|
Post by avadhutadas on Feb 5, 2022 19:43:00 GMT -6
I went thru a pretty serious Christian research phase and ended up learning about all the edits and writing books under other peoples names. It seems like CV and Hinduism in general are not spared of this either. Obviously BVT did a lot of this kind of thing but it seems the issue goes back farther. Of course the idea that one can offend the Vedas and lose their Bhakti probably keeps a lot of people from looking into this. I’ve been wondering a lot about the CC. It is so different from the CB. Is there a Vrndavan CV and a navadwip CV? Despite all the writings about Him Mahaprabhu is still very much a mystery. Do the six goswamis truly teach what he taught? Was He even teaching anything besides worship of the Holy Name? I realize Raghunatha das Goswami lived with Him for 14 years so it would seem like he would know what Mahaprabhu taught. I apologize that I’ve veered off from the original point of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 6, 2022 16:48:49 GMT -6
I went thru a pretty serious Christian research phase and ended up learning about all the edits and writing books under other peoples names. It seems like CV and Hinduism in general are not spared of this either. Obviously BVT did a lot of this kind of thing but it seems the issue goes back farther. Of course the idea that one can offend the Vedas and lose their Bhakti probably keeps a lot of people from looking into this. I’ve been wondering a lot about the CC. It is so different from the CB. Is there a Vrndavan CV and a navadwip CV? Despite all the writings about Him Mahaprabhu is still very much a mystery. Do the six goswamis truly teach what he taught? Was He even teaching anything besides worship of the Holy Name? I realize Raghunatha das Goswami lived with Him for 14 years so it would seem like he would know what Mahaprabhu taught. I apologize that I’ve veered off from the original point of this thread. As you probably know if you poked around this forum for a while, I've already expressed my views on these topics in various places scattered throughout the symposium. Let me try to summarize my views: There is a similarity between the Christian New Testament and the various hagiographical presentations of Sri Caitanya. As in the case of the Christain New Testament where you have the Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, where Jesus is represented as teaching about the glory of his father in heaven, and then you have John where Jesus is represented as teaching about the glory of himself (John, 14.6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.), in the early biographies one has a more realistic, humanistic, tentative presentation of Sri Caitanya, whereas in the Cc all the stoppers are pulled out. That is why I am suspicious of the Cc as an authentic presentation of the life and teachings of Mahaprabhu. The Cc has an obvious agenda to it: tie everything back to Sri Caitanya even the works of the Gosvamins (Sanatana, Rupa, and Jiva, in particular). It seems clear to me that the Gosvamins where already vastly learned in Vaisnavism before they met Caitanya. Thus the claim of the author of the Cc that Sri Caitanya taught them everything they know is ludicrous. The related claim that the teachings of the Gosvamins are the teachings of Mahaprabhu is similarly nonsense. If anything, they taught him aspects of Vaishnavism, like when they advised him not to go to Vrndaban surrounded by thousands of followers. True Vaishnavas do not call attention to themselves. That and the fact that it would have drawn attention from the Muslim rulers along the way who would have become fearful and possibly threatened his life and those of is followers were sound pieces of advice. For the Gosvamins, Mahaprabhu represented the fulfillment of their understanding of the power of bhakti for Krsna. He was the physical embodiment of their theological, philosophical, and literary studies, the bridge from theory to experience. His ecstatic presence demonstrated the truth of the bhakti sastras they had studied all their lives. He gave them community which they sorely lacked before. The real purpose of Krsnadas Kaviraja's claim that the works of the Gosvamins were taught to them by Sri Caitanya was to win for the Gosvamin's brilliant works the respect of Mahaprabhu's Bengali followers, especially those who knew nothing of what the Gosvamins were doing in Vraja. It worked, sort of. The works of the Gosvamins were certainly accepted in Bengal and disseminated throughout Bengal and Orissa. However, Kdk's summaries of those works in his Cc were so much easier to access that most of the CV followers of Bengal were satisfied with that and rarely went on to read the original works themselves. The Reader Digest version of the Gosvamins' works in the Cc won out and much of brilliance and subtlety of the originals has remained the domain of the few who undertook the challenge of studying them. The upshot of all this is we really don't know what Mahaprabhu believed and taught. All of the presentations of