Mukunda Datta das is of course a vaishnava. In a scholarly way he is presenting the importance of “dharma” to the social fabric of Vedic society. It seems, I believe, that he has taken the point of view, at least in this writing, that historical tradition is some kind of authority for future tradition or societal obligations. He touches upon the idea that the modern (even perverse) caste system is not objected to by people because either it serves a purpose of social cohesion, or because you could not do away with it if you tried! In any case, the arguments seem to flow from the point of view that tradition or history is sufficient cause for continuation of things as they are. Now……………….
We accept that Vedic wisdom is valuable because it comes from the perfect all knowing Source. Dharma tu sakshat bhagavat pranitam, from the breath of God. The authority of the parampara is indeed only valuable because of that. Now, I want to present this to you. Krishna has presented many things to us in His Bhagavad Gita. Many of these teachings involve developing attachments to higher and higher modes of nature to improve one’s potential for ultimate spiritual life, submission to Him. Yet, He lets us know that it is very, very rare indeed for one to recognize or realize that Vasudeva is everything. So, it is Krishna’s mercy that He gives avenues of elevation for the soul through acceptable morality and cultural practices. It is not only for the most fortunate seeker, but for every soul embodied in a human form. Krishna is bringing the souls along life after life after life. Sri Krishna is so patient and merciful. On the other hand, if we conceive of “dharma” as merely historically acceptable and consistent ways of human society, then we miss the vital connection with God, Krishna, and cannot water the root of this vital serving tree. Ishayasya.
I expect that there is much interesting discussion that can come regarding this topic. We want to be so bold as to declare that spiritual culture, even when wearing the mask of culture, has its roots in reawakening the God consciousness of the souls in human society.
If human culture is ranked as the highest function of human life, that is termed as “humanism”. Humanism is atheism. Service to man without recognition of God is “srama eva hi kevalam”, useless work. As much as God may not be visible to us, yet is the essence the value of life itself, He must be sought after. Pusta Krishna das
Mukundadatta Prabhu has made a very important contribution to our understanding of Vaishnava epistemology. As per the Bhagavatam, there are four pramanas we accept. The first three we are already familiar with: pratyaksha, anumaan, and shabda. On pages 7 and 8 of his essay, Mukundadatta Prabhu shows the importance of aitihya relative to these other pramanas: (QUOTED FROM PAPER)
One is Srimad-Bhagavatam, 11.19.17:
srutih pratyaksam aitihyam
anumanam catusöayam
pramaëesv anavasthanad
vikalpat sa virajyate
“From the four types of evidence—Vedic knowledge, direct experience, traditional wisdom and logical induction—one can understand the temporary, insubstantial situation of the material world, by which one becomes detached from the duality of this world.”
Here, Lord Krsëa describes aitihya as a valid proof, an authoritative evidence (pramaëa), like the other three pramaëas Srila Prabhupada more often mentions (pratyaksa, anumana, and sabda). In other words, Krsna clearly affirms that tradition itself is a fourth pramäëa.
The other verse is Srimad-Bhagavatam, 11.28.18:
jnanam viveko nigamas tapas ca
pratyaksam aitihyam athanumanam
ady-antayor asya yad eva kevalam
kalas ca hetus ca tad eva madhye
“Real spiritual knowledge is based on the discrimination of spirit from matter, and it is cultivated by scriptural evidence, austerity, direct perception, reception of the PuraĂ«as’ historical narrations, and logical inference. The Absolute Truth, which alone was present before the creation of the universe and which alone will remain after its destruction, is also the time factor and the ultimate cause. Even in the middle stage of this creation’s existence, the Absolute Truth alone is the actual reality.”
This is an even stronger reference. By using the word “aitihya” (instead of sabda) in apposition with the other two pramaëas (viz., pratyaksa and anumana), it further and more clearly shows that aitihya is not only an acceptable evidence, but that it has authority equal to that of sabda specifically—as indeed was recognized by the Indian legal tradition.
Why does this matter? When there are questions or matters that cannot be understood properly even with all of pratyaksha, anumaan, and shabda, it is aithiya that will be necessary to help us come to the right conclusion.
