Uncle Rupa's Laghu-bhagavatamrta

[Nitaidas]

Here is the translation of Uncle Rupa's Lb that I started in another thread. I put it all together and typeset it. More of it will be posted as I finish more.

www.caitanya-symposium.org/laghu-bhag-master.pdf


Comments and criticisms appreciated.

[Nitaidas]

madanmohandas said:

BTW, Nitai, did you finish translating Govinda LIlamrta? I have the first chapter and up to text 41 of the second. It looked very promising.

I have not. I have done more than you probably have. I will post that when I get back. Yes, sadly I most leave home for about a week to assist my father's transition into a nursing home. It will not be easy. He is a testy Italian (that is where I get it I guess) who won't go in easily. Unfortunately, a serious fall has robbed him of his reason.

[Nitaidas]

madanmohandas said:

Thanks a million.
In a foot note there regarding 'sabda', would it not reconcile the doubt if 'sastra', the word from the Brahma sutra is taken; meaning that he is relying solely on the testimony of scripture. (?)

Another thing was 'giants' for 'prususa', I never heard that before.

Looking forward to more.

Well, sastra is zabda isn't it? And doesn't it face the same difficulties as zabda? It has to be heard and one might hear it mistakenly or read it mistakenly and in determining the meaning of a text one has to use inference which itself is based on past experience, on invariable connections forged between two things on the basis of past experience. It all boils down to experience (pratyaksa). One can choose to ignore these problems, but one does so at one's own risk.

I am not the first to notice these things. Radhamohan Goswami a great Vaisnava acarya in the 18th century, about whom we hear very little, points this out in his commentary on the Tattva-sandarbha of Sri Jiva. He was also a great logician and wrote a good commentary on the Nyaya-sutras. He was a descendant of Sri Advaitacarya. It is refreshing to find traditional thinkers who are willing to raise such questions. It gives me hope that perhaps CV is not really dead yet.

[Deleted]

I join the chorus with Madanmohan-ji:

Thanks a billion Nitai-ji!!!!
It is really soothing to the mind

[Nitaidas]

madanmohandas said:

Sure, 'sabda' and 'sastra' would be synonymous here, but I don't get your point. What is the harm or anomaly in saying that he (Rupa) is basing his exposition entirely on the testimony of scripture?
Like BRS and UN, he often defines a term and then cites a relevant verse to substantiate it. I like this verse at the end of BRS first chapter;

svalpApi rucireva syAd bhaktitattvAvabodhikA/
yuktistu kevalA naiva yadasyA apratiSTatA//

Even a minimal appreciation awakens to an understanding
of the principles of devotion (articles of faith ), while reason
alone cannot, as there is no firm foundation.

I am not questioning the fact that that is what Uncle Rupa says he will do and in fact what he does. That is fine. I question whether it is valid to dismiss pratyaksa and anumana in favor of sabda as a general procedure. The CV position is to take zabda as the main source of knowledge and pratyaksa and anumana as subsidiary sources, only to be used when they support zabda. This is what I think is naive. One cannot even get to zabda except through pratyaksa and anumana and once one this there one finds that zabda is dependent on some prior pratyaksa. The whole business is messed up.

[Nitaidas]

madanmohandas said:

OK. I guess this could be another topic. Surely ocular evidence (pratyaksa) and inference (anuman) require some basis or verification. Otherwise your guess is as good as mine.

I'm under pressure here from my son to vacate the internet now; back later.

How about pratyakSa (it involves all the senses, not just the eyes) being based on itself through repetition (kIrtana) and verification (not being found to be contradicted by an another perception). AnumAna is based on pratyakSa because invariable concomitance (vyApti) is a matter of pratyakSa and smRti (recollection) as in the case of smoke and fire. And zAbda, verbal testimony, is based on pratyakSa, either ordinary or yogaja, or a combination of pratyakSa and anumAna (in the case of an authority who also thinks about his experiences).

Guessing doesn't enter into it.