Gopala Tapani Upanisad

[Nitaidas]

Here is translation that I will be working on over the next few weeks. Gradually I hope to add commentaries and notes. For now though just the text itself.

Gopala-tapani Upanisad

[Nitaidas]

I updated this file. More of it is done though it is not yet complete.

[malati]

Hi Nitaidasji

I'm combing through your translations that you have posted on this forum. I have noticed that most of them are not complete.

Do you happen to finish Gopaltapani Upanishad? If so, can you please update this thread by posting whatever you have currently of Gopaltapani?

Do you have any plans of compiling all your translations of literature of interest to CV devotees? A sort of compendium of important GV literature.

Thanks a lot for your effort.

Jai Sri Krishna

Kind regards

[Nitaidas]

Feb 24, 2011 2:01:19 GMT -6 malati said:

Hi Nitaidasji

I'm combing through your translations that you have posted on this forum. I have noticed that most of them are not complete.

Do you happen to finish Gopaltapani Upanishad? If so, can you please update this thread by posting whatever you have currently of Gopaltapani?

Do you have any plans of compiling all your translations of literature of interest to CV devotees? A sort of compendium of important GV literature.

Thanks a lot for your effort.

Jai Sri Krishna

Kind regards

Yes. there are many starts and few finishes. Each major text I have started is envisioned as a separate book. The smaller texts will probably be gathered together into an anthology at some point and published. I am something like a child in a candy store. I run from counter to counter tasting the different samples and having trouble making up my mine which to buy.

Given time and encouragement I will certainly finish many of the incomplete texts, but I doubt that I will finish them all. The works that are closest to complete are the book called Mahat-sanga Prasanga by Sri Kanupriya Goswami, the Gita translation that Madanmohanji provided (that only requires an introduction and the completion of a few of the appendices), the life of the great siddha Manohar Das Babaji (it just needs some editing and proofing). Siddha Manohar Das Babaji has written a lila text that I would like to translate as a complement to the book on his life by his disciple Navadvip Das. After these, I am not sure what I will return to or take up next. Any suggestions?

I will look at the Gopala-tapani translation and see if I have done more. If not, I will do more and post it soon.

[vkaul1]

How do we understand the Gopal Tapani Upanishad, considering that it is a very recent text?
Also the whole idea of sruti being apauresheya are not reconcilable with modern evidence. I appreciate your comments.

[Nitaidas]

Mar 25, 2011 18:14:30 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

How do we understand the Gopal Tapani Upanishad, considering that it is a very recent text?
Also the whole idea of sruti being apauresheya are not reconcilable with modern evidence. I appreciate your comments.

Hi vkauli. Welcome to the forum. Please tell us a little about yourself when you have a chance.

I am not a believer in the idea that older and more ancient is better. The older or the more ancient text is not necessarily more authentic. I think one can build a strong case for the idea that revelation is progressive and gets more and more complete over time, each successive revelation building on the previous ones. Therefore, in fact, one might argue the more recent the text, the more complete the revelation. If we look, for instance, at the history of the self-revelation of Visnu we find that the ancient Vedic Hymns have only the most vague and general things to say about Visnu. In the Rg Veda he is but a minor god receiving far less attention and praise than does Indra or Agni or Soma, though one modern scholar has suggested that Visnu even in the Rg stands for a kind of wholeness or completeness that presages his later rise to dominance in the Epic and Puranic expressions (see F B J Kuiper, "The Three Strides of Visnu") Visnu is surpassed by Krsna and Krsna is surpassed by Mahaprabhu. And who knows? Perhaps there is yet a more complete divine self-revelation coming up in the not too distant future.

The idea that the Gopala-tapani is a more recent text does not bother me, therefore. It is another piece in the progressive self-revelation of Visnu-Krsna-Gauranga-? As I mentioned in another thread, the orthodox teaching of CV is that the sacred texts are eternal and only have temporal manifestations at specific recognizable historical moments. One can simply stop with that and ask no further questions. For me, however, the teaching raises more questions than it answers and it is my inclination to try to find ways of answering those questions that might still honor the idea of revelation and not require us modern members of the tradition to swallow something too big for our throats.

[malati]

Nitaidasji

What you said was very true indeed.

