The Monk’s Podcast 37 with Hari Parshad Prabhu – Intellectual diversity in scriptural understanding

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna Haripashyap Prabhu. Hare Krishna Dhanur Pranams Prabhu. Welcome to the Mons Podcast.
Thank you. Thank you Prabhu. Thank you so much for kindly inviting me.
It’s a great honor and privilege to be speaking to you here today too. I have known you for over a decade now and it’s inspiring and illuminating to see your dedication to spiritual study. So I thought today we could discuss on the topic of intellectual diversity in bhakti.
That means broadly, can devotees have different positions and philosophical issues? When does something become unacceptable? What range is acceptable? And we could maybe start with your background. How you got introduced to Krishna Consciousness and especially how did you choose to make study of scripture as your focus? Can you share that? Sure, so I would like to begin by saying that in my childhood, I was fortunate to be placed in an educational system where traditional scriptural learning was also given importance besides modern secular education. So it was Jnana Pramodini or which one was it? Bharatiya Vidya Bhavans.
So Bharatiya Vidya Bhavans was started by K. M. Munshi. He was the one who spearheaded Bharatiya Vidya Bhavans and Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya was also involved in the formation of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavans. As we know, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya was frequently in touch with Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur.
We used to have many consultations with him. So these are the… Our Radha Govinda temple is on 7 K.M. Munshi Mal and it is right next to Bharatiya Vidya Bhavans. Yes, yes.
So that itself brings back a lot of memories of my childhood. Were you in that school? Not in that school, but Bharatiya Vidya Bhavans had a school in Jaipur. So in Jaipur, they had a school in which they were teaching not only the CBSE board education syllabus, but they also had special emphasis on Sanskrit grammar, Ramayana and Mahabharata.
So we learnt Sanskrit grammar, Ramayana and Mahabharata in our childhood. By the time I was in my sixth grade, we had already finished Ramayana and Mahabharata, learning both of them. So was this optional for you or you had exams on the subject like a formal study? No, there were no exams, but they were compulsory subjects which we had to study.
But Sanskrit we used to have exams. And then Sanskrit was immediately very appealing to me. I was very much attracted by its mathematical structure and how the rules are guiding everything in the formation of the language, the syntax and all the fine nuances of the grammar.
They immediately attracted my attention because it was a mathematical language and you could use these formulae given by Panini to create new words as well as understand the meaning of existing words. And whatever something is spoken 5,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago, because it is spoken using the same formula. So you can decode it using the same formula and the language doesn’t change.
Everything remains the same. So you took the grammatical route? Traditionally, the first route to be taken is the grammatical route. So it is said that yo veda veda vadanam sadhanam hi samyak brahmya sa vedam api veda kimanya shastram yasmad atah prathama metad adhitya vidvan shastrantarasya bhavati shravane dhikari That prathama metad adhitya vidvan, first knowledge to be learned by anybody who wishes to get an entrance into shastra is grammar.
Once a person knows grammar, then shastrantarasya bhavati shravane dhikari. He can become adhikari in hearing any other type of literature. So you were born in a religious family or how was the spiritual orientation apart from this cultural orientation? My grandfather and great grandfather, they are very devout devotees of Sri Vitthal Rukmini.
My grandfather, he used to go walking for Ashadi Ekadashi every year. And my grandmother and grandfather both were wearing Tulsi Mala and they used to have these programs of kirtan, not only at their homes, but at the homes of various other local villagers. So they were purely, they were, they were settled in village.
My father, through great hardships, he managed to come to the city, like he educated himself till M.Com and then he managed to secure a job in Reserve Bank of India. So that’s how So you were born and brought up in the city overall? Yeah. Yeah.
Born and brought up in the city, but in Jaipur. Jaipur was a very small and beautiful city at that point of time. Yes.
Yes. And that time it is called, it is known as pink city. It was all everywhere was pink colored buildings and they made using, made using this red sandstone, pink sandstone.
So that is what it was. And huge city and everybody used to live in duplexes and there were rarely any apartments like we have in Mumbai today. And I had a very, I, my father ensured that every year for two or three months, we spend time in the village.
So every year for two months in the summer vacation, we used to come to our villages in Maharashtra and we used to spend two months in the village. Wow. Okay.
I can see you have many sweet memories of your childhood. You know, I also grew up in Maharashtra and I have a great, great grandfather. He found, once he was bathing and found a murti of Shajmukh Hanuman and there’s a temple dedicated that he found that in the floating in the water and then a temple was built.
So, but then my, because I grew up in a city and my grandparents also used to live, they didn’t have any roots. We, after Hyderabad, we were in Hyderabad and then we moved to India. So my upbringing was more, you could say nominally religious.
Yes. Yeah. So I did encounter the richness of Maharashtrian Bhakti culture to some extent, but yes, I would memorize and some among us, but not, not that much.
So I think that, so, so in a sense for you to take a Krishna Vashistha, was it natural afterwards? Not so natural because between my grandfather and my father, my father, since he shifted to the city and his spiritual inclinations were slightly different because he was attracted to the Nath Sampradaya. Nath Sampradaya is a Yogi Sampradaya. It is Hatha Yogi Sampradaya.
So his attraction was towards the Nath Sampradaya. So I saw him worshipping the founders of the Nath Sampradaya. Matsyendra Nath, Goraksha Nath, they are the founders of the Nath Sampradaya.
And Gaudiya Vaishnavism does not have a very good opinion of Nath Sampradaya. Yeah, but in my childhood, I saw him worshipping Lord Dattatreya and the nine, it is called as Navanaths, the nine Naths. But my grandfather is very devoted to Lord Vitthal and Rukmini Devi and so was my grandmother.
So both of them were Vaishnavas, but my father, he was very spiritual, but he was attracted to the Nath Sampradaya. And then later, because I was in secular education, so I had learned Sanskrit, but I could not find any application for it in my childhood. And later, when I was growing up, when I had a sort of an existential crisis, then whatever I had learned, you know, it came back to me.
And fortunately, I also met devotees. So I found a proper place for applying that knowledge. So then within your Bhakti, how did you start focusing on Sanskrit study as your primary service? So when I came in the Association of Devotees, this was in Juhu and I was, this was December 2000.
Okay. So at that point of time, I started serving with ISKCON Youth Forum, which is, which is what we were doing in those days. We were distributing books, crowd control, all the standard services related to IYF, which I did for five or six years.
And my interest at that point of time was in the books that were being sold on the bookstore, because I saw a lot of new books coming. There are many translations which were coming out those days. And through that, I found out that the previous acharyas have written a substantial amount of literary material that I can study.
So, but I always had the impression that is it is, it must be written in Bengali. And most of the literature that was coming out was from and some books, some scriptural books like Puranas or something like that. But then later I found out that the Goswamis have written purely in Sanskrit.
Then I thought that whatever I have learned in my childhood, let me apply that and directly read what the Goswamis have written. So that is how I got interested and many of my own life’s problems were solved directly by reading some of the sections that the acharyas have written. So it was, it was very self-evident So, can you give an example of that? Yes, for example, at one point of time, there was a conflict in my mind as to whom should be served with first priority, one’s own Deeksha Guru or other Vaishnavas who are very respectable, such as one Shiksha Guru.
So, Shrilajiva Goswami in Bhakti Sandarva gives a very direct statement. So, Shri Guru Agyaya, with the permission of Shri Guru, Deeksha Guru, if it is not contrary to the service of Deeksha Guru, Anya Shaam Vaishnavanam Sevaram Shreya, it is beneficial to serve other Vaishnavas. Or there is a possibility of a fault.
So, these are statements which are so clear. Yes. So, he’s saying that you don’t need the instruction of the spiritual master to serve Vaishnavas.
But if there is an instruction not to, then we should not. Yes. And service to other Vaishnavas should not in any way contradict one’s service to other, one’s own Guru.
That is what the mood of the statement is. Yes. So, that’s beautiful to find answers.
For all of us, probably we all turn to scripture for that purpose. I remember I met Shri Vaishnava, who was a great, who was very devoted to Ramayana. And he told me in that family, there was a tradition that whenever they had to make any decision, they would keep the Ramayana in front of them and randomly open any page and read that page and see what that page was saying and how it spoke to their problem.
Then they would take guidance from there. There is an entire book about this, which Shri Tulsi Das has written. This book is called Ramagya Prashna.
You can try to find it. You will also find it on the internet, Ramagya Prashna. So, you can ask a question directly to Lord Ram and there will be a Chopai or Doha from Tulsi Das written on that.
And then below that, it will be written whether the answer is yes, no, or the Lord doesn’t want to give an answer. How does that work? You make a selection of two numbers, you close your eyes and you know, you place your fingers on two numbers for whatever question you have. So, there are some rules for asking a question and you should be, you should be clean, take a nice bath, you should be clean.
