Thank you for the nice article. I have two questions in this connection.
You are writing: “Until that period two famous Vaisnava commentaries already existed: Ramanuja (1017-1137) and Madhva (1238-1317)…” Do you mean by this that there was a commentary on Bhagavatam by Ramanuja? I always thought that he did not comment on Bhagavatam. If there was one, what was it called?
What is the book by Sheridan that you are referring to? It’s not mentioned by title, and it seems that you overlooked it in the bibliography.
The thesis is a rather odd mix of academic research balanced against commentaries of the Vaishnavas. Views and opinions from outside the parampara system are being presented as noteworthy.
Most usually this type of research creates ambiguous conclusions that open up doubts and confusion.
In the end the author has reached the proper conclusion, but in the process takes the reader on a roller coaster ride through a litany of academic postulations on the presumption that they are viable views worthy of mention.
Can the academic world ever be rectified by comparative study and corrective measures?
Probably not.
The conclusion is that one ends up preaching to choir, as the academics who need most to read such a thesis are not of an open mind.
I echo the sentiments of Japa Jim above. When we consider our interpretations of Truth, we accept the higher authority. Srila Prabhupada sometimes used the example of seeing a coiled object in a dimly lit room. The disciple is with his guru. The guru says, “it is a rope” and the disciple says, “yes, it is a rope.” Then, the guru says, “it is a snake”. And the disciple says, “yes it is a snake”…and so on. The disciple both has faith in guru, and also does not accept the faulty perception of his own senses or mental speculation. Ultimately, Krishna advises that one learn from and serve a vaishnava who is tattvah darsinah, who has seen the Truth, or better, to whom the Truth has been revealed causelessly. We are warned that those who do not have the qualifications mentioned by Krishna are to be ignored. Use of linguistics, reconstructing history that is 600 years old, have little to offer. For example, linguistically, the modern linguists place the Srimad Bhagavatam at about 600 -800 AD…simply based on the Sanskrit that is found in the Bhagavat Purana.
Srila Prabhupada’s faith was as follows, as he personally described to me on a stroll on the roof of the first guesthouse in Mayapur. He said: “We must not think that the greatest philosopher, Vyasadeva, is telling us children’s stories in describing Krishna’s childhood pastimes. Do not think that Bakasura is imaginary. Vyasadeva compiled Vedanta Sutra, why would he waste our time with childhood stories. No! He is describing Krishna’s actual pastimes.” Srila Prabhupada concluded: “If there is one weak link in the chain, then the whole thing is spoiled.” This is the faith of Srila Prabhupada in the literature. He used Sridhara Swami’s commentaries extensively in his own translation and comments on the Srimad Bhagavatam. That is sufficient. He is tattva darshina. No controversy is necessary.. Prabhus, time for going Home, back to Godhead. Pusta Krishna das
Has it been firmly established that Sridhara Swami wrote his commentary on Bhagavatam as a follower of Sankaracarya as opposed to being a disciple of a Vaishnava sannyasi from the line of Vishnuswami? The name of the philosophy of Rudra Sampradaya is suddha-advaita – pure monism. Could this be why his commentary sometimes appear monistic? Several vaishnava sites list Sridhara Swami as belonging to Rudra samparadaya. They could be wrong, and people who treat Sridhara Swami as an advaitin could be wrong, too.
More importantly, research cited here treats vaishnava philosophy as if it was an ordinary speculation based on empirically available sources, in this case books and scriptures available to Jiva Goswami, rather than knowledge revealed in recognition of their faith and devotion – as per famous “yasya deve para bhaktir…” verse often quoted by Srila Prabhupada. Once one has that one knows “that by which everything else can be known” – a loose translation of Mundaka Upanishad’s 1.1.3 also quoted by Prabhupada, and so what ordinary people see as sources leading to conclusions becomes evidence proving what is already known, and any contradictions in the sources do not affect the outcome.
In the eyes of mundane philosophers there is a possibility that Jiva Goswami didn’t strictly follow teachings of Lord Caitanya but according to vaishnava method of acquiring knowledge it is unthinkable. To suggest this would mean an accusation that Jiva Goswami was not a great devotee but a more of a mental speculator, which we should reject out of hand.
It would be nice if the author of this article addressed concerns expressed in the comments otherwise this lack of response can be attributed to thoughts like “devotees are fanatics and engaging them in vigorous debate is impossible as they always bring up things like faith and then freak out when somebody’s faith or spiritual position is questioned.” I can see how my own previous comment can be interpreted this way.