You said:


It is another piece in the progressive self-revelation of Visnu-Krsna-Gauranga-? As I mentioned in another thread, the orthodox teaching of CV is that the sacred texts are eternal and only have temporal manifestations at specific recognizable historical moments.


But do you think that as regards CVism, the Krishna Lila philosophy is at least non-negotiable? What I mean is that, all others of its teaching can be relative, given meaning in the context by which they appear in a point in time. However Krishna lila stands as the core of CVism from which all others revolve.

[vkaul1]

Nitaiji,
I appreciate your insight into this matter. I am Vivek and I have been exposed to Chaitanya Vaisnavism through different sources since 1999. I finished my PhD in Applied Mathematics from Georgia Tech and I had done my Bachelors in Aerospace Engineering from IIT in Mumbai.

Now there are lot of issues about apauresheya and distinction between sruti and smriti that don't meet modern tight empirical evidence.
However, let us start with one issue. Your idea of realization as progressive is indeed something I relate to. However, I find realization to be neither all progressive nor all regressive. If you see the polemics among sects, parochial claims etc are a more recent phenomenon compared to the climate in which bhagavata was written. On the other theology and philosophy is more detailed in modern times.

I have gone to Vraja and met many traditional sadhus and for them this is "Kali" yuga the most degraded age in which CM has given the highest ideal. First of all I don't feel people today are the most degraded and there is no evidence whatsoever for the yuga cycles if you examine evidence from different sources including biology, paleontology and climatology. Secondly, all traditional sadhus insist on proving Chaitanya mahaprabhu as an avatar for this "yuga". They have idea that yuga cycles are proven to be false at least in the literal sense and they told me that this is sabda and it cannot be questioned. Now in the modern setting where we have exposure to 100 sects and subsects with each of them claiming to have their right interpretation of "sabda", it does not seem that easy to sort them out, right? Especially because many statements in each sect that are empirically verifiable (like earth being 6000 years old or yuga cycles) have been proved to be false. Unless we want to live with a placebo effect and deny that these things have been proven false, it is a challenge to deal with these issues. But you do insist that one should take diksha in
traditional unbroken chain of gurus in vraja to get the "real" thing. How do I know they are actually authentic when they have only got no respect for modern findings that contradict their beliefs. Even Satyanaryana ji whom I respect, just gives such a orthodox version of sastra with no acknowledgement of the contradiction of yuga cycle theory. And he gives a naive example of proving the soul's existence saying that we feel the same if our arm is cut, so there must be a self. www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyxpNasXYc
What if our brain is paralyzed? Do we feel the same?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k&feature=related Here in this video you can see how emotional parts of the brain are connected to visual processing areas of the brain and auditory processing areas of the brain and how if the "physical" connections are broken from emotional areas to the visual areas of the brain we can recognize our mother visually, but we don't feel the same emotion towards our mother. The mapping between the brain and changes in the mind is much stronger now than when you never could peep inside the human body Neuroscience is much more advanced now than 500 years back and theists needs to take account of modern issues rather than just labeling modern people as retarded, less intelligent demons on the basis of quotes from the bhagavata. It is very convenient way to run away from evidence and in you I found the first person in Chaitanya Vaisnavism who has recognized these issues and the gravity of them. So unless I find a traditional guru who really can see that what he has believed all along for centuries is wrong in many ways and tries to place the tradition in modern times, how can I be comfortable taking diksha from such a person?

My initial background was in Kashmiri Shaivism and I relished your take on Abhinavgupta before.

[Nitaidas]

Mar 26, 2011 19:15:06 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

Nitaiji,
I appreciate your insight into this matter. I am Vivek and I have been exposed to Chaitanya Vaisnavism through different sources since 1999. I finished my PhD in Applied Mathematics from Georgia Tech and I had done my Bachelors in Aerospace Engineering from IIT in Mumbai.

Yes. I remember communicating with you privately a while back. Congrats on your success at Georgia Tech. What are you working at at present?

Now there are lot of issues about apauresheya and distinction between sruti and smriti that don't meet modern tight empirical evidence.
However, let us start with one issue. Your idea of realization as progressive is indeed something I relate to. However, I find realization to be neither all progressive nor all regressive. If you see the polemics among sects, parochial claims etc are a more recent phenomenon compared to the climate in which bhagavata was written. On the other theology and philosophy is more detailed in modern times.