Every day you should ask only one question, not more than one question. So, then you should place your fingers on those circles of numbers and then you should find out what were the numbers on which your fingers were placed and open that page number and verse number and then read that verse and that verse will be either auspicious or inauspicious and the result will be given below. So, that is… It’s a venerable tradition.
So, now in this background, there is as devotees, when we study scripture, there is sometimes a tension that comes up for those who are seriously intellectual, that some things don’t seem to make sense with our intelligence. So, in the Western tradition, this is called as the conflict between reason and faith. And theology, especially Thomas Aquinas and others, they develop a tradition by which how you could do rational theology, how we could have rational faith.
Correct. So, now, of course, we also talk about rational faith in terms of things like the existence of God, the existence of soul, which I will use reason to establish that. And generally, we do this up to a particular point.
And beyond that, often we have this idea that things are achievable, things are inconceivable. And inconceivability is sometimes used to stop argumentation or even stop deliberation. Right.
So, now, when we have different issues, when say there are issues for which there are no clear self-evident scripture statements or there are multiple statements, then different devotees may reason in different ways and come to slightly different conclusions or come to significantly different conclusions. Correct. So, that’s what I refer to as intellectual diversity, that we are all devoted to Krishna.
But within that, we can have a significant amount of intellectual diversity. So, are there any examples of such intellectual diversity? Yeah, examples. Okay, to go back further, that how is the tension between reason and faith? Is that an address in our scriptures? Yes.
So, what happens is it is said in Sanskrit, there is a proverb, means in every, within every head is a different mindset. And I think this is something similar to NASA. Yes, yes.
But that quote is only about Rishis. This quote is about everyone. Every, within every human being is individualism.
And individualism means that we should have a different opinion. This is, that is what individualism means. And there was a very nice quote in English, which I would like to speak to you.
Of course, it’s like showing a lamb to a son. Speaking some English quote to you is like showing the lamb to the son. But I’ll still speak to that.
If both of us have the same opinions on every subject matter, then one of us is irrelevant. Yes. So, if both of us have the exact thought process on each and every subject matter, then one of us becomes redundant.
I don’t know who that was, but I found it to be a very nice quote. And this is also supported in the Shastric tradition. There is a verse in Brahma Samhita, which I would like to show.
I’m not sure. Can I share my screen or should I just speak? Sure, you can share the screen. Yes, Prabhu.
So, I will share my screen. You can just enable screen sharing for me. So, I’ll share my screen with you.
So, in the Brahma Samhita, there is a very nice verse, which is given. And Lord Krishna himself says this to Brahma. Lord Krishna says this and you can see this on the screen.
I am highlighting this. You can see Yadrishi Yadrishi Shraddha Siddhir Bhavati Tadrishi. This is Brahma Samhita, fifth chapter, verse number 61.
This is from our tradition. Yadrishi Yadrishi Shraddha Siddhir Bhavati Tadrishi. Now, if we see the translation by Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur.
So, he says the realization will correspond to the nature of one’s faith. Now, this translation is by Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur himself. And it is a very faithful translation of what is given in the Sanskrit.
Yadrishi Yadrishi Shraddha Siddhir Bhavati Tadrishi. Now, there is a this particular section has also been developed by Sanskrit poets further even more than that. They say that in seven things, in seven entities, as much faith we have, we receive reciprocation to that extent.
So, it says Deve Tirthe Dvije Mantre Daivagye Bhesaje Guru. Yadrishi Bhavana Yadrishi Siddhir Bhavati Tadrishi. He said in a deity, in a mantra, in a guru, in a holy place, there are some things listed.
So, one receives reciprocation according to the degree of and nature of one’s faith. Okay. Just one small clarification about this.
See, this principle of reciprocity, that is also there in Yagyatama Prapadyante. Right. And, but this will seem more like a hierarchy.
This is a higher level faith. It’s a lower level faith. When I was talking about diversity is that two people have two different opinions.
Right. And both are considered valid. Oh, yes, yes.
So, reciprocity is perfectly fine. I just want to clarify that difference. Yes.
So, even if it means that two different individuals read the same Shastra and then come to two different conclusions. So, that also, if as long as both those conclusions are within the framework of grammar, within the framework of Nyaya and they are within the framework of valid systems of knowledge, if you can justify your understanding through any valid system of Vedic knowledge, then it is considered as a valid realization. And there is a very nice quote by Srila Prabhupada about this.
And Srila Prabhupada says that, you know, sometimes even two Acharyas can differ on two subject matter on any particular subject matter. So, Prabhupada said that there is no reason why Acharyas cannot differ on certain points. I will show you where exactly he says this.
I’m sharing my screen. So, this is in a letter to Upendra on 19th February 1972. Prabhupada is saying, as for your question about Shantaras and opinions of Rupa Goswami and Sridhar Swami, I don’t remember.
You can send me the appropriate passages. There is no reason why Acharyas cannot differ on certain points. It’s a very emphatic statement.
There is no reason why not only Acharyas can differ, but this is not magmated at all. It’s beautiful. You know, I encountered this kind of diversity from big time.
I had some sense of it. But when I read the commentaries of Baldevidya Bhakshananda Gita and Bhakshyam Krishna Acharya Thakur in the Gita, Baldevidya Bhakshananda Gita is said to be the disciple. But there is a completely different approach.
Exactly. So much so that Baldevidya Bhakshananda Gita doesn’t even quote Krishna Acharya Thakur at all. Exactly.
That was almost eye opening. Because till then I grew up with the idea that for us to comment, then we need to quote previous authorities and we need to quote not just previous authorities, but quote our immediate authorities and the approach that Baldevidya Bhakshananda Gita uses is of course but he has no reasoning. And in one sense, I like the point which you made that as long as the realization or whatever understanding is drawn, it’s called a valid system of knowledge.
Sometimes the way it is put is that we have to come to a particular siddhanta. So now, both Baldevidya Bhakshananda Gita and Krishna Acharya Thakur come to siddhanta bhakti. But bhakti is very generic.
Within that, their understandings are very, very different. And the paths taken to come to the conclusion are different by both of them. Yes, that’s true.
Paths are different. And you could say in some ways, even the conclusions are in essence similar. But in many points, they are quite different.
Exactly. So yeah, go ahead. And we can see that Srila Baldev Vidyabhushan’s approach is more Vedanta-centric.
And Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur’s approach is more Rasa-centric. So they have taken two different pathways. But the end result is that bhakti devi is glorified.
Srila Baldev Vidyabhushan does offer his pranams and respects to all his gurus, including Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur in his commentaries. But then when he starts writing a commentary, it is purely his intellectual contribution to the Sampradaya. And this I noticed further again that… Okay, we will come.
So the point I’m making is intellectual diversity means we are thinking of the process of reasoning used to establish a particular conclusion. Right, right. So when I read the Vedanta Sutra also, there he doesn’t quote any of our Vaishnavacharyas.
And I understand that is because he is trying to appeal to those who consider Vedanta as authority. So he quotes directly scripture, he doesn’t quote our acharyas. So he quotes Bhagavad Gita, he quotes sometimes the Bhagavatam, quite often the Upanishads, Upanishads quite profusely he quotes.
So in that sense, we are not obligated all the time to quote our acharyas as long as we are serving the purpose of the tradition. Right, and the thing is, in the tripod of sadhu, guru and shastra, the most important leg is shastra. Because sadhu is deriving his authority from shastra, and guru is deriving his authority from shastra.
A sadhu is sadhu because they are following shastra. Guru is guru because they are following shastra. And both of them, they derive their authority by quoting shastra.
So similarly, in this tripod of sadhu, guru and shastra, shastra is considered as the most important limb because it is one of the pramanas between prateksha, anumana and shabda. Shastra is known as the shabda pramana. And the remaining two are used to support shabda pramana, but the main pramana which is always quoted is shabda pramana.
Because it is said shastra yonitvat, brahma is understood through shastra yoni. And we can quote the words of acharyas and gurus when we are in an audience that has complete faith on the words of those acharyas and gurus. But Srila Baldev Vidyabhushan was in an environment where he was writing so that the Ramanandis and the king of Jaipur would be convinced.
So at that point of time, the mode of writing, the style of writing is to quote purely shastra so that they will have faith. That is the common ground. Shastra is the common ground which all Vedic authorities accept.
But if I give a statement from my guru and then I say, you should accept it because my guru says, then that’s a sampradayik understanding. And even Rupa Goswami, when he is writing Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, for everything that he, every principle that he is speaking, he is not saying because Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said so. Because my Prabhupada Sanatana Goswami said so.
So he is directly quoting Shastra Pramana at that point of time, because his aim is to convince the broader audience of individuals who have faith in the literature written by Vyasadev. So this is, over the years I have recognized that this is foundational whenever we are having a discussion with someone, what is the authority that we are going to accept? Exactly. So it could be, now we live in a culture where Shastra is not really accepted as authority.
