Герменевтика и сиддханта (перевод)
Bhakti Vijnana Goswami · 2022
Chapters
Objectives of hermeneutics and siddhanta
Okay, so dear devotees, please accept my most humble obeisances. I'm seeking for your blessings to be able to serve you today while explaining the second lesson of the hermeneutic scores.
And this lesson is of utmost importance. And the name of the lesson is hermeneutics and siddhanta or a simple and basic way to apply hermeneutics. Just to restate very quickly.
That's the objectives of this or aims of this today's lesson. The first is to deepen participants' understanding of various hermeneutical processes by providing practical experience of using hermeneutical paths.
We will try today with you to go through a simple hermeneutical problem which we basically encounter every day of our life and try to do it in a proper way according to the recommendations of Shastric Advisory Committee.
And the second aim is to deepen the understanding of what Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta is and its role in hermeneutics.
As Mother Urmila said yesterday I believe, that even if I understand this one thing from the whole course we will be greatly benefited and we will make some advancement in regard to hermeneutics or understanding what the hermeneutical process is.
If I understand how to apply siddhanta because most of the confusions which people have is because they don't apply the siddhantic statements properly or they don't apply the statements in question to the proper context. They don't know how to deal with the statements and there is a lot of confusion because of this and I will explain it in the course of my lesson.
So, here is our meditation. Please repeat after me with muted microphones.
This is the meditation taken from the fifth canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, eleventh chapter, where different prayers of different inhabitants of different varsas of the universe are being quoted.
The main word here is the last word and the third line and that's the translation. By manipulating a fire generating stick, great saints and sages can bring forth the fire lying dormant within wood.
In the same way, O Lord, those expert in understanding, vipascitah, the absolute truths, Try to see you in everything even in their own bodies, yet you remain concealed.
You are not to be understood by direct process involving mental or physical activities because you are self manifested only when you see that a person is wholeheartedly engaged in searching for you, do you reveal yourself.
Therefore, I offer my respectful obeisances to you.
Basically, the highlighted line of this translation or sentence of this translation is the most important and this idea is in the word didṛkṣavaḥ which literally means those who are desiring to see or really want to see the Lord. That's the prerequisite or the condition by which the Lord can reveal himself.
Our desire to see is very important and therefore this meditation is how to apply this in the process of hermeneutics.
We can understand the Lord, we can understand him only by his mercy and his mercy is coming to those who are sincerely trying to understand him by very honestly and conscientiously applying this process of understanding of our scriptures.
The Sanskrit roots of mimamsa
By the way, and I wanted to say this from the outset, and that the word the drikshavaha desiring to see is very similar to the word mīmāṁsā, which is the Sanskrit equivalent of hermeneutics. I personally like Sanskrit words much better than strange Greek words.
And if it was up to me, I would call this course mīmāṁsā. And literally mīmāṁsā means with the same doubling of the root, didṛkṣavaḥ, mīmāṁsā, titikṣavaḥ, yuyutsavaḥ, mumukṣu and jijñāsu. You can see this again and again and again in Sanskrit.
This doubling of the root means the desire, desire to do. So mīmāṁsā means desire to understand from the root man to think. Desire to think properly, to think elaborately.
So that's basically what we're going to do or what we're going to learn and therefore this meditation is very appropriate.
By sincere desire to understand the Lord and by sincere desire to think about Him we will be able ultimately to understand Him by His mercy.
But I think a little digression from the course of our lesson I wanted first to restate the need for hermeneutics at this moment, at this historical moment. I know that Urmila Devi was explaining this at the end while answering the questions, but I wanted to say something, in my opinion, important. Just to again restate that what is hermeneutics?
It's values based theory and method. First values, Vaishnava qualities. Second is principles, theory and how to understand. And then tools, the concrete tools.
But the natural questions which arise at this moment of time: Why it is relevant to do it now? At this particular moment of time? Why we never spoke about this before?