I don't think that polemics between sects are only a modern phenomenon. If you look at the history of Indic philosophy and religion, you will discover a great deal sectarian debate, between Buddhists and Hindus, between Hindus and Jainas, between Buddhists and Jainas, between Buddhists and Buddhists and between Hindus and Hindus. It is one of the reasons why logic and the science of debate became so highly developed in India.

I have gone to Vraja and met many traditional sadhus and for them this is "Kali" yuga the most degraded age in which CM has given the highest ideal. First of all I don't feel people today are the most degraded and there is no evidence whatsoever for the yuga cycles if you examine evidence from different sources including biology, paleontology and climatology. Secondly, all traditional sadhus insist on proving Chaitanya mahaprabhu as an avatar for this "yuga". They have idea that yuga cycles are proven to be false at least in the literal sense and they told me that this is sabda and it cannot be questioned. Now in the modern setting where we have exposure to 100 sects and subsects with each of them claiming to have their right interpretation of "sabda", it does not seem that easy to sort them out, right? Especially because many statements in each sect that are empirically verifiable (like earth being 6000 years old or yuga cycles) have been proved to be false. Unless we want to live with a placebo effect and deny that these things have been proven false, it is a challenge to deal with these issues.

Yes. You have raised some good and important questions. Keep in mind that the sadhus you talked with are operating with texts that are five hundred years old and operated within a worldview that no longer is valid. The yuga-cycle theory was state of the art back then. Today we know it is not true. We can no longer really operate within that worldview. We need to observe how our acaryas acted more than what they taught and then model our own behavior on theirs. Let me give you an example: Sri Jiva in his Tattva-sandarbha goes to great lengths to prove that the Bhagavata should be considered part of sruti and not part of smrti. He is deliberately redefining the previously accepted demarcation between sruti and smrti. In order to do this he appeals to sruti itself to some degree and to a great degree to smrti passages that claim that itihasa and purana make up the fifth Veda. He also uses inferential arguments based on the idea that the old Vedic texts are incomprehensible in the modern (i.e. his period's) world and purana means "making complete" or "fulfilling." He is showing respect to the ancient texts, but gently pushing them in a new direction. That is the way we, living in the 21st century, should behave towards his works and the works of the other followers of Mahaprabhu.

The sadhus you interviewed are living in a sixteenth century world that no longer exists. They are hiding in their caves and bhajan kutirs from the modern world, but the modern world will not let them be. Eventually their caves will be dynamited and their kutirs bull-dozed. There is nothing we can do about it. The world has changed and we have to change with it or we will get plowed under. We have to reject the yuga cycles or take them as metaphorical and take away their lesson but not their reality. Truth may still reside in things that are themselves not real. So Mahaprabhu is not a yuga avatara, but he can still be thought of as an avatara or better as the avatarin himself in his fullness, a fullness that even includes and supercedes the Krsna avatara. And who knows if there is not some even more complete divine revelation coming!

But you do insist that one should take diksha in
traditional unbroken chain of gurus in vraja to get the "real" thing. How do I know they are actually authentic when they have only got no respect for modern findings that contradict their beliefs. Even Satyanaryana ji whom I respect, just gives such a orthodox version of sastra with no acknowledgement of the contradiction of yuga cycle theory. And he gives a naive example of proving the soul's existence saying that we feel the same if our arm is cut, so there must be a self. www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyxpNasXYc

Yes. I think that there is a power that is communicated in the initiation that unites the tradition together and empowers it to face the kinds of challenges it will have to face in this world and continue to survive. The power has to do with our relationship with Krsna and Mahaprabhu not will our ability to understand the world or even the scriptures. I don't find this inconsistent in the least. It is like a thread running through a string of pearls or other kinds of jewels, each jewel representing a different worldview in the history of CV. One pearl might represent the view of the Bhagavata and the one next to it, a slightly different color and shape, represents the CC, and so on. We are trying now to add our jewel to the necklace, but we can't do it without the thread that ties them all together.

Satyanarayan and Ananta Das Babaji and Haridas Sastri and Bhagavat Kisore Goswami and many others have deep understandings of the CV texts and can represent them and their teachings with fidelity. We need that. But we also need to move beyond those texts in new directions as Sri Jiva did so long ago in his efforts to include the Bhagavata in sruti. He knew the prior tradition very well. He was extremely well educated by the standards of his day and we should also be if we are able. And we should us that education to bring CV into the modern or post modern world.