Mukunda Datta das is of course a vaishnava. In a scholarly way he is presenting the importance of “dharma” to the social fabric of Vedic society. It seems, I believe, that he has taken the point of view, at least in this writing, that historical tradition is some kind of authority for future tradition or societal obligations. He touches upon the idea that the modern (even perverse) caste system is not objected to by people because either it serves a purpose of social cohesion, or because you could not do away with it if you tried! In any case, the arguments seem to flow from the point of view that tradition or history is sufficient cause for continuation of things as they are. Now……………….
We accept that Vedic wisdom is valuable because it comes from the perfect all knowing Source. Dharma tu sakshat bhagavat pranitam, from the breath of God. The authority of the parampara is indeed only valuable because of that. Now, I want to present this to you. Krishna has presented many things to us in His Bhagavad Gita. Many of these teachings involve developing attachments to higher and higher modes of nature to improve one’s potential for ultimate spiritual life, submission to Him. Yet, He lets us know that it is very, very rare indeed for one to recognize or realize that Vasudeva is everything. So, it is Krishna’s mercy that He gives avenues of elevation for the soul through acceptable morality and cultural practices. It is not only for the most fortunate seeker, but for every soul embodied in a human form. Krishna is bringing the souls along life after life after life. Sri Krishna is so patient and merciful. On the other hand, if we conceive of “dharma” as merely historically acceptable and consistent ways of human society, then we miss the vital connection with God, Krishna, and cannot water the root of this vital serving tree. Ishayasya.
I expect that there is much interesting discussion that can come regarding this topic. We want to be so bold as to declare that spiritual culture, even when wearing the mask of culture, has its roots in reawakening the God consciousness of the souls in human society.
If human culture is ranked as the highest function of human life, that is termed as “humanism”. Humanism is atheism. Service to man without recognition of God is “srama eva hi kevalam”, useless work. As much as God may not be visible to us, yet is the essence the value of life itself, He must be sought after. Pusta Krishna das
Mukundadatta Prabhu has made a very important contribution to our understanding of Vaishnava epistemology. As per the Bhagavatam, there are four pramanas we accept. The first three we are already familiar with: pratyaksha, anumaan, and shabda. On pages 7 and 8 of his essay, Mukundadatta Prabhu shows the importance of aitihya relative to these other pramanas: (QUOTED FROM PAPER)
One is Srimad-Bhagavatam, 11.19.17:
srutih pratyaksam aitihyam
anumanam catusöayam
pramaëesv anavasthanad
vikalpat sa virajyate
“From the four types of evidence—Vedic knowledge, direct experience, traditional wisdom and logical induction—one can understand the temporary, insubstantial situation of the material world, by which one becomes detached from the duality of this world.”
Here, Lord Krsëa describes aitihya as a valid proof, an authoritative evidence (pramaëa), like the other three pramaëas Srila Prabhupada more often mentions (pratyaksa, anumana, and sabda). In other words, Krsna clearly affirms that tradition itself is a fourth pramäëa.
The other verse is Srimad-Bhagavatam, 11.28.18:
jnanam viveko nigamas tapas ca
pratyaksam aitihyam athanumanam
ady-antayor asya yad eva kevalam
kalas ca hetus ca tad eva madhye
“Real spiritual knowledge is based on the discrimination of spirit from matter, and it is cultivated by scriptural evidence, austerity, direct perception, reception of the PuraĂ«as’ historical narrations, and logical inference. The Absolute Truth, which alone was present before the creation of the universe and which alone will remain after its destruction, is also the time factor and the ultimate cause. Even in the middle stage of this creation’s existence, the Absolute Truth alone is the actual reality.”
This is an even stronger reference. By using the word “aitihya” (instead of sabda) in apposition with the other two pramaëas (viz., pratyaksa and anumana), it further and more clearly shows that aitihya is not only an acceptable evidence, but that it has authority equal to that of sabda specifically—as indeed was recognized by the Indian legal tradition.
Why does this matter? When there are questions or matters that cannot be understood properly even with all of pratyaksha, anumaan, and shabda, it is aithiya that will be necessary to help us come to the right conclusion.