For so many years we haven't studied this hermeneutics and we were successfully preaching. Why do we need it right now? So the reason is very crucial and the reason is the same as in case of Bhagavad-gītā as Prabhupāda explains in the introduction to the book, is that there is a process of watering down and ultimately losing the original intent of the author. And that's why when the original intent of the author is lost due to the interpretations of sometimes very well meaning followers. We see that some other meanings appear. And I wanted to show you a very important chart which shows how it happens and why it happens and why now is the time to study hermeneutics.
We have four generations of spiritual leaders or people who practice and follow certain path.
And first generation is basically Prabhupada himself. All four things are in place. There are problems or issues. There are particular instructions which Prabhupada gave to solve this particular problem or particular issue. He knew the context in which this problem arose and he definitely very much was aware of the intention behind.
So when these four things are clear then the intention, again, the intent or intention of the author is very clear and it manifests externally in the instructions given in a particular context to solve a particular issue.
What we have in the second generation of direct followers of Prabhupada is a very interesting situation. The issues are there.
We're basically dealing with the same issues which Śrīla Prabhupāda dealt with. His instructions are there, they're well recorded in dealing with this issue or that issue.
And the direct witnesses of Śrīla Prabhupāda's instructions and his pastimes, they knew the context in which these instructions were given. But the intention in most cases was not known to the people.
But because these three other things are very intact, then with some extent of assurance we can say that this was the intention and therefore this instruction was given.
And therefore this instruction may be different in a different context. In a different context the instruction might have been different with the same issue.
So the second generation, those direct disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda, they have the privilege because they were witnesses.
What happens in the third generation and basically majority of devotees now are the devotees of the third or sometimes even fourth generation is that the issues are clear, instructions are clear, but the context is not clear. And very often we take particular instruction outside of the context and try to apply it to a different context.
And intention is of course not clear. And therefore the need of hermeneutics is very very acute at this moment of time. The hermeneutics itself, mīmāṁsā, is extremely important.
And then we have the fourth generation and the fourth generation, the third generation is usually very studious and people they study the instructions of the founder Acharya very ardently.
But, you know, over the time instructions are too voluminous and too many and too many other books were written and I need to read this and to read that and to read Back to Godhead and something else.
So we have already three question marks. But the same issues we are dealing with, but we are much less equipped to deal with them according to the original intent of the founder.
And that's how the need of hermeneutics arises. So, that's where I wanted to start.
Evolution of interpretation after the founder
And again, I'm sorry for little digression. But again very quickly I wanted to say that how did the hermeneutical process look like during Prabhupada's time? It was very easy, very simple.
If you didn't understand anything, some instruction of Prabhupada, you would ask him after the class, you would write him a letter or you would ask Tamal Krishna Maharaja or some of his secretaries so that they could ask him. Simple process.
No need for hermeneutics at all. Because somebody who has this original intent is present right there.
So, when Prabhupada just departed, also it was not so difficult because there were so many people who were around him, who knew very well him, his personality, how he dealt with different issues. And therefore you could always ask them what are the instructions on the management.
And you probably would ask Gopāla Kṛṣṇa Mahārāja or, you know, the temple management or you would ask probably Tamal Krishna Goswami or some of the original GBC members. So again, it was relatively easy and straightforward.
But then, you know, over the time some of the members discredit themselves or were discredited by some other people. There are some unpleasant processes which are going on with the time.
We are more or less losing the face.
It's a very unfortunate situation we're dealing with now is that we are losing faith in some direct disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda and therefore the hermeneutical process becomes much more difficult. We basically don't have this facility just to raise our hand and ask please tell us what Prabhupada would say in this particular situation or how he would deal with this particular problem. And therefore so much So the hermeneutical process, how does it look now?
If I answer this question, you know, you get somebody and he's just reading Prabhupada's books to arm himself with particular quotes which support his view. And then there is somebody else who also only reads Prabhupada's books to arm himself, to support his view.
And they started fighting with each other without understanding, you know, what's going on. And so much dissension and so much problems are there. That's what it is.
And therefore, because this is the problem of the moment, you know, it's very important to understand how to deal with all these inevitable problems in a proper way, in an honest way, in a way with the desire to understand the truth.