What if our brain is paralyzed? Do we feel the same?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k&feature=related Here in this video you can see how emotional parts of the brain are connected to visual processing areas of the brain and auditory processing areas of the brain and how if the "physical" connections are broken from emotional areas to the visual areas of the brain we can recognize our mother visually, but we don't feel the same emotion towards our mother. The mapping between the brain and changes in the mind is much stronger now than when you never could peep inside the human body Neuroscience is much more advanced now than 500 years back and theists needs to take account of modern issues rather than just labeling modern people as retarded, less intelligent demons on the basis of quotes from the bhagavata.

Yes. I agree completely. We must take into account these new advances in neuro-science and physics and biology. At the same time we have to question the assumptions that science brings to its dominant worldview. We cannot simply accept whatever scientists say without critical reflection. Science is self-correcting, but sometimes it is reluctant to do so. Ideologies get entrenched and fiercely defended even in the face of countervailing facts. Scientists are human and have human failings as we all do.

It is very convenient way to run away from evidence and in you I found the first person in Chaitanya Vaisnavism who has recognized these issues and the gravity of them. So unless I find a traditional guru who really can see that what he has believed all along for centuries is wrong in many ways and tries to place the tradition in modern times, how can I be comfortable taking diksha from such a person?

It is both difficult and easy to find an authentic guru. One should not disqualify someone from being authentic if he or she sticks to the traditional siddhanta. As I said, they are valuable assets to our community, keeping us grounded in rich soil of the past. Remember, however, the diksa and siksa are two different things. Sometimes both come from the same gurudev and sometimes not. One may have many siksa gurus, but only one diksa guru. One need not confine oneself to taking both from the same person.

My gurudev was wholeheartedly devoted to bhajan. That is how he spent his whole day beginning early in the morning (2 or 3). If someone had told him that the yugas were false he would have said "is that so?" and closed his eyes again and returned to his bhajan. He was not concerned with the niceties of the theology or philosophy. He was only interested in tasting the rasa of R and K. For me he represents the fact that one can actually do that, that one can actually achieve success in this tradition and it does not depend on whether or not there are yugas.

My initial background was in Kashmiri Shaivism and I relished your take on Abhinavgupta before.

Thanks. Abhinavagupta is one of my heroes, a profound knower of rasa.

[Nitaidas]

Mar 26, 2011 16:42:21 GMT -6 malati said:

Nitaidasji

What you said was very true indeed.

You said:


It is another piece in the progressive self-revelation of Visnu-Krsna-Gauranga-? As I mentioned in another thread, the orthodox teaching of CV is that the sacred texts are eternal and only have temporal manifestations at specific recognizable historical moments.


But do you think that as regards CVism, the Krishna Lila philosophy is at least non-negotiable? What I mean is that, all others of its teaching can be relative, given meaning in the context by which they appear in a point in time. However Krishna lila stands as the core of CVism from which all others revolve.

Yes. I think so. But we should not forget Mahaprabhu whose lila surrounds Krsna-lila and protects it like a protective shell or coating. Mahaprabhu's lila focuses our attention on certain aspects of Krsna lila and de-emphasizes other aspects of Krsna lila. Through the lens of Mahaprabhu we see up close and experientially the love between Krsna and the gopis, especially Radha, whereas other aspects of the lila, the killing of demons, is pushed into the background. We might regard each of the plays or poems of the Goswamis as special lenses into some essential aspect of Krsna lila and those dealing with Mahaprabhu as the same for him.

As for the actual historicity of Krsna lila, I am not sure that it ever actually took place anywhere in this universe or in any other parallel universe either. The fact that there are all kinds of places identified as places in which this lila took place or that lila took place does not constitute any kind of proof. All it means is that certain places in Vraja sparked the imaginations of the Goswamis and their followers and brought to their minds various lilas. Vraja is thus more important as a kind of meditation mandala than it is as the actual site of Krsna's life. Even just that is a powerful blessing. Krsna lila may only have ever existed in the Bhagavata or in the works of Mahaprabhu's followers, as the artistic expressions of the inner visions of the authors of those works. I should not forget those before Mahaprabhu, luminaries like Jayadeva or Candidas. Still Krsna lila is central.