The answer to this is simple – developing Krishna consciousness is not a function of debates and arguments but a function of faith. Arguments are good only until you meet with counterarguments, and you can’t prove God into existence – He either reveals Himself in your heart or He doesn’t. This, again, depends on the sincerity of the preacher whose prayers should trigger the chain of mercy that ends with the Supersoul lifting the veil of illusion in their hearts.
Academic debates must have their place, too, but what is it? Is it to fill the space with our propaganda before atheists do it themselves? We’ve had academic world polluted with Aryan Migration Theory for nearly a century, for example, and if we produce hundreds and thousands of papers expounding our views then everyone will accept them as true for the time being, which will be beneficial to the humanity as a whole.
Or we could say that Krishna conscious philosophy IS true so all academic debates must eventually end with our victory but principal part of this truth is that everything is connected to and depends on Krishna in every respect – a position that academics will not even consider and we ourselves concede that God cannot be brought into the debates. How much truth is left after that deduction? What is it that we want to prove?
You are writing: “Until that period two famous Vaisnava commentaries already existed: Ramanuja (1017-1137) and Madhva (1238-1317)…” Do you mean by this that there was a commentary on Bhagavatam by Ramanuja? I always thought that he did not comment on Bhagavatam. If there was one, what was it called?
Answer: Although it is not made clear in the article, the commentaries mentioned are commentaries on Vedanta Sutra, not Srimad Bhagavatam. Ramanujacarya’s commentary on Vedanta Sutra is called Sri Bhasya.
Dear Dina Dayala Prabhu.
Please accept my humble obiesances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
You cite a statement where, regarding Sridhara Swami, Lord Caitnaya said: “ I therefore accept him as a spiritual master”.
You begin your summary with:
“The incident between Caitanya and Vallabha Bhatta depicted in Caitanya-caritamrta only left much speculation about Caitanya’s real teachings. Although in all other biographies Caitanya is presented as harsh, almost inimical towards Advaitins, this episode demonstrates Caitanya’s genuine admiration for Sridhara Svami, Sankara’s committed follower.”END QUOTE.
There is no intellectual justification for speculation about Lord Caitanya’s “real teachings”.
Irrefutable premise 1:
Lord Caitanya’s anathematization of Sankara’s philosophy is ubiquitously cited in Srila Prabhupada’s books.
Irrefutable premise 2:
Lord Caitanya accepted Sridhara Svami as His spiritual master.
Conclusion:
Your statement that Sridhara Svami is a committed follower of Sankara is not accurate, regardless of the Svami’s affiliations.
Prabhu,
You write:
We have to know that Sridhara’s lack of emphasis on maya as ignorance that comes from superimposition of the material world on Brahman, and his emphasis on bhakti reflect a four-century gap between Sankara’s teaching and him, during which time the Advaitins’ teaching become more devotionally tinged. (Sheridan, 1994, 49).
Sankara’s philosophy is an anomaly: however, this suggests that it is the basis and the bhakti tradition is an addition to it. Devotionally tinged mayavadi philosophy brings to mind modern popular yoga groups who chant Hare Krishna and say things like “bhakti Trumps all” They post descriptions of Gopal Krishna, which seem accurate until they end with:
Perhaps the most dramatic anecdote about Gopal is that once when he was an infant and lying on his mother’s lap, he yawned, and when his mother looked down, she saw the entire universe in his mouth. We are not what we seem to be; we have the whole universe inside us. END QUOTE.
The guru of the group then says the Bhagavatam stories are allegorical and:
The Hindu stories found in scriptures such as the Srimad Bhagavatam were written thousands of years ago when most humans did not have the consciousness to realize how something that seems benign like the milking of a cow could lead to the situation that we have in the world today… With the knowledge and perspective, we have now, we could never support keeping cows and exploiting them for their milk and/or babies at any time in the past, present or future.
It is patently naive to think these groups adoption of “Bhakti” can create Krishna Consciousness without directly surrendering to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. But the statement by Sheridan could be interpreted to mean Sridhara Svami was a product of a similar dynamic: impersonalism, evolving by, so called, devotional tinges, independent of the mercy of a pure viashnava in parampara.
Who is Sheridan? What are you citing by him?
Hari bol!