So if we ask ourselves how it is going to be in the future, well, basically, you know, if we are good, if have good and positive thinking process, then we will say yes, there will be very knowledgeable people who will be expert in hermeneutics, and there will be books written on a particular issues, and this and that.
But in any case, what I wanted to say is that hermeneutics is very relevant now, not relative. More relevant now than ever. I don't know if there's any questions because I don't see people. Maybe somebody can help me.
Urmila Mataji, can you help me? Anything? Or shall I continue? How much time do you want to do? Just one, two questions. Just for people to let it settle down. I said something and I don't know if it was understandable or not.
Was it relevant in your opinion? Was it relevant? Absolutely. We had this question at the end of the class yesterday and I talked about it briefly, but your explanation is far superior to the one that I gave.
Vedic roots of mimamsa methodology
If anyone has any question, if you raise your hand. South Escorpio? Thank you, Shannon. I a question. I presume the theory and application of hermeneutics is is a is a, you know, everlasting problem.
It is not a problem that that has arisen just after the departure of Prabhupada. It's it's been present since sastra has was written, and the parampara system, continues to try and propagate the the the message.
So this must be a continuous process which hasn't mess it's obviously, from our perspective, it's been exacerbated because of Srila Prabhupada's teachings who are much more clearer for our understanding of this. But the problem is a is a is a an everlasting problem presumably, which requires a a an everlasting solution.
It's not that we're trying to solve it now because there is a Oh, Absolutely. You're absolutely right. The problem has always existed. Yes. The solution is always applied. Yeah.
What is the sastric solution that is provided that gives the command for providing an everlasting solution to this? Okay. Thank you very much for this question. Yes, historically we can see that you're absolutely right.
This problem was always there. Please mute your microphone.
This problem has been always there and in particularly it was the problem which was dealt very elaborately by people who were trying to apply the Vedic instructions on performing the sacrifices in the beginning of Kali Yuga because the tradition was somewhat lost and the instructions how to do this were very complicated, sometimes contradictory.
And therefore in Mimamsa Sutra or the Purva Mimamsa which is Jaimini Sutra dealt very elaborately with the principles of hermeneutics because you can only be successful in performing the sacrifice and get your result in place if you do everything very exactly to the minutest details.
And therefore they needed to understand how to do this properly and how to understand sometimes not very clear statements of the Shastras or contradictory statements of the Shastras.
So they dealt with this hermeneutics processes. They excelled this. They formulated the different principles of hermeneutics. How to apply them? They gave different examples of this.
And this is the part of Mīmāṃsā which is fully and wholeheartedly embraced by ācāryas.
Every one of the six systems of Vedic philosophy, schools of Vedic philosophy has some parts which we don't accept and has some parts, valuable parts for us, Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
And in Mīmāṃsā, in the school of Mīmāṃsā or Pūrva Mīmāṃsā specifically, Jaimini School of Thought, all our ācāryas, they don't question their consideration or their conclusions about the principles of hermeneutics or principles of Mīmāṃsā and just apply it to our problems.
And we can see the brilliant examples of this practical application of hermeneutics in case of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in his Paramātmā-sandarbha and in his Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha specifically,
He gives just a brilliant, brilliant example how to apply the principles worked out by Mīmāṃsakas in case of analyzing the siddhānta of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Specifically this kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam statement.
Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī gives a brilliant analysis and proves that this is the statement, the key statement and the essence of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. ete cāṃśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam
So basically this hermeneutic course is more or less the result of studying application of Mīmāṃsā by ācāryas, in particular Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, then Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his commentary to Vedānta-sūtra, and then ultimately Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and Śrīla Prabhupāda, who also showed very brilliant examples of using hermeneutics.
So basically that's the tradition which we follow and we don't invent anything.
It's all there in Mīmāṃsā-sūtra and therefore I again say this not very pleasant statement that I think this course should be called Mīmāṃsā course, but anyway it's called hermeneutics. So, did I answer your question?
Yes, Marit.
Somewhat I'm still looking, I guess, because of my lack of knowledge, as to what the whatī command is as to how these matters were dealt with. Are we are we effectively replicating śāstric command, or are we effectively deducing how
how and guru-paramparā No, no. No.