Then we have to see, is it that they accept scientific evidence? Do they accept logic? Or do we share a basic understanding of human values? So unless we find that common ground, we just can’t have any fruitful discussion. Right. So therefore in Nyaya Shastra, before a discussion begins, a discussion is called as a katha.
Before a katha begins, both parties should decide on the common principles on which they will agree that these are the common set of principles which we agree upon. And Shri Jiva Goswami also does that in Tattvasandar. He begins with absolute zero, that he doesn’t even assume that people are having faith in Shabda Pramana.
And then he goes ahead and establishes Shabda Pramana as the most valid means of proof. So that is how you start a discussion. By establishing common principles between both parties.
Otherwise, the discussion is fruitless because both of them don’t believe in the sources of each other. You see, now, as I said, because people don’t accept Shastra so easily, so we often present using contemporary sources of knowledge as our basic reference point. Say for example, devotees may try to say, prove the existence of God.
I have written a book on reincarnation, where I use contemporary scientific research into past life memories and experiences. So where the reference to scripture comes much more toward the end. So the approach I use is that give the outlines of the problem.
That this is the evidence, this is the evidence, this is the evidence. And we don’t have an explanation for that. And then present scripture, not as the authority, but as a source of wisdom that can address this problem, the answer to its questions.
So it’s more a source of wisdom than a source of authority when you present it. So are there any examples in our tradition? Say for example, when Buddhism and Jainism were prominent in several parts of India, and when there were scholarly debates, now when they don’t accept basic authority, what was the basis of debating at that time? The basis of debate was Nyaya Shastra, because everybody, even the Buddhists, they also accepted the principles of Nyaya Shastra, purely principles of having a discussion. So they accepted that and based on that, the Buddhists are accepting some pramanas such as Pratyaksha Pramana, Anumana Pramana, they don’t accept our Shabda Pramana.
So based on Pratyaksha and Anumana, a lot of debate was going on between the followers of Vedas and the Buddhists. And moreover, in the modern day, many people may not have faith on Shastra, but whatever means we use to convince them, ultimately it has to culminate in faith of Shastra, because ultimately Shastriya Shraddha is not present. Let’s say if there are many people who give modern examples and then say that this is where Shastra comes in and answers, this vacuum is filled by the explanation given by Shastra.
And there are many people who are still not convinced, we don’t believe it. So that means that at that point of time, then it becomes difficult for them to continue in spiritual life because Shastriya Shraddha has to be present in order for one to begin one’s spiritual life. Yes, that’s of course, there is a leap of faith is required.
So the reason can take us along the way, but reason can’t take us all the way. Exactly. Beyond reason, so in Christian theology, they have what is called as the rational theology and revelational theology.
But now, if I understand Ramacharya and his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, he uses rational theology both ways. At one point, I think he uses it to establish the existence of God. I would say to those, I think it was the Atheistic Sankhites or some school of thought.
But then later on, when he comes to the Shastra Yantra, he uses rationality to in a sense disprove the idea that God can be known through reason. Right. He, in a sense, refused the design argument over there.
Right. So that design argument, actually Ramacharya came in the 11th and 12th centuries. And then this theology as a branch of reason started from the 10th and 11th centuries only.
But what happened was rational theology over the centuries as the focus shifted from revelational theology to rational theology. Then the reason is a two-edged sword. By reason, we can prove the existence of God.
We can give pointers for the existence of God. But with reason, you can also give pointers towards the non-existence. Oh, yes, yes.
And therefore, Srila Rupa Goswami is very, very categorical in Bhakti Rasamritsa Hindu. There was a very famous thinker known as Bharatri Hari. Bharatri Hari is famous for making two statements.
One statement Bharatri Hari made is that was in his Vakyapadhyayam. In Vakyapadhyayam, Bharatri Hari made one statement. First statement which he made was that those paths of knowledge, Vedic knowledge, which are flowing since a long time, it will be impossible to uproot them completely using logic.
Impossible to uproot them completely using. This was the first statement he makes in Vakyapadhyayam. And second thing which Rupa Goswami quotes in Bhakti Rasamritsa Hindu, that no matter how much expertly a person gives argument in any direction, there will be a person more expert than them who will come and give a counter argument.
You know, I heard Prabhupada say this, but this is an explicit Sanskrit quote also by Sri Rupa Goswami or Rupa Goswami. In Bhakti Rasamritsa Hindu, at the end of the very first chapter, and I think it is 1.1.45, where Rupa Goswami says, that he says that, you know, somebody who is more expert, that person. So this is 1.1.46. I will share the screen with you Prabhu so that you can have a look at this verse.
And we can see the direct words of Srila Rupa Goswami. Can you see the screen Prabhu? Yeah. So he says, So Prachinair means even the ancient authorities have said.
Ancient authority here is Bharatri Hari. So what does Bharatri Hari say? With great effort, somebody has made a philosophical point. He is very expert and very expert in knowing and knowing systems of knowledge.
But then in the next line says, by somebody else who is even more expert. They can completely turn it upside down and prove the exact opposite using logic. So the reason why he is saying is because in the previous verse, he makes it very clear in the previous verse.
He says, You need little ruchi, little faith, little taste in bhakti in the beginning. Simply by logic, it is not possible. Why? He says, because logic itself has no pratishtha.
It has no basis of its own. This is Bhakti Rasamrithi Sindhu Rupa Goswami’s unequivocal statements about why logic will never be conclusive and a leap of shraddha and a small taste ruchi is always required for somebody to begin on the path of bhakti. So this is a thing which comes up quite often that we in one sense minimize reason more than emphasize it.
So of course, we do know that reason is inconclusive. But sometimes in the process of pointing out the inconclusiveness of reason, there can be a danger of going towards the valuelessness of reason. So does the reason itself have any precise equivalent to Sanskrit? Buddhi Rasamrithi is translated normally as intelligence.
The reason would be what? Tarka. Wouldn’t that be logic? Tarka is reasoning. Okay, then what is logic then? Nyaya, basically logic is roughly translated as nyaya.
And since you are making this point about going to the other extreme where we reject logic altogether, that is where Shrila Jiva Goswami comes in and in the commentary, Jiva Goswami makes another beautiful point. He says, He says only one type of logic is rejected, which is shushka tarka. Shushka tarka means logic which has no basis, which is not based in shastra.
And logic which is simply based on disproving the other person, which is called as vitanda, that shushka tarka, dry logic, which is simply used to prove one’s point, that has to be rejected. Otherwise, all other types of logic, shastriya shraddha and shastriya tarka is always to be accepted. So all sorts of reasoning, when they are centered around shastra, those sorts of reasoning are definitely accepted.
And shushka tarka, any reasoning which completely disregards shastra to varjayat, it will be inconclusive and therefore should be avoided. Okay. Makes sense.
Now, moving forward in today’s world, based on say fidelity to a tradition or in our case fidelity to scripture, there is always a liberal and conservative perspectives. So, and then there is sometimes a tension between the two. So, have there been examples of liberal and conservative perspectives within our tradition at the same time? Now, I can say relatively speaking, Bhaktivinoda Thakur was quite liberal and Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur was a little more conservative.
And Prabhupada in some ways was even more conservative, not in terms of practice, but in terms of philosophy. So, any thoughts on this point of liberal conservative in the tradition? Yes. This framework of liberal and conservative, such terminology is not present in the Sanskrit writings of the Goswamis.
And it is very nice that it is not present because when we add such terminologies in our day-to-day behavior and existence, what happens is that every terminology is an upadi. Every term that we apply somebody to, it is an upadi, an added layer of upadi. And every added layer of upadi is like adding a layer of bias.
That is what happens. So, when we look at a particular person, then we start, suppose, let’s say, if me and you, we have different opinions and you are very conservative about certain points, and then I give you an upadi that, you know, Chaitanya Charan Prabhu is conservative. So, henceforth, whenever I look at you, my lens will always be covered by that upadi, which should not ideally be the case.
So, previously, both of them, whether they are liberals, what we call liberals or whether they are conservatives, both of them would be able to converse with each other, have a dialogue with each other in a very respectful manner. And both of them would put forward their points in a shastric way and support them using shastra. And if both of them can support them using shastra, then both of them should accept the validity of each other.
Srila Baldev Vidya Bhushan calls it, Udit Anudit Hom Niyay. So, this is Udit Anudit Hom Niyay. So, he speaks of this in his commentary to Laghu Bhagavata Amritam.
Srila Baldev, when I found out what this Niyay is about, in one place in the Vedas, it is said, udite hotavyam. So, offer oblations in the fire when the sun has arisen. If you don’t do that, then all your oblations will be eaten by the dogs of the demigods.