Thank you for the nice article. I have two questions in this connection.
You are writing: “Until that period two famous Vaisnava commentaries already existed: Ramanuja (1017-1137) and Madhva (1238-1317)…” Do you mean by this that there was a commentary on Bhagavatam by Ramanuja? I always thought that he did not comment on Bhagavatam. If there was one, what was it called?
What is the book by Sheridan that you are referring to? It’s not mentioned by title, and it seems that you overlooked it in the bibliography.
Thank you in advance
Govindanandini
The thesis is a rather odd mix of academic research balanced against commentaries of the Vaishnavas. Views and opinions from outside the parampara system are being presented as noteworthy.
Most usually this type of research creates ambiguous conclusions that open up doubts and confusion.
In the end the author has reached the proper conclusion, but in the process takes the reader on a roller coaster ride through a litany of academic postulations on the presumption that they are viable views worthy of mention.
Can the academic world ever be rectified by comparative study and corrective measures?
Probably not.
The conclusion is that one ends up preaching to choir, as the academics who need most to read such a thesis are not of an open mind.
I echo the sentiments of Japa Jim above. When we consider our interpretations of Truth, we accept the higher authority. Srila Prabhupada sometimes used the example of seeing a coiled object in a dimly lit room. The disciple is with his guru. The guru says, “it is a rope” and the disciple says, “yes, it is a rope.” Then, the guru says, “it is a snake”. And the disciple says, “yes it is a snake”…and so on. The disciple both has faith in guru, and also does not accept the faulty perception of his own senses or mental speculation. Ultimately, Krishna advises that one learn from and serve a vaishnava who is tattvah darsinah, who has seen the Truth, or better, to whom the Truth has been revealed causelessly. We are warned that those who do not have the qualifications mentioned by Krishna are to be ignored. Use of linguistics, reconstructing history that is 600 years old, have little to offer. For example, linguistically, the modern linguists place the Srimad Bhagavatam at about 600 -800 AD…simply based on the Sanskrit that is found in the Bhagavat Purana.
Srila Prabhupada’s faith was as follows, as he personally described to me on a stroll on the roof of the first guesthouse in Mayapur. He said: “We must not think that the greatest philosopher, Vyasadeva, is telling us children’s stories in describing Krishna’s childhood pastimes. Do not think that Bakasura is imaginary. Vyasadeva compiled Vedanta Sutra, why would he waste our time with childhood stories. No! He is describing Krishna’s actual pastimes.” Srila Prabhupada concluded: “If there is one weak link in the chain, then the whole thing is spoiled.” This is the faith of Srila Prabhupada in the literature. He used Sridhara Swami’s commentaries extensively in his own translation and comments on the Srimad Bhagavatam. That is sufficient. He is tattva darshina. No controversy is necessary.. Prabhus, time for going Home, back to Godhead. Pusta Krishna das
Has it been firmly established that Sridhara Swami wrote his commentary on Bhagavatam as a follower of Sankaracarya as opposed to being a disciple of a Vaishnava sannyasi from the line of Vishnuswami? The name of the philosophy of Rudra Sampradaya is suddha-advaita – pure monism. Could this be why his commentary sometimes appear monistic? Several vaishnava sites list Sridhara Swami as belonging to Rudra samparadaya. They could be wrong, and people who treat Sridhara Swami as an advaitin could be wrong, too.
More importantly, research cited here treats vaishnava philosophy as if it was an ordinary speculation based on empirically available sources, in this case books and scriptures available to Jiva Goswami, rather than knowledge revealed in recognition of their faith and devotion – as per famous “yasya deve para bhaktir…” verse often quoted by Srila Prabhupada. Once one has that one knows “that by which everything else can be known” – a loose translation of Mundaka Upanishad’s 1.1.3 also quoted by Prabhupada, and so what ordinary people see as sources leading to conclusions becomes evidence proving what is already known, and any contradictions in the sources do not affect the outcome.
In the eyes of mundane philosophers there is a possibility that Jiva Goswami didn’t strictly follow teachings of Lord Caitanya but according to vaishnava method of acquiring knowledge it is unthinkable. To suggest this would mean an accusation that Jiva Goswami was not a great devotee but a more of a mental speculator, which we should reject out of hand.
It would be nice if the author of this article addressed concerns expressed in the comments otherwise this lack of response can be attributed to thoughts like “devotees are fanatics and engaging them in vigorous debate is impossible as they always bring up things like faith and then freak out when somebody’s faith or spiritual position is questioned.” I can see how my own previous comment can be interpreted this way.