Again, these principles are formulated by Mīmāṃsakas and some principles are there in original śāstra as well. We're not deducing, Prabhupāda is just giving us a brilliant example how to use this.
But ultimately, originally it's there in the śāstras as well. But some of the tools are worked out by the ācāryas of Mīmāṃsā School. Like for example, very common tool which is used in hermeneutics is this ṣaḍ-liṅgam.
Perhaps you have heard this when you want to, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains this in his Vedānta-sūtra commentary.
He basically explains that if you want to understand the meaning of a very complicated book like Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam or Upaniṣad or even one verse, You can use this ṣaḍ-liṅgam tool.
Ṣaḍ-liṅgam means you see what is there in the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Let's take Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī explains this how to use it in applied to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
You take what is there in the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. You take what is there in the end of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And you try to find a common statement in the beginning and in the end.
Then you see what is repeated again and again. Then you see what is the logic. What is the result which is promised in the book.
And by analyzing these six different lakṣaṇas or principles or significators you will be able to understand what this book is all about. So that's all in the Shastras.
The Shastra initially deal with it and it's elaborated by the Acaryas and applied by our Acaryas towards our goals.
I'm sorry, Mahārāja. The reason I'm asking this is, so I was gonna ask if I could just ask you, because Mahārāja has a lot to cover here. I know. Very good.
And everything you're bringing up is in the supplementing materials. Very quick one. So I Look.
I'm a mathematician, and, by by a scientific sort of deduction, if a if a principle is provided, then the deduction will always be the same if you follow the process. The the reason I'm asking this is why if this is a śāstric command, why others end up with a wrong deduction outside of our our paramparā? Why others that follow the same śāstric pramāṇa for deduction end up with the wrong conclusion?
Because Shastras are not mathematics. Because Shastras are very multidimensional. Sanskrit is, by definition, a very multidimensional language and you can apply these principles differently.
And again, therefore ultimately you have to search within and therefore our meditation to this lesson was that let's do it very conscientiously and by conscientiously applying this process let's hope that Krishna will reveal us the truth.
That ultimately the whole process of Vaishnava hermeneutics is the process of revelation. It's not mathematics, it's not just logic. It's not only logic. Tarka Apratishtanat. That's the sūtra from Vedānta-sūtra.
Ultimately logic does not have very strong foundations because logic is based on our empiric experiences in this world and they are defective. And we're dealing with transrational realities.
There is in So every hermeneutical process there is some sort of revelation should be implied. Hopefully. Urmilā, please direct. Shall we ask another question or go further? Because I do have a lot of material to cover.
I think you should go further. Okay. Yeah. We'll answer at the end if there will be some extra time. Okay?
Defining context as key to meaning
Okay. So now the main part of our lesson today. And before we start this I wanted to ask you, well, obviously you have heard the phrase a quote out of context. So what does it really mean?
Usually when we say that somebody is faulty and he's trying to prove his point, we say and he's supporting by giving some quote, we routinely or habitually say that you quote out of context.
It's basically you take out the quote and you try to support your own statement but you don't really take into consideration the context and as a result is inevitable mistake which you do.
Because, and that's a very important thing which I wanted to say in the beginning, that's very foundational for today's lesson, is that the meaning is defined by the context.
You cannot really take the word like, you know, you take any word and you take it out of context and you don't know what this word means. Let's say the word Atma. Yesterday somebody asked what is the word Atma?
According to context the word Atma may mean myself, the word Atma may mean God, the word Atma may mean mind, the word Atma may mean intelligence, the word Atma may mean body, the word Atma. And the same word may mean God.
It basically can mean anything. So the context defines the meaning. You cannot have the meaning without the context. So, you know, I'm a translator.
I've been translating Śrīla Prabhupāda's books into Russian for many many years. And I know that to understand the sentence, you know, to understand the meaning of the word you have to know the sentence.
To understand the sentence and to translate the sentence exactly, correctly you have to understand at least the paragraph. So we have to ask this very important thing.
How wide the context is supposed to be to make sure that we understand the statement correctly.