So, this is in one part of the Vedas. Another part of the Vedas says, anudite hotavyam. Offer oblations in the fire before the sun rises.
Otherwise, another set of dogs of the demigods will eat your offerings. Now, how to resolve both these? So, the way to resolve is, it is called Udit Anudit Hom Niyay, which means you follow one, any one, which is any one of these two justified sides. You follow any one of them and the negative effects of the other side will not come to you.
So, this is called as Udit Anudit Hom Niyay. Okay. So, both are considered equivalent? Equivalent.
And you are supposed to follow one of them, because logically you can follow only one of them. So, you follow one of them and the negative repercussions of the other philosophical position will not be accrued. So, this is called as Udit Anudit Hom Niyay.
And this has been used in Niyaya Shastra as an argument to settle, as a logic to settle two different opinions, which are both justified using Shastra. Okay. Now, is this applying only to praxis? Generally in spiritual domain? In praxis, mainly in praxis.
In praxis and there is also theology, there is doctrine. Yeah. So, there could be different ideas about how to practice things.
And say, for example, deity worship. How many times you should move the arti plate or the diya or whatever. So, I think that is not a major issue.
It’s a detail. But with respect to philosophy, have there been similar logic applied? Oh, yes, yes. In philosophy also, there is similar logic applied in many places.
Because even in philosophy, there are so many places where acharyas give different interpretations of the same philosophical point. So, for example, Srila Sridhar Swami will give a different interpretation of a certain point. Srila Jiva Goswami will give a different interpretation of that point.
And when Srila Jiva Goswami gives a different interpretation, he doesn’t say that you have to reject the interpretation of Srila Sridhar Swami. So, Shastra is like a Vaidurya Mani. It is like a jewel which gives different reflections when seen from different angles.
So, all we can do is we can glance through it from one angle and appreciate one angle of that. Now, let me give an example also of praxis. Because in praxis also, sometimes there are differences of opinion.
And between two acharyas, these differences of opinion may arise. So, I am giving an example from Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu. So, this is one of the limbs of Bhakti which you can see on the screen.
It is called Naivedya Asvada. Naivedya Asvada means honoring Naivedya or Prasadam, what is offered to the deity. And there is a verse which Rupa Goswami quotes that Naivedya Mannam Tulasi Vimishram Whatever bhoga is mixed with Tulasi, Vishesh Chatha Pada Jalena Siktham And some water has been sprinkled over it.
Yo Ashnathi Nityam Purato Murari One who eats Purato Murari in front of Lord Murari Prapnoti Yagya Ayutha Koti Konyam He attains the merit of millions of Yagyas. So, Jiva Goswami says Purato Murari means literally it means in front of Lord Murari. One who eats Prasadam in front of Lord Murari.
So, Jiva Goswami says Purato means Antah Puram Parityajya Means you not in front of Murari. He interprets it that by giving up the temple, by giving up the inner sanctum of the temple, you come out, don’t eat inside the inner sanctum of the temple. So, this is what he says.
Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur says That Murari Purata iti purvam tu bhagwat agre tambula charvanam eva nishiddham na tu bhojana samanyam He says it is only for this restriction is only for eating betel nut leaf. Not for any other type of food. So, Jiva Goswami restricts all type of food in front of the deity.
Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur says that restriction is only for eating tambula or only for eating betel nut leaf. Not for any other type of food. So, even in praxis we can see two acharyas belonging to the same sampradaya.
Here right in front of us in black and white. Two acharyas are having some difference of opinion as far as praxis is concerned. And philosophy there will be so many divergent opinions.
On you know in Krishna Leela if you see the 10th canto commentaries. Why Krishna has done a certain thing. For example when Krishna closes his eyes when Putana arrives in front of him.
So, Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur I think he gives more than 20 reasons as to why you know Krishna closed his eyes. So, we have to ask a question to Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur out of these 20 reasons which one of them is correct. Now say the same acharya giving 20 different points of view that in itself can generate many contradictory views.
But that is why Krishna is the harmonizer of all these contradictions. Yes, but these 20 points none of them are contradictory in themselves. Isn’t it? They are complementary.
Complementary but let’s say Srila Jiva Goswami will give another point of view which may not have been given by Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur. So, even if that is the case because historically one thing has happened. Historically one thing has happened but these acharyas are giving their different realizations on it.
So, even in philosophy as well as in practical applications we will find differences of opinion and Vedic culture is a culture which respects these differences of opinions and which teaches us to live with these differences of opinions. Yes, that’s a good point. So, now this is taking this discussion in a slightly different direction.
When we mention diversity of understandings, most of the examples that you gave are very much in a theistic or a religious context. Okay, this is how we should worship or this is how this passage is to be understood. Right.
Now, how about using scripture as a source of material knowledge? So, that means if we consider the Bhagavatam gives certain explanation of cosmology and I believe that in the Indian tradition there are different opinions about how much is scripture a source of authority for material knowledge. So, for example, material certainly with respect to transcendental knowledge, Prapteksha and Hanuman are not useful. They’re certainly they’re not conclusive.
But with respect to knowledge of this world, hmm, the way Christianity has tried to reconcile and I’m trying because Christianity is the main religious school of thought that engage with modernity first. That’s why I’m taking that approach. So, there are different approaches, but one of the approaches is compartmentalization.
So, Galileo famously said that hmm, the Bible teaches us, science teaches us, so Bible teaches us how to go to the heavens. Science teaches us how the heavens go. Right.
How the heavens go means how they move around. Move around, yes. And he, when he was condemned by the church for his, what were considered heterodox beliefs at that time, he said famously that I don’t believe that God has given me my senses and my intelligence and then he will demand me to reject what he has given me in order to have faith in him.
So, if he has given it, these should be used to develop faith in him. So, in that sense, the current is not a universal understanding because Christianity is also very widespread. Broadly, they say that with respect to knowledge of the material world, we defer to contemporary authorities.
They defer to science. And Bible is a source of scriptural knowledge, source of spiritual knowledge, knowledge about God. Right.
So, has there been this kind of discussion also? How much is Shabda, a source of material knowledge? So, very nice. So, I would like to say this thing that our, the understanding which has been there in our sampradaya, that is, how do we see Vedas as a source of material knowledge? So, Srila Jiva Goswami has made a very clear statement about this in his Tattva Sandarbha. I will show you this statement.
So, Srila Jiva Goswami says, Sarva laukika alaukika jnana nidana path. Maybe you can see here. Sarva laukika alaukika jnana nidana path.
Nidana means cause. So, Vedas are the cause of Sarva, all, laukika. Laukika means worldly and alaukika.
Alaukika means transcendental jnana. So, they are the cause of all laukika, worldly and transcendental knowledge. This he is saying in Tattva Sandarbha 10th Anutshedha.
So, how do we understand? When I read this statement, I was frankly speaking, for me to understand how can streams of engineering and science and everything, how can they arise from the Vedas? How can Vedas be the source of knowledge for all these modern secular, you know, fields of understanding that we see in front of us? So, then I tried to, because I cannot, when I cannot easily understand something, I take some number of days, good number of days, meditate upon it. And then I finally realized what he is trying to say. See, before Christianity started, before all other religions which are prevalent in the world today, before they started, most of the people in the world, if you trace the history, most of the people in the world were polytheists.
They were worshipping many deities such as fire, such as sun, and they are worshippers of many deities. And in fact, this worship of many deities such as sun, fire, etc. This is a central feature of Vedic literature.
This is one of the core features of Vedas. Vedas are especially propounding this worship. And if you see, there is a literature on Zoroastrianism, it is called as Zend-Avesta.
So, this particular literature has such similarities with Vedas, such similarities with Vedas. So, then I understood that before other forms of religiosity such as Christianity and Islam, they started spreading themselves. A lot of Vedic knowledge was present in the world.
Throughout the world, it was spread out in various ways. And based on those systems of knowledge, we have developed newer systems of knowledge. Okay.
So, in that sense, if those systems of knowledge were not present earlier, then we would not have built up upon them. Because civilization does not only mean the apex. Civilization also means, most importantly, the foundations.
So, the foundations of our entire human civilizations. I have very good faith and evidence that it is based on knowledge which is given in the Vedas. Because this culture was found throughout the world.
And remnants of that culture are still found throughout the world. And if we trace which is the most ancient language, and most scientific and ancient language, we will come to know that Sanskrit is the most ancient developed language that is known to humankind. So, from this Sanskrit, all other forms of languages also, which are modifications of Sanskrit have come about.
So, therefore, whatever is there in the world, Jiva Goswami says it is basically Nidan. Its cause is the Vedas. The indirect or direct cause of that knowledge is the Vedas.
So, this is the crux of the statement which Srila Jiva Goswami has made. That the indirect or direct cause of that knowledge is the Vedas. Now, in Vedic tradition, you will find so much variety that you will find 5th Canto of Bhagavatam, which is giving these fantastic mystical descriptions of the universe.