[vkaul1]

Yes. I remember communicating with you privately a while back. Congrats on your success at Georgia Tech. What are you working at at present?

Right now I am working on Statistical Risk Detection techniques for a company in California. I am trying to learn Sanskrit meanwhile, so that I am equipped to read the Goswami granthas. I intend to go into South Asian studies in about five years to explore another dimension following in your footsteps. I am not super fascinated by CC because it is a hagiography with a lot of exaggerations like millions of people being converted in south india and varanasi and Mahaprabhu defeating tattvavadis without any reference to the actual argument. Polemics against advaitins are a norm in CC. However, the Chaitanya Vaisnavism tradition is not able to deal with the fact that Sridhara Swami was in fact an advaitin as evidenced by his commentary on BG where he reveres Sankara. Similarly, Keshava Bharti was from the advaitin lineage and the whole idea in chaitanya bhagavata where he has a dream in which he is asked to speak a different mantra to CM is a fabrication by a follower. So I need to clear myself of the memes in CC that compel you to hate everyone outside your tradition and distort reality to bolster faith in a sect. Like you said we begin with "Satyam param dhimahi", so let the truth prevail, not some distorted version of it to deprecate all people outside one' sect.

I don't think that polemics between sects are only a modern phenomenon. If you look at the history of Indic philosophy and religion, you will discover a great deal sectarian debate, between Buddhists and Hindus, between Hindus and Jainas, between Buddhists and Jainas, between Buddhists and Buddhists and between Hindus and Hindus. It is one of the reasons why logic and the science of debate became so highly developed in India.


I will write more on logic, perhaps on another thread if you want. However, logical fallacies that include circular arguments can be found in most arguments from the past. I have read madhva's argument to prove that vedas are flawless on some other thread. The arguments involve leaps in faith, though the author assumes that he has given a "faith free" argument. Modern logic culminating in Godel's incompleteness theorem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_First_Incompleteness_Theorem is much more cutting edge than whatever ancient people used. If we study modern logic, we understand all kinds of paradoxes of logic that people have struggled to resolve. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

Perhaps that is the reason the Vedanta Sutra says tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want I can post the argument by Madhva for instance and we can find the deficiencies there. Even the whole debate in which Satyanaryana ji tried to prove that the brahma vimohana lila is not a later interpolation in the Bhagavata, the arguments are not very convincing. We can talk about that issue as well if you are interested.

Yes. You have raised some good and important questions. Keep in mind that the sadhus you talked with are operating with texts that are five hundred years old and operated within a worldview that no longer is valid. The yuga-cycle theory was state of the art back then. Today we know it is not true. We can no longer really operate within that worldview. We need to observe how our acaryas acted more than what they taught and then model our own behavior on theirs. Let me give you an example: Sri Jiva in his Tattva-sandarbha goes to great lengths to prove that the Bhagavata should be considered part of sruti and not part of smrti. He is deliberately redefining the previously accepted demarcation between sruti and smrti. In order to do this he appeals to sruti itself to some degree and to a great degree to smrti passages that claim that itihasa and purana make up the fifth Veda. He also uses inferential arguments based on the idea that the old Vedic texts are incomprehensible in the modern (i.e. his period's) world and purana means "making complete" or "fulfilling." He is showing respect to the ancient texts, but gently pushing them in a new direction. That is the way we, living in the 21st century, should behave towards his works and the works of the other followers of Mahaprabhu.
Thanks for your good insights.

The sadhus you interviewed are living in a sixteenth century world that no longer exists. They are hiding in their caves and bhajan kutirs from the modern world, but the modern world will not let them be. Eventually their caves will be dynamited and their kutirs bull-dozed. There is nothing we can do about it. The world has changed and we have to change with it or we will get plowed under. We have to reject the yuga cycles or take them as metaphorical and take away their lesson but not their reality. Truth may still reside in things that are themselves not real. So Mahaprabhu is not a yuga avatara, but he can still be thought of as an avatara or better as the avatarin himself in his fullness, a fullness that even includes and supercedes the Krsna avatara. And who knows if there is not some even more complete divine revelation coming!


Again deep insights.