Mahaprabhu's teachings are really drawn from the works of the Gosvamins. That is one of the reasons I am attempting to translate the Bhagavata with Sridharasvamin's comm. There is strong indication that Mahaprabhu really did study Sridharasvamin's comm. and that his views were shaped by and were close to those of Sridharasvamin's as well as to those of the Bhagavata itself as Sridhara interpreted it. The Cc represents him as saying this and there is that kerfuffle with Vallabhacarya over the value of Sridharasvamin's views. I am also including Srinathacakravartin's commentary on the Bhagavata because he claims to represent Mahaprabhu's view in his Sri Caitanya-mata-manjusa (A Chest of the Opinions of Sri Caitanya). Srinathacakravartin recognizes the importance of Sridharasvamin, too, though occasionally he departs from his views. Anyway, my view is that the early biographies are more likely to represent the views and practices of Sri Caitanya than the Cc. That does not mean that everything in the Cc is bs, but we have to treat it with suspicion and not accept what it says without question. As with all efforts to hide or alter the truth, the perpetrators always mess up and leave remnants of the truth in their works. Such is the case with the Sea Dragon in the Old Testament which the redactors tried to erase, but left traces of. KdK also left traces of the truth behind in his work. We have to become detectives to recover it. Anyway, enough for now. More later.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 7, 2022 15:32:25 GMT -6
To add to what I wrote yesterday, I think we need to focus more on the earlier biographies of Sri Caitanya, especially the work of Murarigupta, who actually knew him, and the works of Kavikarnapura, especially his earlier work the Krsna-caitanya-caritamrta-mahakavya. Kavikarnapura was a disciple of Srinathacakravartin. What we don't know is much about Srinathacakravartin's relationship to Sri Caitanya. It was apparently close enough for him to plausibly present his work as a collection of the views of Sri Caitanya. I am undecided on the status and reliability of Locanadas' Caitanya-mangala and Vrndavandas's Caitanya-bhagavata. These are somewhat later works that may reflect more the myth of Sri Caitanya than the reality. I need to dig into Tony Stewart's the Final Word to see how he sorts these various accounts of Mahaprabhu out, to see how he constructs the relationship between these accounts. Studying Sankara, however, is central in my view to recovering Sri Caitanya's own views, as well. Sri Caitanya was a member of the Dasanami system, if only as a brahmacari, and never as a full sannyasi. One needs to know what Sankara actually thought and taught as opposed to what his later misinterpreters say he taught based on works not written by him. Brahma Satyam JaganmithyA JIvo Brahmaiva Naparah is not among the genuine statements of Sri Sankara. It is from a much later work called the Brahma-jnanavali-mala. We have to restrict ourselves to only the works that were most likely by him. One way of determining which these were is whether one of his direct disciples wrote a commentary on it. That limits us to the comm. on the Brahma-sutra, the Upadesa-sahasri, the comm. on the Bhagavad-gita and on his comms. on some of the Upanisads (Brhad-aranyaka, Chandogya, Isa, and a few others). The Govindastaka, unfortunately, does not make the cut. Neither does the Vivekacudamani and other works of that sort. Sankara's tradition was turned into "mayavada" by Vacaspati Misra (9th cent.) and Sankara was identified with Siva and turned into a Saiva by Vidyaranya and his brother Sayana in the 14th century. Sankara was actually a Vaisnava from the predominantly Vaisnava community of Namburi brahmanas of Kerala. He mentions Visnu many times in his real work and rarely if ever refers to Siva. History is a bitch! She loves to pop our little fantasy bubbles all the time. In order to hold on to our fantasies we have to keep our eyes tightly closed and not think too much. That is how modern Advaitins, the so-called jnanis, maintain their ignorance. But, hey, we all want to cling to our fantasies. Nobody really wants to know the truth. The Bhagavata's satyam param dhimahi falls mostly on deaf ears. What we prefer is satyam mama dhimahi. Ain't it all so human, all too human?
|
|
jiva
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by jiva on Feb 7, 2022 23:25:42 GMT -6
Sankara's tradition was turned into "mayavada" by Vacaspati Misra (9th cent.) and Sankara was identified with Siva and turned into a Saiva by Vidyaranya and his brother Sayana in the 14th century. I read somewhere that his direct disciples (the first four) never mentioned him as a Shiva avatar.
It may be unimportant, but is it known what form of tilak Mahaprabha wore?
By the way, Puri Govardhana Math and the local Shankaracaharya, regularly celebrate the Day of the Appearance of Mahaprabhu, give a lecture on Him, etc.
|
|
|
Post by avadhutadas on Feb 8, 2022 2:48:29 GMT -6
“ It may be unimportant, but is it known what form of tilak Mahaprabha wore?”