And in the same Vedic tradition, you will also find Surya Siddhanta, where Bhaskaracharya is saying that Surya Dev has given me this knowledge. And that Surya Siddhanta is used to calculate all astronomical calculations even before scientists made their calendar. I’ve read this, yeah.
So, if Surya Siddhanta and Bhagavatam can both go side by side without contradicting each other for centuries, even today. So, why is it that we today say that either we should have science or we should have Bhagavatam and both of them can’t survive together? Because we have a very flattened view of the world. Our view of the world is that the view which science has propagated, materialistic science has propagated, is that there is only one layer of reality that exists in the world and there is no second layer of reality.
And because of reality being flattened into one layer, which is the immediate human experience, for this reason, what happens is that one is not able to appreciate other levels of reality. Whereas, Shastra itself says that there are three levels of reality. Jagrita, Swapna and Sushupti.
Jagrita means when we are awake, currently you and me are awake. That is one level of reality. Are these levels of reality or the levels of consciousness? Consciousness, but for the experiencer, they are his reality.
So, Jagrita means if I am awake, for me, whatever is in front of me, that is my reality. When I am sleeping, whatever I am dreaming, for me, that is my reality. And when I am in deep sleep, reality completely ceases to exist.
I only come to know about it when I wake up from the sleep and I say, Oh, it was a beautiful sleep. So there are different levels of reality, depending on how our consciousness is at this particular point of time. So reality is very subjective when it comes to Vedic literature.
Whereas when it comes to science, reality has been flattened into a single plane. And that is where Vedic literature is differing from science. Okay, there’s a lot of points to unpack over here.
Thanks for this. So now going back, So now going to that, my understanding was that if we consider the word Veda, So in that context, and Krishna says, I am the source of knowledge. So we could also say that whoever has got any knowledge, use the word Veda generically to refer to the knowledge that has come from the Supreme.
So whether it has come through revelation thousands of years ago, or whether it has come as an insight now, it is ultimately coming from Krishna itself. So now that’s one point. Now, of course, I like the point that foundationally, the knowledge could have been from the Vedas.
Right. At the same time, it will require a significant amount of research to actually establish that all the knowledge all over the world was originally from the Vedas. And we have not, no serious scholars have done a very serious case to build like that.
Exactly. Having said that, isn’t there a tradition of sometimes innovation is considered to be a negative or dirty word. If Ayurveda is also considered to be one of the branches of the Vedas, I have seen that Ayurveda also has a rich study of research, a rich history of research.
Right. So Ayurvedic knowledge is not just frozen to that particular texts, but the expanding body of knowledge. Right.
In that sense, we could say the Bija, it comes from the, maybe the original body of knowledge, but from that you can have a big tree. And in some ways the tree is present in the seed, but in some ways the tree is much bigger than the seed. Exactly.
So all the commentaries and explanations and when the tree grows even more and more, what Shastra says is that every piece of genuine knowledge is received only by the inspiration of Bhagwan. And you very correctly quoted that, from me comes remembrance and from me comes knowledge. So both these things are coming from the inspiration of the Paramatma who is situated within the heart.
So in effect, it is Paramatma who is giving all knowledge being seated within the heart. There are many people who try to gain knowledge for days and years and even lifetimes and are not able to come up with anything conclusive. There are some who within a fraction of a few seconds, they come up with the exact idea that is required to make a revolutionary change.
So we have to understand this thing, that for millions of years, human beings, according to modern knowledge, for millions of years, human beings lived like ancient cavemen. And then suddenly in the last four or five, some four or five hundred years, there has been industrial revolution. And then today we are here at the peak of our industrial revolution.
That is what it is. But this is the modern point of view, which has a lot of atheism mixed in it. The traditional point of view is that human society has always been evolving and every time it evolves, it is because there is within the heart, Paramatma seated in the heart always gives newer realization so that society can move ahead and human beings can progress in their goals of life.
That is what is the traditional Vedic understanding. And it is only human beings which have been gifted with this. You see animals as they were living millions of years ago.
Even today, they are living in exactly more or less the same conditions. Nothing has changed for the animals, most of the animals. But for human beings, a lot has changed.
This is purely because of the inspiration of the Paramatma. So that is what is. If you consider Paramatma as the as the source of all valid knowledge, then this progressive view of history.
Now, this is an interesting point. I mean, we’re coming to a lot of points. Let’s go through them one by one.
See, one of the reasons why, why Western or other Christian thinkers say that science evolved in the West or modern science evolved in the West and progressed as we see it in terms of a linear development, that happened in the West and not in India or any other part of the world is because they say we have a linear conception of time and a linear conception of time inspires humanity to progress. Right. Whereas in the most other pre-Christian traditions, they had a cyclic view of time and cyclic view of time is basically a view of futility.
And ultimately, you’re going to go back to the same place. There is no use of progressing. Right.
So now when we talk about progress, I’m presenting now one way we could refute that, that understanding that the cyclic view of time leads to, leads to futility. One way to refute it, you can add some things. We do see with respect to, as far as we are able to trace language and literature, Sanskrit, as if we see by the time of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, it had become much more flowery and artistic.
Right. So that is one example of drama as well as Kavya, Natya and Kavya. Right.
Some of them have also become developed as quite evolved forms as compared to say, some several thousand, a few thousand, maybe a few hundred or a few thousand years ago. Right. But then the Upanishadic Sanskrit is considered to be quite high level.
Right. And the Puranic is considered to be a little simpler. And then we have the medieval, if you want to say medieval was quite refined.
Right. So can you, what do you think about this linear vision? So between the linear conception of time and the cyclic conception of time, that what happens in a cyclic conception of time is, if you take the linear conception of time, you can see that Sanskrit earlier was primarily very basic and then gradually it started expanding and the literary ornaments started coming out and all the dramas and poetry was written. And this field of knowledge is constantly developing.
And another field of knowledge is developing, which is Nyaya. Nyaya was earlier very simple. Then it came Navya Nyaya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was teaching it in Navadvip and Sarvabhaum Bhattacharya perfected it.
And he was perhaps the last professor of Navya Nyaya, you know, who knew it very nicely and Jiva Goswami learns from his disciple and Jiva Goswami is writing. So now as one stream of knowledge is developing, there are other streams of knowledge going down because the rigor regarding the original four Vedas, which was present in the time of Vyasadeva is going down day by day as and when these systems of knowledge progress. So you can see Jaimini is writing Mimamsa Sutras and so that level of research of original Vedas, Panini is writing his Sutras, so that is becoming lesser and lesser known as and when.
So as one system of knowledge is progressing, other systems of valid knowledge are also going down. So although the scientists say that we are in a linear, we have a linear conception of time, but that is only pertaining to their field of knowledge that they are, you know, it is going on increasing right now at this point of time. There are other streams of valid knowledge which are going down.
Let me give an example from the Western world. For example, if we see today, how many people know Shakespeare and Shakespearean literature very nicely? That’s true, but at what point? And you know, how many people, let’s say even if they understand theoretically, how many people have the fortune of living in the culture which Shakespeare was living in and breathing in and experiencing Shakespeare’s dramas in the culture in which Shakespeare was living? So if I understand what you are saying is that this knowledge going up or knowledge going down, it is independent of the conception of time that we may have. In the linear conception of time, we have things going up and things going down and in the cyclic conception of time also, we have things going up and things going up and things going down.
That is exactly what it is. Good point. So this progressive view of humanity or human knowledge, we could say this is, is there any Shastric reference to this? Because generally we talk about Sakalenehamhata, by the power of time, things go down.
And as we are going deeper into Kalyuga, things are worsening as compared to the previous ages. So philosophically, we understand that the super soul is there, super soul is giving knowledge. But is there any scriptural reference for this? About the super soul giving knowledge? About that human knowledge is progressive, that with the progression of history, our knowledge evolves and expands.
Rather, the general idea is that the knowledge simply that, or maybe it is more of moral deterioration. It is more of moral deterioration though, because it is deterioration of Dharma that is going on in Kalyuga. That is what is the four principles of four legs of Dharma.
That is what is deteriorating in Kalyuga. Otherwise, Mandaha sumanda matayo. So Mandaha, Mandaha means less intelligent, isn’t it? Yeah, less intelligent, but less intelligent in terms of understanding what is Dharma.
Because Dharma is the subject matter of Srimad Bhagavatam. Param Dharma is the subject matter of Srimad Bhagavatam. So that subject matter is a constant theme in most of the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam.
So Mandaha means in pertaining to what, Mandaha pertaining to what? Does Mandaha mean pertaining to engineering or sciences? No. Mandaha means Mandaha pertaining to the goal of human form of life, which is basically to know who is Bhagawan and to have a relationship with Bhagawan. That’s beautiful.