Satyanarayan and Ananta Das Babaji and Haridas Sastri and Bhagavat Kisore Goswami and many others have deep understandings of the CV texts and can represent them and their teachings with fidelity. We need that. But we also need to move beyond those texts in new directions as Sri Jiva did so long ago in his efforts to include the Bhagavata in sruti. He knew the prior tradition very well. He was extremely well educated by the standards of his day and we should also be if we are able. And we should us that education to bring CV into the modern or post modern world.

Yes but I prefer your guru'a approach who will say "oh is it?" and go back to meditation. The traditional people (especially Satyanarayana) you have quoted there reject modern findings out and out in one sense and have no respect for what science has found. If you are not aware just say, "is it " or " I don't know" instead of attacking science in a distorted way like Bhakivedanta Swami had done. Many traditionalists including your favorite Chandana Goswami takes a more literal interpretation of scripture than anybody else about all details in bhagavata. He condemns modern science whole sale and you say he is torchbearer of tradition who thoughtful people should take initiation from? That guy lacks some basic humility to know that he does not know.


Yes. I agree completely. We must take into account these new advances in neuro-science and physics and biology. At the same time we have to question the assumptions that science brings to its dominant worldview. We cannot simply accept whatever scientists say without critical reflection. Science is self-correcting, but sometimes it is reluctant to do so. Ideologies get entrenched and fiercely defended even in the face of countervailing facts. Scientists are human and have human failings as we all do.


Yes, science is biased towards methodological naturalism that can lead to philosophical naturalism. They are humans for sure, but they never claimed to be as superhuman as people in religious sects claim their teachers to be (omniscient, correct on everything etc etc). People misunderstand when they say science changes all the time and it will prove the scripture some day. The theories keep on changing. Every scientific theory that replaces the old one has to subsume the predictions of the old theory and go further. It is not that suddenly science will conclude earth is 6000 years old as the Christians would like to believe or the bhagavat cosmology is true. There is something missing in the current theories, but they are not completely incorrect as the traditionalist claim to be. Obviously metaphysically claims of any tradition cannot be verified, but where ever empirical facts are spoken in religious texts, they can be examined by empirical testing. As you said eventually we do input everything from our senses.

My gurudev was wholeheartedly devoted to bhajan. That is how he spent his whole day beginning early in the morning (2 or 3). If someone had told him that the yugas were false he would have said "is that so?" and closed his eyes again and returned to his bhajan. He was not concerned with the niceties of the theology or philosophy. He was only interested in tasting the rasa of R and K. For me he represents the fact that one can actually do that, that one can actually achieve success in this tradition and it does not depend on whether or not there are yugas.


Yes that is beautiful. At least he was humble enough to be indifferent to evidence. I have nothing but respect for such people. However, the larger than life gurus will never say, "is it". They will say the demonaic scientists don't know anything and are puffed up. Is that really great to hear? I continue to find great solace in sikshatakam and the ideal of unconditional devotion service represented in the last verse of the sikshastakam. Currently whatever bhakti, I perform I do it for it own sake. Nothing about going to hell or liberation is my mind. I love it and do it.

[Nitaidas]

Mar 27, 2011 15:56:03 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

Right now I am working on Statistical Risk Detection techniques for a company in California. I am trying to learn Sanskrit meanwhile, so that I am equipped to read the Goswami granthas. I intend to go into South Asian studies in about five years to explore another dimension following in your footsteps.

Good! I am glad to hear this. I encourage you to learn Sanskrit and read not only the Goswami granthas, but Sankara and Abhinavagupta, too. Don't forget such greats as Udayana and Jagannatha and Madhusudana Sarasvati. They are all masters in their own fields.

I am not super fascinated by CC because it is a hagiography with a lot of exaggerations like millions of people being converted in south india and varanasi and Mahaprabhu defeating tattvavadis without any reference to the actual argument. Polemics against advaitins are a norm in CC. However, the Chaitanya Vaisnavism tradition is not able to deal with the fact that Sridhara Swami was in fact an advaitin as evidenced by his commentary on BG where he reveres Sankara. Similarly, Keshava Bharti was from the advaitin lineage and the whole idea in chaitanya bhagavata where he has a dream in which he is asked to speak a different mantra to CM is a fabrication by a follower. So I need to clear myself of the memes in CC that compel you to hate everyone outside your tradition and distort reality to bolster faith in a sect. Like you said we begin with "Satyam param dhimahi", so let the truth prevail, not some distorted version of it to deprecate all people outside one' sect.