I don’t think He wore any tilak. There are a couple paintings supposedly commissioned by Prataparudra that show neither Mahaprabhu or any of His associates wearing tilak.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 8, 2022 16:15:55 GMT -6
I don't think Mahaprabu did wear tilak. As a sannyasa novitiate tilak is not a requirement. I don't think that one can tell from the pictures supposedly made of him in Puri, at least not the one that I have seen.
A friend asked me a dumb question, though she is not ordinarily dumb. When I told her Sankara was a Vaisnava she asked what tilak he wears in his pictures? His pictures aren't photographs of him. One can put any tilak one wants on him. That doesn't mean he wore that or ever wore any, for that matter. He is often represented with Saivite tilak on him. But he was not presented as a Saivite until Vidyaranya wrote a biography of him claiming him to be a descent of Siva. That was 700 hundred years after he lived. I accept the earlier date for Sankara of 650-700 CE. There is no support for the later date accept hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by avadhutadas on Feb 8, 2022 18:09:22 GMT -6
. I am undecided on the status and reliability of Locanadas' Caitanya-mangala and Vrndavandas's Caitanya-bhagavata. These are somewhat later works that may reflect more the myth of Sri Caitanya than the reality: I had been told that Caitanya bhagavata is mostly based on the journal of MurariGupta. I guess one would have to read that journal and compare to why Vrndavan das Thakur wrote to see how true this is. Here is my favorite Murari Gupta Lila. One day Murari Gupta, an Ayurvedic doctor, visited Navadvipa accompanied by his followers. While walking down the read, they were discussing the yoga-sastras. Visvambhara Raya, walking directly behind Murari Gupta, began mimicking Murari's way of speaking. Murari Gupta looked askance at the frivolous boy and continued talking to his followers. Gaurahari and His friends increased their mocking of Murari by exactly imitating both his walking stile and hand-gestures. Noticing this, Murari Vaidya became furious and rebuked Nimai: "Who says that this boy is well-behaved? I recognize Him to be the son of the brahmana, Jagannatha Misra. I've heard it everywhere that people admire Him and call him Nimai." Angry at Murari Gupta's criticism, Gaurahari frowned and said: "When you take your meal today I will make you realize something wonderful." After hearing this equivocal statement, the bewildered Murari returned to his residence. Meanwhile, Gaurahari disguised His identity by dressing opulently. Holding laddus in His hands, Gaurahari arrived at Murari's house. Entering the house, He said in a roaring voice: "Murari!" While sitting for his meal, Murari heard that voice and remembered what Nimai said earlier. Feeling a bit surprised, he said: "What are You doing?" Nimai replied: "Oh, don't get up. I am here, so just carry on with your prasada". As Murari became absorbed in taking his meal, Visvambhara slowly moved closer. Then suddenly, Nimai passed urine on Murari's plate. "What?! What are you doing?! Shame, shame on you!", said Murari as he quickly got up. Clapping His hands and dancing, Gauranga gleefully said: "Giving up the path of devotion, you have adopted the path of yoga. You should forget about karma and jnana and just worship Radha and Krishna with all of your heart. Become a rasika bhakta and you will taste the blissful mellows of loving Krshna. One attached to material things can't do Krishna bhajana and his consciousness remains low and impure. Do you understand these things? Lord Hari is omnipotent and full of compassion. He is the treasure and the very life of the gopis at Vrindavana. Why do you hurt the Lord by not serving Him?" TLDR Gaura pissed on Murari’s food while telling him to taste the mellow of loving Krishna.
|
|
jiva
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by jiva on Feb 8, 2022 22:08:12 GMT -6
As a sannyasa novitiate tilak is not a requirement. I did not know that, thank you. Also, I often see one of babas around the Vinod Bihari Baba Maharaja without any tilak, and I was just wondering - how is it?
|
|
jiva
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by jiva on Feb 8, 2022 22:16:47 GMT -6
I accept the earlier date for Sankara of 650-700 CE. There is no support for the later date accept hearsay. The current Shankaracharya of Puri Peeth, Swami Sri Nischalananda Saraswati Maharaj claims that Shankara was born in 507. B.C and attended the moment of the death of his guru.
Allegedly, that Matha has some scriptural records from which this can be concluded, and which (as he says) can be seen.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 9, 2022 10:17:56 GMT -6
I accept the earlier date for Sankara of 650-700 CE. There is no support for the later date accept hearsay. The current Shankaracharya of Puri Peeth, Swami Sri Nischalananda Saraswati Maharaj claims that Shankara was born in 507. B.C and attended the moment of the death of his guru. Allegedly, that Matha has some scriptural records from which this can be concluded, and which (as he says) can be seen.