This could be quite a radical reconceptualization of things where we can accommodate for the development of knowledge that has happened in various branches. While at the same time having scope for spiritual knowledge. So now, so when we say that all knowledge has its base in scripture, that is one statement and we explained that the BJ could be there.
And at the same time, is scripture an authority for material knowledge? Or now you give the example over there, that there is a Surya Siddhanta, Siddhanta scriptures. They were, they have a view of the universe, which is much more intelligible or even agreeable with the modern empirical way of looking at the universe. And the Bhagavatam is significantly different.
Right. So, and both lived, both have existed together. So how exactly was that? Was the Bhagavatam considered to be a view of reality from a higher level? Because you also mentioned that science has flattened the view of reality.
So this is another point is that this is still not exactly the same because even the Siddhanta scriptures are said to, Surya Siddhanta is said to come from Surya. So it is not an empirical body of knowledge. It is still also a revelation.
But although from a different, maybe from a different source, Bhagavatam comes from a different source that comes from a different source. But yeah. So the thing is many times when we see the conception of the universe that is given in the Bhagavatam and when we look out from a telescope, it’s a very simple thing.
Now you have cameras which have 1000 times zoom. You can zoom into the moon sitting right on your balcony. You can zoom into the moon and you know, there you have it.
You can’t see anything. And it doesn’t need any other pramana. So there is one statement which Adi Shankaracharya makes in his commentary to the Upanishads.
If thousands of shastras contradict the direct experience of reality, then we would rather accept the direct experience of reality over those thousands of shastras. So there is a statement that he makes like that. I think, I think in his commentary to Bhagavad Gita, so not in his commentary to Upanishads, in his commentary to the 18th chapter, he says thousands of Shrutis, they say something which is contradictory to direct experience.
Is there an example for this? No, he just makes that statement. That’s quite significant because in the Advaitic philosophy, what we call as reality itself is considered ultimately an illusion. Illusion.
But still sensory experience is given its due. Due. Yeah.
And the thing is, but Shrila Rupa Goswami here comes and gives a very beautiful statement. In the Laghu Bhagavatam, Rupa Goswami comes and gives a very beautiful statement. He says, that when two contradictory statements or points of view are found, intelligence is not in first rejecting one of them.
That is not intelligence. This is not necessarily with respect to the scripture statements or is it to scripture statements only? Yeah, mainly it is in relation to scripture statements, but you can extend it and you can use it in all fields of life. Just because we found the scientist or the empirical view of knowledge to be different from the Bhagavatam’s view of knowledge is our first step going to be that we reject the scriptural view of knowledge.
So then Rupa Goswami says that is not what should be done. He says, first and foremost, make all attempts to see if there are multiple layers of reality and if both of them can become harmonious. Then that should be the first attempt of the harmonist.
That is why the magazine that is the first. I didn’t know that was the reason for the name. I mean, that is one of the reasons because the Vaishnav is Sargrahi.
Sargrahi means he’s not that, you know, at one point of time, I will accept only one and I will not accept something else. Vaishnav means he knows how to extract the essence from all the Shastras and present them. So when the Bhagavatam says that there are these lokas and these mountains and everything else is there, I want to specify this thing and this may be something very, this may be new information for many individuals who are listening to this podcast.
It is not only in the Bhagavatam that this knowledge is given. There is also a literature known as Yoga Sutra. You might have heard, all of us, we might have heard about Yoga Sutras and Yoga Sutra, Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra.
And in the Yoga Sutra, there is a very, there is a very clear Sutra, which is I am going to show it to you on the screen. This Sutra is there in Yoga Sutra and you can see it on the screen right now. Yes.
Can you see the screen Prabhuji? Yeah. It says Bhuvana Gyanam Surya Samyamat. This is one of the Sutras of Patanjali.
It says Surya, there is a Nadi in our body, it is called as Surya Nadi. Samyamat, by complete control of this, by Sanyam of Surya Nadi, one gets Bhuvana Gyan. Bhuvana Gyan means knowledge of the universe.
Okay. So now the question is, which universe, the universe which we can directly see with our eyes or there is some universe which we cannot see with the eyes. So in the commentary, Vyasa says, he gives the same universe which is described in the Srimad Bhagavatam.
I will highlight some things. Can you see here? There are mountains of gold, silver. He gives the various directions in which they are.
Then can you see here? So in the commentary on the Yoga Sutras, the same view of the universe is given, that is given in the Srimad Bhagavatam. So why should Srimad Bhagavatam alone take the blame of this view of the universe? This view of the universe is actually a yogi’s view of the universe. Okay.
The entire knowledge of mystical universe is achieved by having Sanyam on the Surya Nadi. So it’s interesting when it is said that through some kind of self-control or self-discipline, we’ll get this knowledge. It does seem to refer to by self-discipline, our consciousness becomes more receptive to perceiving maybe non-material, non-physical at least, non-physical levels of reality.
Yes. So that means that it doesn’t necessarily have to contradict. We accept as valid the physical level of reality.
Yes. And as things are perceived, but there’s also another level of reality. Yes.
There’s also another level of reality. And this level of reality is very much dependent on somebody achieving yogic perfection. Because if Parikshit Maharaj wanted to know simply about the universe, which he can directly see with his eyes, why would he ask Shukdev Goswami? Interesting.
Yeah. Even if we consider whatever the time of the Bhagavatam, astrology was also an active part of it. Right.
And externally, the perception of Shukdev Goswami and Parikshit Maharaj is the same. What is different in the perception of Parikshit Maharaj and Shukdev Goswami when it comes from a purely material, I’m sorry to use that term, from a purely external point of view? Okay. So, this point of, this is very good.
So what if we continue the thread of reasoning forward that if we, that scriptural knowledge gives us a perception of reality, but that doesn’t have to contradict the empirical view of reality. Exactly. And in fact, we could say that what I earlier talked about in by some Christian thinkers, the compartmentalization of reality, they don’t compartmentalize reality per se, they compartmentalize knowledge, but they don’t have as much of a ontological basis for that because in the Christian worldview, reality is not multilevel.
Right. Whereas in our worldview, reality itself is multilevel. So in that sense, there is no need to have a unnecessary confrontation between the two.
Exactly. That is the entire substance of what I am trying to say. Amazing.
So, so then, and I would, those who are in the yoga tradition, I would request them because see, this is where I am in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. So I’m not a very big specialist in the yoga tradition, but there was a person who was practicing yoga, yoga tradition very nicely. And he has written a very detailed commentary on yoga sutras.
His name is Hari Harananda Aranya. That is his name. Yes.
So one should see Hari Harananda Aranya’s comments on this sutra, Bhuvana Gyanam Surya Samyamaad. How he translates it through Vyasa’s commentary and what is his viewpoint on this view of the universe, which is given there by Vyasa. So in essence, what does he say? He says that basically this, this view of universe is not to be had by the external vision.
It is only by having control over the Surya Nadi that, you know, one can have this elaborate comment, but never at any point of time does he reject by saying because Hari Harananda Aranya is very recent. I think he is not very old. So he is a very recent commentator.
And not only is he a commentator, he is also a practitioner of his tradition and not simply, not simply just somebody who’s into literary gymnastics, but he’s also a practitioner of the tradition. And he himself was practicing Sankhya and yoga philosophy till the end of his life when he went into Samadhi. Interesting.
So these two bodies of knowledge, they, if they are pursued at different levels of consciousness, then even reconciling them would be quite difficult. Isn’t it? Can you please repeat? No, if these two branches or these two visions of the universe, the Bhagavatam or the word you could use the Puranic cosmology. Right.
Puranic cosmology and say the Jyotisha cosmology or the Siddhantic cosmology. These are two or if we extrapolate it, scientific cosmology, these two are very different. They are pursued at different levels of consciousness.
Right. Then at one level, we could say there is no need to put them in confrontation. But even a reconciliation is going to be difficult.
Exactly. It is going to be difficult because the Adhikaris for both these perceptions are different. So therefore it is, there is no, there is no point in trying to put these two in confrontation with each other because the Adhikaris for both of them are completely different.
Hmm. And is there any example in our tradition of people being uncomfortable with these two worldviews or they’ve gone on quite comfortably? Now, I know certain things that say, for example, our Acharyas, they commented the Bhagavatam Contour. But at the same time, when they have to do any horoscopes or astrological kind of predictions, they don’t use the Bhagavatam cosmology for that.
They use the Jyotisha cosmology. So in that sense, there has been no discomfort with these two and both sources of knowledge have been used as appropriate. Right.
So what’s the question again, I lost you for some time. Okay. So what I said was that within our tradition, has there been any expression of discomfort with respect to these two contradictions or two different views of the universe? No, I have not seen because the Acharyas have never, I have not seen them expressing any, any discomfort with both of these.