Yes. The CC introduces a whole new level of sectarianism and ethnocentrism into CV. It is no wonder that the Bengalis loved it. It was just what they wanted to hear. I also think that it inhibited the careful study of the Goswami works because it gave a kind of Reader's Digest version of the Goswami granthas. On the one hand it made a very brief and selective summary of the the works available in Bengali, which is a good thing, I guess. Something is better than nothing. On the other hand, those who read it were often satisfied with just that much of the story and so they did not feel very motivated to pursue the rest of the story, the original works themselves with any perseverance. And as it happens the CC gives a completely distorted and false view of Sankara. For that KdK can perhaps not be blamed too much. It was the standard view of Sankara on those days. Even Sri Jiva got it wrong. Now we know more about what Sankara really wrote and believed. That nonsense about parinama and vivarta can now be corrected.

I will write more on logic, perhaps on another thread if you want. However, logical fallacies that include circular arguments can be found in most arguments from the past. I have read madhva's argument to prove that vedas are flawless on some other thread. The arguments involve leaps in faith, though the author assumes that he has given a "faith free" argument. Modern logic culminating in Godel's incompleteness theorem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_First_Incompleteness_Theorem is much more cutting edge than whatever ancient people used. If we study modern logic, we understand all kinds of paradoxes of logic that people have struggled to resolve. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

Perhaps that is the reason the Vedanta Sutra says tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want I can post the argument by Madhva for instance and we can find the deficiencies there. Even the whole debate in which Satyanaryana ji tried to prove that the brahma vimohana lila is not a later interpolation in the Bhagavata, the arguments are not very convincing. We can talk about that issue as well if you are interested.

This will be good. Please do share this with us. Put it perhaps in the Philosophy and CV section or in the Other Vaisnavisms section. I am not so quick to dismiss the Indic logicians. Gangesa was a real giant and many of our Bengali CV predecessors belonged to the school of Neo-logic. Mathuranatha Tarkavagisha. for instance, and Jagadisha and Gadadhara. Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya was also a great exponent of Navya-nyaya before he met Mahaprabhu. The greatest Bengali exponent, Raghunatha Tarkasiromani, was not a CV, of course, but he is still a great read. But many of the greatest modern members of the NN school like Sri Jiva Tarkatirtha were members of Advaitacarya's family from Santipur. CVism is not an invitation to or excuse for slovenly or lazy thinking.

Yes but I prefer your guru'a approach who will say "oh is it?" and go back to meditation. The traditional people (especially Satyanarayana) you have quoted there reject modern findings out and out in one sense and have no respect for what science has found. If you are not aware just say, "is it " or " I don't know" instead of attacking science in a distorted way like Bhakivedanta Swami had done. Many traditionalists including your favorite Chandana Goswami takes a more literal interpretation of scripture than anybody else about all details in bhagavata. He condemns modern science whole sale and you say he is torchbearer of tradition who thoughtful people should take initiation from? That guy lacks some basic humility to know that he does not know.

I didn't realize Chandana was my favorite. He asked me to do some translation for him and we could not come to an agreement. I think Jagat is now translating for him, I believe. That is fine. I like to steer clear of such self-enamored "acaryas." They can only be trouble.

Yes, science is biased towards methodological naturalism that can lead to philosophical naturalism. They are humans for sure, but they never claimed to be as superhuman as people in religious sects claim their teachers to be (omniscient, correct on everything etc etc). People misunderstand when they say science changes all the time and it will prove the scripture some day. The theories keep on changing. Every scientific theory that replaces the old one has to subsume the predictions of the old theory and go further. It is not that suddenly science will conclude earth is 6000 years old as the Christians would like to believe or the bhagavat cosmology is true. There is something missing in the current theories, but they are not completely incorrect as the traditionalist claim to be. Obviously metaphysically claims of any tradition cannot be verified, but where ever empirical facts are spoken in religious texts, they can be examined by empirical testing. As you said eventually we do input everything from our senses.

No. It is extremely unlikely that science will one day prove the physical worldviews of CV or of any religion to be true. Just the opposite will be the case. As science advances religion retreats. It is precisely the ability of science to correct itself that makes it so powerful. Scripture is couched in the languages and dominant conceptions of the times and places in which they are revealed. We have to take that into account when we read them and try to sort out the underlying truth from the temporal adjuncts used to express it. This is the real meaning of sara-grahi.