Thanks Jivaji for this info. I think this is highly unlikely, though. Sankara was a disciple of Govinda who was a disciple of Gaudapada according to the tradition. Here is some info on the dates of Gaudapada: The Karikas of Gaudapada show more than a similarity of thought and expression with the Mulamadhyamakarikas of Nagarjuna ( whose date is accepted as circa third century A. D. ) and with Catuhsataka of Aryadeva who was the disciple of Nagarjuna. The Karikas of Gaudapada are indebted a lot to the Bhagavadglta, and if we believe in the genuine nature of the bhasya by Gaudapada on the Sankhyakarikas of Isvarakrsna (circa 2nd century), it is clear that the date of Gaudapada must be somewhere between 300 to 500 A. D. (Taken from the introduction to Gaudapada-Karikas edited with English translation by Raghunath Damodara Karmarkara. (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1953)
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 9, 2022 10:43:17 GMT -6
Yes, Avadhutadasji. I love that lila, too. We read about it a few weeks ago in Shishir Kumar Ghosh's Lord Gauranga. Ghosh describes the event so delicately that it had me in stitches. It is no doubt in the Caitanya-bhagavata, but I wonder if it is in Murarigupta's text. I have done a partial translation of it that should cover part of the story. I will check. Bet it's not there!
We have a reading group on Meet every Sunday. The current text is Lord Gauranga. A great way to escape the influence of the Cc on our picture of Mahaprabhu.
|
|
|
Post by avadhutadas on Feb 9, 2022 10:52:13 GMT -6
Actually that Gaura pissing Lila is from Chaitanya mangal.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 10, 2022 12:18:48 GMT -6
Actually that Gaura pissing Lila is from Chaitanya mangal. Thanks for that correction, Avadhutadasji. You are right. I looked in the CB for it, but it is not there. Nimai only makes fun of Murarigupta for studying things not related to being a doctor. It is actually a little cruel. Sort of a put down because of his caste. Anyway, somewhere around here I have the Caitanya-mangala. I would like to find that section. A new favorite lila of Mahaprabhu for me is one we encountered in Lord Gauranga this week. That is when Nimai beats up Advaita, knocking him down and slapping him around, for promoting jJAna over bhakti. I wouldn't mind being knocked down and slapped around by Mahaprabhu. Maybe I should teach jJAna over bhakti. It was apparently an ecstatic experience for Advaitacarya. When he rose up afterwards he lost all sense of jJAna's superiority to bhakti. As for being a demon, I think we are all a little bit demonic as long as we are alive. It is hard, if not impossible, to overcome one's ego. Even Bhaktivedanta used to brag a lot about all his temples and followers. He would say it is Krsna's grace, but that was always an after thought. We all knew he was bragging about himself.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 11, 2022 12:57:26 GMT -6
Actually, the dichotomy between jJAna and bhakti is a false one. As I have said many times before, here and in other places, bhakti is a form of knowledge. The Vaisanva acaryas have defined bhakti as jJAna-vizeSa, a special form of knowledge. And even Sankara considered bhakti to be jJAna as I pointed out in my introduction to my edition of the Bhagavad-gita (12.20). উত্তমাং পরমার্থজ্ঞানলক্ষণাং ভকতিম্ uttamAM paramArthalakSaNAM bhaktim. So just like those turtles, it's knowledge all the way down! Baladeva says: Knowledge is twofold: one is the perception of the categories of tat and tvam by a kind of aggressive directness as if staring without blinking and the second, charming and wonderful as if acquired by gazing furtively through side-long glances, has the form of bhakti. (Siddhanta-ratna, para 33)
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Feb 11, 2022 20:09:02 GMT -6
I don't think Mahaprabu did wear tilak. As a sannyasa novitiate tilak is not a requirement. I don't think that one can tell from the pictures supposedly made of him in Puri, at least not the one that I have seen. A friend asked me a dumb question, though she is not ordinarily dumb. When I told her Sankara was a Vaisnava she asked what tilak he wears in his pictures? His pictures aren't photographs of him. One can put any tilak one wants on him. That doesn't mean he wore that or ever wore any, for that matter. He is often represented with Saivite tilak on him. But he was not presented as a Saivite until Vidyaranya wrote a biography of him claiming him to be a descent of Siva. That was 700 hundred years after he lived. I accept the earlier date for Sankara of 650-700 CE. There is no support for the later date accept hearsay. There's also that verse from the story of the discovery of Radha Kunda and Syama Kunda, found in CC: kuṇḍera mṛttikā lañā tilaka karila bhaṭṭācārya-dvārā mṛttikā saṅge kari’ laila (2.18.14 BBT edition)
|
|