Absolutely no discomfort with both of these. The Acharyas are comfortable with what is perceivable directly through the senses and also what is not perceivable directly through the senses. They were born and brought up in that process of thought.
So they will not have that discomfort in, they don’t have that and they are okay with one system of knowledge, not being perceivable to them directly through their vision. They’re okay with that. It’s not that everything has to be perceivable for them.
So there is no example where the transcendental knowledge or the knowledge of scripture is used specifically to refute the sense perception of material knowledge. Is there from operational perspective, I’ll just elaborate on what I’m saying that say when the Banaras have to search for Sita, that’s a thing to be done in this world. And it’s not that for that they’re going to read some scripture to find out.
So throughout the, throughout the scripture itself, if we see for practically acting in the world, people are not necessarily referring to scriptural knowledge and they’re not rejecting empirical knowledge for that purpose. Even in the Mahabharata or Ramayana, it is for when they quote Shastra, it is primarily for ethical decision-making. It is a, when Ram has to know where there is Lanka, it’s not that he’s looking at some Shastra to find out a map and to get an empirical knowledge.
So there’s a reason because when, when we say Shabda Pramana, Shabda Pramana means any authoritative knowledge, that is the meaning of Shabda Pramana. Okay. And I am going to show you the definition of Shabda Pramana as it is given in Nyaya Shastra.
You can see Prabhu here. Nyaya Shastra, first chapter, first part, seventh Sutra. And you can see the translation, word, verbal testimony, Shabda Pramana is the instructive assertion of a reliable person.
Commentary by Vatsyayan. A reliable person is one, maybe a Rishi, Arya, or even a Mleccha, who is an expert in a certain matter and is willing to communicate his experiences of it. And then an example, suppose a young man is coming to the side of a river and cannot ascertain whether the river is fordable or not.
And immediately an old experienced man of the locality who has no enmity against him comes in and tells him that the river is easily fordable. The word of the old man is to be accepted as a means of right knowledge known as Shabda. That is verbal testimony.
Very simple. Now, this is amazing. Then if this way we are defining Shabda in a very inclusive way, then what is Pratyaksha and Anuman? In a sense, you could say, even after some time, the knowledge acquired from Pratyaksha and Anuman can also become Shabda.
Because if it is acquired from Pratyaksha, it is authoritative knowledge, then it has become Shabda. So he gives direct perception also. What is Pratyaksha is which is currently in contact with our senses that is called as Pratyaksha.
Pratyaksha is that knowledge which arises from the contact of a sense with its object, which is determinate, unnameable and non-erratic, which has no error. So clearly, coming back to Shabda, clearly our traditional definition of Shabda is very inclusive. Suppose today a scientist speaks something which is the truth.
Can we call it Shabda Pramana according to Nyaya Shastra? Yes. According to our tradition, yes. If it is, it doesn’t have any errors.
And what is the basis for deciding whether it has any errors or not? Because when it is implemented in reality, it should give some tangible results. So that’s more of a functionalist view of reality. We are not saying that whether it has any errors or not doesn’t necessarily depend on whether it agrees with scripture or not.
That’s not the parameter. Right. So the example was given whether the river is crossable or not.
How do you determine that when you actually cross the river will come to know that the Shabda Pramana was correct. Right. Amazing.
And therefore, Jiva Goswami does not use the term Shabda Pramana for Bhagavatam. Jiva Goswami calls it A-Paurushaya Shabda. Very specifically, he calls it A-Paurushaya Shabda Pramana because Shabda Pramana is categorized into two, Paurushaya and A-Paurushaya.
This is worldly authority and transcendental authority. And Shabda means what is here being termed as Shabda is Paurushaya Shabda, which is worldly authority and which any scientist can also be. So Vedic knowledge is generally considered to be A-Paurushaya.
A-Paurushaya Shabda Pramana. So it’s not just Bhagavatam, but all the Vedas. All the Vedas are A-Paurushaya Shabda.
So then Prateksha, Anuman and Shabda are not so much watertight categories as they are more like osmotic categories. So knowledge move from here to… Yeah, they are flowing from one to another. One acts as a verifier of the other and the other acts as a verifier of the first.
Well, then that would be for A-Paurushaya Shabda. A-Paurushaya Shabda. Scripture, it is said to be self-evident.
It doesn’t need any other confirmation. So even when scripture is self-evident and doesn’t need any other confirmation, but that doesn’t mean that if scripture is telling us something which is different from our empirical observation, then it’s not that by default we have to reject empirical observation, but we could just explain things in different ways. No, you don’t have to reject.
Yes, you have to explain things in different ways. You don’t have to reject anything which is valid. So then what is the domain of faith? So now, of course, negatively, faith has been defined by atheists.
I don’t agree with the definition, but they’re defined as faith is accepting something that is in the absence of evidence or even when evidence contradicts it. So that is definitely not our understanding of faith, but if Pratyaksha and Anuman also have their authority and Shabda also have their authority. So is faith more in terms of Shabda telling us things about which Pratyaksha and Anuman have nothing to say? Yes, Shabda is more about where Pratyaksha and Anuman cannot have their influence, their Shabda comes into play.
And even the scientists and even the atheists are using it. Let me give an example of this. In mathematics, you might have studied, there is something called an imaginary number.
The name of the number itself is imaginary. And an atheist will not deny, an atheist should be questioned whether they believe in the existence of the imaginary number, whether they believe that it has any purpose. So because from a purely atheistic point of view, the imaginary number should not exist.
But still it is used in mathematics for solving so many equations related to electricity and magnetism. So if an imaginary number is something which has no relationship with God, can be used for solving such complicated equations and giving such practical facilities in our day to day life, and it is accepted on the basis of Shabda Pramana. What other Pramana is there for accepting imaginary number for an atheist? Okay, so here you are using Shabda Pramana in the sense that it is a Pramana because it works.
Right. So yeah, in fact, most scientific explanations of things are basically positing conceptual constructs to explain observable phenomena. Exactly.
Now gravity itself is a conceptual construct. Right. So of course, the imaginary number is a different kind of conceptual construct as compared to gravity, but it’s a conceptual construct.
Right. So the test is functionality. If something is actually works.
So there is a school of thought in modern philosophy called functionalism. So could we roughly equivalent it with Falena Parichayate? Yeah, Falena Parichayate, that if something gives a definite result, then in the domain of Pratyaksha, it works and it can be turned into a Paurushaya Shabda Pramana, because you know, all of us are having the same experience of it. So then in general, also, if we consider the other current Vaishnava Sampradayas or other say exponents of the Bhagavatam, so they also don’t see the the Bhagavatam Swift Canto as contradicting modern science.
That is the broad way of the different levels of perception. No, yeah, the different levels of perception and that is what exactly it is because Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur himself was an expert in Surya Siddhanta as well as he also translated Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur’s commentary on the fifth canto of the Bhagavatam, all the cantos, he got it translated from his disciple Sri Ananta Vasudeva. So everything is there if he can harmonize both these views in his mind.
So and he is the one who faced both these views together. That was the first generation that faced both these views together. What about Bhaktivinoda Thakur? But there is no commentary by him on the Bhagavatam.
So we can’t, but we can presume that they have similar views. Yes. And previous to that also, even within the Indian tradition, both these views were going on parallelly.
There were some people who put them against each other. For example, there was one Aryabhatta did that. Aryabhatta expressed incomprehension about Puranic cosmology.
Puranic cosmology. And there was also another Acharya, his name is Lalla Acharya, Lalla Acharya we call him. He wrote an entire chapter in his book which was about discrediting Puranic cosmology.
So these efforts have been going on since even before the scientists were there. But as Bhartri has clearly stated in his book, systems of knowledge which are coming from since time immemorial cannot be wiped out simply by giving argument. So non-confrontational reconciliation is something which is very much in harmony with our tradition.
So you don’t have to necessarily. So now the word often used is literalism. Literalism or naive realism.
Literalism is that they say scripture when it says something or a book says something literally what it says that’s what it means. Naive realism is that what we perceive with our senses the reality is as it is. So now if we consider what you are saying, we can’t actually take a literalist reading of the Bhagavatam and say that this is how it is.
So it’s more of a higher level reality rather than a literal reality. And yes and that is how it is supposed to be because even the scientist, even the atheist is not going to stay on his level of reality forever. What do you mean by that? Because there will be a time when death will come and they will be forced to change their level of reality.
So how is that point connected with? Because what they see as reality is flattened into one and therefore in Shastra when you say you have to have literal interpretation of everything and any other interpretation is not reality. But the thing is reality itself has multiple levels of existence and people keep changing from one level of reality to another especially at the time of death. So therefore Shastra encourages us to look at these multiple levels of reality and to accept all those levels of reality.
In the Bhagavatam tradition, there is a literal understanding of Bhagavatam. Sridhar Swami’s commentary is called Bhavarth Deepika. Bhavarth Deepika means understanding the essential meanings.