Yes that is beautiful. At least he was humble enough to be indifferent to evidence. I have nothing but respect for such people. However, the larger than life gurus will never say, "is it". They will say the demonaic scientists don't know anything and are puffed up. Is that really great to hear? I continue to find great solace in sikshatakam and the ideal of unconditional devotion service represented in the last verse of the sikshastakam. Currently whatever bhakti, I perform I do it for it own sake. Nothing about going to hell or liberation is my mind. I love it and do it.

This is good. The Sikshashtaka is an extraordinary text really; it encapsulates the essential teachings and feelings of the CV tradition. I especially like the seventh verse myself, the atheistic verse I like to call it. One does not look out on the universe and see Krsna everywhere. Rather, one sees him nowhere and is overwhelmed with feelings of deep (and perhaps unending) separation. This is our existential stance.

[vkaul1]

This is good. The Sikshashtaka is an extraordinary text really; it encapsulates the essential teachings and feelings of the CV tradition. I especially like the seventh verse myself, the atheistic verse I like to call it. One does not look out on the universe and see Krsna everywhere. Rather, one sees him nowhere and is overwhelmed with feelings of deep (and perhaps unending) separation. This is our existential stance.

I had read something recently from Jagat:
Too few devotees contemplate the description of the uttama bhagavata in the Eleventh Canto. This is the exact same kind of verse that is found in the Ishopanishad and other Upanishads, including the Gitopanishad:

sarva-bhūteṣu yaḥ paśyed
bhagavad-bhāvam ātmanaḥ
bhūtāni bhagavaty ātmany
eṣa bhāgavatottamaḥ


The superlative devotee is one who sees his own nature or mood of the Lord (bhāva) in all created manifestations, and sees all created manifestations in the Lord, who is himself.

jagadanandadas.blogspot.com/
I am not sure if we can just shun away the idea that immanence of God is a reality in scripture. In fact the vaisesikha idea (which is closer to the clockwork idea of Christians that you also expressed. The idea that laws are just set into motion.) was opposed by Vedantins because the philosophy did not acknowledge God's continuous role in creation though God is acknowledged as an efficient cause nonetheless. Anyway consciousness is being explored in interesting ways now as evident from this video of the famous physicists Linde closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-Explore-Consciousness-and-Cosmos-Andrei-Linde-/874 and closertotruth.com/video-profile/Can-We-Explain-Cosmos-and-Consciousness-Henry-Stapp-/397 who has written an interesting book www.amazon.com/Mindful-Universe-Mechanics-Participating-Collection/dp/3540724133 . Certainly if we insist on naturalistic explanations we may not find anything there and there are very solid arguments to back the fact that there is nothing inside the universe. www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCnGf37iiKU . Tyson speaks about how the universe is just ready to kill you at every instant and the design is pretty inefficient. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lm6pEhykhs It becomes really hard to fight on very provincial ideas of CV that look so much related to Bengali culture rather than related to essential spirituality. Like you said we have to gravitate towards the essence, but it is hard to be illumined enough to know what is the essence and what is a detail. So I try to pursue this question with open-mindedness and some humility of not knowing.

[Ekantin]

Apr 4, 2011 19:07:08 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

Anyway consciousness is being explored in interesting ways now as evident from this video of the famous physicists ...

It always seems odd to me when people such as physicists are asked to consider an issue out of their usual purview, such as consciousness.

[vkaul1]

It always seems odd to me when people such as physicists are asked to consider an issue out of their usual purview, such as consciousness.[/quote]

It seems odd to me when religious people insist on puranic cosmology and yuga cycles which is outside their purview.

Anyway why consciousness has entered physics is strange ways is something you will appreciate more going into general relativity, quantum mechanics and then inflationary theory. Obviously, we can do without it also.

quote from Lawrence Principe, historian of science at JHU:

"A believer studying the marvelous intricacies of the natural world can see the hand of God and have his devotion increased, but a non-believer, while subject to the very same feelings of awe and wonder, is not going to translate that emotional response into praise of a creator. Instead, he could just as easily marvel at the efficiency and power of the operation of natural causes. In short, a sense of wonder is going to enhance your respect for whatever cause you already have in mind, not change its identity."