The answer to this is simple – developing Krishna consciousness is not a function of debates and arguments but a function of faith. Arguments are good only until you meet with counterarguments, and you can’t prove God into existence – He either reveals Himself in your heart or He doesn’t. This, again, depends on the sincerity of the preacher whose prayers should trigger the chain of mercy that ends with the Supersoul lifting the veil of illusion in their hearts.
Academic debates must have their place, too, but what is it? Is it to fill the space with our propaganda before atheists do it themselves? We’ve had academic world polluted with Aryan Migration Theory for nearly a century, for example, and if we produce hundreds and thousands of papers expounding our views then everyone will accept them as true for the time being, which will be beneficial to the humanity as a whole.
Or we could say that Krishna conscious philosophy IS true so all academic debates must eventually end with our victory but principal part of this truth is that everything is connected to and depends on Krishna in every respect – a position that academics will not even consider and we ourselves concede that God cannot be brought into the debates. How much truth is left after that deduction? What is it that we want to prove?
GNDD asks:
You are writing: “Until that period two famous Vaisnava commentaries already existed: Ramanuja (1017-1137) and Madhva (1238-1317)…” Do you mean by this that there was a commentary on Bhagavatam by Ramanuja? I always thought that he did not comment on Bhagavatam. If there was one, what was it called?
Answer: Although it is not made clear in the article, the commentaries mentioned are commentaries on Vedanta Sutra, not Srimad Bhagavatam. Ramanujacarya’s commentary on Vedanta Sutra is called Sri Bhasya.
Dear Dina Dayala Prabhu.
Please accept my humble obiesances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
You cite a statement where, regarding Sridhara Swami, Lord Caitnaya said: “ I therefore accept him as a spiritual master”.
You begin your summary with:
“The incident between Caitanya and Vallabha Bhatta depicted in Caitanya-caritamrta only left much speculation about Caitanya’s real teachings. Although in all other biographies Caitanya is presented as harsh, almost inimical towards Advaitins, this episode demonstrates Caitanya’s genuine admiration for Sridhara Svami, Sankara’s committed follower.”END QUOTE.
There is no intellectual justification for speculation about Lord Caitanya’s “real teachings”.
Irrefutable premise 1:
Lord Caitanya’s anathematization of Sankara’s philosophy is ubiquitously cited in Srila Prabhupada’s books.
Irrefutable premise 2:
Lord Caitanya accepted Sridhara Svami as His spiritual master.
Conclusion:
Your statement that Sridhara Svami is a committed follower of Sankara is not accurate, regardless of the Svami’s affiliations.
Prabhu,
You write:
We have to know that Sridhara’s lack of emphasis on maya as ignorance that comes from superimposition of the material world on Brahman, and his emphasis on bhakti reflect a four-century gap between Sankara’s teaching and him, during which time the Advaitins’ teaching become more devotionally tinged. (Sheridan, 1994, 49).
Sankara’s philosophy is an anomaly: however, this suggests that it is the basis and the bhakti tradition is an addition to it. Devotionally tinged mayavadi philosophy brings to mind modern popular yoga groups who chant Hare Krishna and say things like “bhakti Trumps all” They post descriptions of Gopal Krishna, which seem accurate until they end with:
Perhaps the most dramatic anecdote about Gopal is that once when he was an infant and lying on his mother’s lap, he yawned, and when his mother looked down, she saw the entire universe in his mouth. We are not what we seem to be; we have the whole universe inside us. END QUOTE.
The guru of the group then says the Bhagavatam stories are allegorical and:
The Hindu stories found in scriptures such as the Srimad Bhagavatam were written thousands of years ago when most humans did not have the consciousness to realize how something that seems benign like the milking of a cow could lead to the situation that we have in the world today… With the knowledge and perspective, we have now, we could never support keeping cows and exploiting them for their milk and/or babies at any time in the past, present or future.
It is patently naive to think these groups adoption of “Bhakti” can create Krishna Consciousness without directly surrendering to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. But the statement by Sheridan could be interpreted to mean Sridhara Svami was a product of a similar dynamic: impersonalism, evolving by, so called, devotional tinges, independent of the mercy of a pure viashnava in parampara.
Who is Sheridan? What are you citing by him?