Then there are other commentaries which are not Bhavarth which are giving further meanings which may not be the Bhavarth but those are also accepted. So let me give an example of this because for example there is a figure of speech which is called as Utpraksha. Utpraksha roughly translates to possibility.
So Shri Jeeva Goswami gives an example of Utpraksha. So he says when he gives the example of Lord Ram killing Ravan, he says when Lord Ram’s arrow, his snake arrow pierced the chest of Ravan and killed Ravan, then that snake arrow after killing him directly entered into the earth as if to tell the good news first and foremost to its own relatives in Nagalok. So there is a historical incident that Lord Ram’s arrow pierced Ravan’s chest.
So based on that Jeeva Goswami is saying as if and if it entered into the earth as if to go into Patalaloka and to go to the planet of the snakes and to tell them the good news first because it is a snake arrow so it will tell its relatives the good news first that it is I who killed Ravan. Now question arises here historically did this happen and the answer will be you know somebody who’s a literalist will say no historically this is not what happened Jeeva Goswami no this is your imagination you are imagining things in relation to Lord Ram’s pastimes but let’s see it this way when Lord Ram was actually killing Ravan and since the Lord is absolute when he is killing Ravan does he not understand all points of view that poets can derive while he is doing a particular Leela so then what you are saying is that the the point here is not what is the empirical reality the point is that there is a there is a expression of devotion and there is a reciprocation from the Lord right is that the primary point yes yes and before this realization has appeared in the mind of Jeeva Goswami it has already appeared in the mind of Lord Ramachandra when he was killing Ravan so when you say appeared in the mind that does not necessarily mean that that’s what physically happened but it is a reality in the sense that it manifested in the supreme reality oh yes it manifested it it is one of the realizations which manifested in the heart of Lord Ram Goswami wrote it down beautiful maybe this will require a separate session to discuss but I’ll say are there any areas at all where we will need to reject empirical knowledge to have faith in transcendental knowledge so or empirical knowledge we could empirical all scientific knowledge is not empirical science also has a theoretical aspect to it except that the theory gets more and more so complicated like quantum physics it’s so much theoretical that there is very little empirical about it except that it works so so if there is something which like Jeeva Goswami says this in Tattva Sandarbha if there is something which directly contradicts Shastric knowledge and there is no way of harmonizing it then we will select Shastric knowledge over empirical knowledge for example let’s say science today says we discovered a new species of world so the thing is there is no way it is very clearly said new species of world means all the species of worlds are all the species of human beings they are already existing since time immemorial and there is nothing called as a new species of world and any modifications or permutations and combinations that scientists may try have already been tried out by mother nature before they tried it so whatever they if they say this is a new species of bird or if a new species of fish has been found which was previously unknown so it was previously unknown to them and it is not that 84 lakh and one new species of life have come about it’s nothing like that yeah of course you know here also we could interpret because what species means in modern science and what she means in Shastra that are also open to discussion open to discussion so that’s why even if we want to say that okay within the scientific categorization of species this particular bird doesn’t fall in any of the previous categorization so you created a new category right but that doesn’t necessarily contradict the rational understanding of species right but if there arises a situation in which there is a there is such a deadlock that no harmonization is working then definitely we will select shastric knowledge over where the knowledge over any other system of knowledge okay so i’ll try to summarize now basically we try to discuss on the topic of intellectual diversity it was not so much in bhakti as in scriptural understanding right with the topic turned out you first talked about your how your genesis of your scriptures study right and then i think the main themes we discussed was that what do we actually mean when we are studying scriptural knowledge how much is the room for rationality so although reason is not a ultimate source of knowledge but that doesn’t mean it is to be dismissed right and it is only when it contradicts contradicts scripture then we have to consider whether it’s the authority or not and then we discussed about shabda is basically an authoritative verbal testimony that is authoritative so it doesn’t necessarily have to be coming from scripture so at one level we could say that all knowledge is grounded or is seeded by scripture at the same time there is also progression in knowledge yes and it is because human beings have this capacity to observe and learn and that is not and they can receive knowledge from the paramatma so there is one one side because of kaliyuga there is a moral degradation deterioration but we could accommodate in some areas intellectual development exactly and and moreover if there is another argument which i wanted to give from the grammar perspective that if we understand sanskrit as the original language of the world then because language is the gateway to all sorts of knowledge without language there is no other field of knowledge which can happen so if all the languages of the world have come from sanskrit and sanskrit itself is veda it is vedanga so in that way on simply on the basis of this argument alone that everything has come from sanskrit grammar because all all the languages of the world have come from sanskrit grammar which means that all the languages which are being used even today even by atheists are deriving a lot of terms from sanskrit grammar so which means that it is directly or indirectly contributing to all systems of knowledge in the world including the systems of the atheists okay so it’s not just the knowledge but also the language that’s a good point and then we discuss elaborately about whether empirical knowledge has to be rejected if it contradicts scriptural knowledge right and then in that the surya siddhanta and bhagavatam’s cosmology how both of them have been accepted by our tradition right and there has been no exhaustive attempt either to refute one for the sake of other or necessarily reconcile the two right just understand that you quoted that there is this knowledge is pursued when we control our control our senses and suryanadi so it’s a yogic view of reality right so what the way in the western intellectual tradition reason and faith have been reconciled by compartmentalizing knowledge but we don’t necessarily have to do that because within our worldview itself reality is compartmentalized exactly and so scripture is like a foundational source for even empirical knowledge right but that does not necessarily mean that empirical knowledge has to be rejected for scriptural knowledge exactly so you quoted from the shastra about how we can learn from you from lecture about so operational knowledge about how to whether a rebel is portable or not you don’t need shastra for that right and so shastra is more for ethical deliberation and spiritual contemplation shastra is for uh for paramartha means with that which is beyond sensory perception for that shastra is used yes and uh overall you also quoted i think was it jigo swami or that when two different constatments are together the first time we reject one statement but rupa rupa goswami says this thing see for the atheist everything all the knowledge is within the domain of the senses and when it comes to extra sensory perception they are they have no branch of knowledge absolutely no branch of knowledge so in a sense you could say that the atheists are actually being more narrow-minded than those who follow scripture exactly because atheism flattens reality right phrase used but there is no scope for non-material knowledge or non-physical knowledge right whereas scripture has scope for spiritual knowledge and scope for material knowledge also right and when you see atheists uh uh this this comes up in a nyaya shastra discussion which is called as mangal vad mangal vad is one it’s a very small example in the beginning of the book originally um ancient writers used to write mangalacharan mangalacharan means auspicious invocations so then there came an atheist who say what is the use of writing even without writing mangalacharan your book can get and many atheists complete their book even without mangalacharan the purpose of mangalacharan is to remove obstacles but even without mangalacharan if the book is getting completed in essence mangalacharan is useless so that was the argument and sarvabhaum bhattacharya gives an argument against mangal vad with genius argument he gives against mangal vad he says even when an atheist begins writing his book in his heart every atheist desires that the book should be completed no atheist within the heart desires that may my book fail so the mangalacharan the auspicious invocation has already occurred in the heart of the atheist even though he may not pronounce it out so here it does not be an explicit prayer right it is just an aspiration of the heart right and it is best to vocally to write it down rather than just keep expressing it in the heart because the atheists also say no dedicated to my father dedicated to my wife and this and that so they are also they are also bringing out auspiciousness to other people in many ways they are desiring it in their heart before the book starts so why not explicitly write it in the book if it is already present within the heart of the atheist too beautiful this idea of ongoing revelation it makes humanity come alive actually or human life becomes intrinsically valuable and adventurous right so scriptural understanding leaves or gives room for empirical understanding also right and there is freshness in scriptural understanding that can come by the super soul’s grace right and there is freshness in empirical understanding also that can come by the super souls grace yes and this will also help devotees in many ways because a devotee can be a specialist in bhagavatam and at the same time he can be an astronomer in the world outside and these two are distinct ways of looking at the universe distinct ways of perceiving reality and both can both work at their levels so the the test for whether a knowledge is valid is its workability is if an right that is for porous knowledge of course our porous knowledge there is there is no test yeah of course we could say or what is that right that could be the test for it but right yeah empirical knowledge its workability this is a very intellectually inclusive understanding of scripture and it’d be wonderful to discuss with you bro thank you very much for sparing your time and sharing your wisdom to that if there was any mistake in what i said may all the learned souls correct me all the people who are may they correct me if i said something wrong about science may the scientists correct me if you found anything nice even a small thing nice about the presentation to all my audience i wish to say it doesn’t belong to me it belongs to my guru jnrc thank you very much thank you it’s amazing humility as well as scriptural fidelity thank you look forward to having a further discussion with you soon in the future hare krishna thank you thank you