live (samasate) means they all come and inhabit within the personality of that pure devotee be becoming subjugated to him."
[PADA: Correct, the guru is the "sum total of the demigods." So its a mystery, why Radha Krishna das's program keeps saying the sum total of the demigods are debauchees, lower than the common man on the street? Why doesn't RKD know that pure devotees are not full of anarthas, despite his reading so many great texts of the acharyas? ys pd]
Dear Puranjana
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing this out, only problem, ISKCON jubilantly goes on having their voted-in gurus turning Prabhupada's movement into a laughing stock.
Meanwhile some so called Prabhupadanugas, (jobless old-age pensioners?) post all day on facebook what is "truth". Bhakta Peter: International bankers enslave humanity via paper money printed out of thin air. Tamohara: Freemasonry has infiltrated ISKCON Bangalore.
Hmm, can somebody tell these clowns to stop pulperizing Prabhupada's name into a forbidden fundamental radical extremist niche? Thanks!
While Puranjana pr is sitting on his office chair and countering GBC attacks, some of his own men are sawing at his chair legs? Please try to rectify this! We cannot have a Prabhupadanuga program what is immediately exposed by one global media campaign that reads like this: Prabhupada considers Hitler as perfect leader (Führer) http://www.ibtimes.com/swami-prabhupada-founder-hare-krishna-movement-virulent-racist-anti-semite-1412102
As soon this is out people in general will go after Prabhupadanugas and GBC hasn't to move one finger anymore. So please issue a gagging order on these mischief-makers! Amazing, they stopped promoting ISKCON Bangalore at prabhupadanugas.eu? Why this hatred?