You know, if we take any statement of Prabhupāda, take it out of context, you know, we are right to ask, you know, okay, okay, I am conscientiously trying to understand the meaning of the statement, but what the context should be for me to be able to understand this statement?
And the next question which I want to ask for your consideration. Does it mean that we need to know scrutinizingly everything which Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote and spoke?
Basically, you know, somebody may say to understand any statement by Prabhupāda I need to know everything which Prabhupāda wrote or spoke. Correct? Maybe, but not necessarily.
First of all nobody knows everything which Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote and spoke. It's too voluminous.
And it would be a little overly demanding to say that I will not be able to understand any statement of Prabhupāda correctly unless I know everything else. And unless I will be able to put it in a proper context.
Definition and properties of siddhanta
So here we come to the need of siddhānta.
Basically, the point which I want to make here is that to understand any statement of Prabhupāda we don't need, we don't necessarily need to know every single word which Śrīla Prabhupāda said and to memorize it.
But we do have to know very thoroughly and very firmly what is siddhānta. Śrīla Prabhupāda wants us to know or what is his basic teachings which he is drilling upon us again and again and again.
So the term siddhānta has two main meanings. It's there in your supplementary material and in your student book, participant book. It may mean particular aspects of general understanding of philosophical teachings.
This siddhānta, that siddhānta. Please explain this siddhānta. Perhaps some little detail of the philosophy. Or it may mean in a general sense to the whole body of philosophical teachings of a particular school of thought.
So we're using this word siddhānta in the second term. It's very important. Not just a particular little statement which can also be called siddhānta and sometimes called by ācāryas.
And in your participant handbook you will see this definition of siddhānta. We're using the term siddhānta to mean the truth that is eternal, universal and transcontextual.
In other words, it applies in all circumstances, in all space, all time and to everyone. When we speak about siddhānta, we're speaking about the truth which does not depend on the context.
Like for example Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This statement like also Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says, Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. He says this statement is independent. It is Shruti.
Shruti in a sense that it does not depend on the context. It's not explaining a particular context or whatever. It's transcontextual. It's universal. So it's applicable everywhere. And it's eternal. It's always true.
Krishna will always be the Supreme Personality of God. It's now, in the past, in the future, in every yoga, in every time, in every space. So I hope you read this already in your participant handbook.
And I just wanted to have a quick understanding how you understand this. Maybe somebody can say what is your understanding of what is siddhanta. Because it's very important from the beginning.
That's a hermeneutical principle. Let's define the words which we use. Here we use the word siddhanta to describe the eternal truths which are universal, eternal and transcontextual.
So maybe somebody can explain to me in his or her own words what we mean by siddhanta, to make sure that we are on the same page. I think people are putting it in the chats, Marcos.
Not sure if you can see from your device but people are putting it in the chat. I see okay maybe you can read it. Okay fundamental premises axiomatic. That was a direct message to me. Non negotiable. Yes. Very good, very good.
Axiomatic non negotiable, yes. Means basically, axiomatic means it doesn't depend on logic. You cannot really logically prove it. Although you know you can logically understand it but you ultimately have to accept.
Yes, very interesting. Something else? Siddhanta, axiomatic, philosophical conclusions, conclusive statement. Yes. Yes. But how do we reconcile this statement?
First of all, we say it's universal, it's eternal. And then immediately we say it in connection with a particular school of thought. How is that compatible with each other? These two statements.
If it's eternal, how, why does it have to be connected with a particular school of thought? What would you answer to this question? You can put that in the chat.
Core principles which cannot be compromised, but that's not an answer to the question. That's definitely not the answer to this question. Because it changes the context? How does it change the context? In which way?
As I understand it is beyond space and time. Yes. Yes, but Mares' question is how can we say then that a particular school has some siddhanta if it's universal. Anyone want to try to answer that?
If it's universal, it has to be the same in all the schools of thought unless they're totally wrong. Either we don't have an answer. We have an answer here.
The audience is dynamic so needs relevant presentation and there can be co existing schools of thought. Another one is śraddhā of a particular school designed siddhānta. Yeah, that's interesting.
That's very definitely answers the questions to a certain extent because we can explain these universal truths in a different way, by different words, different terminology. But, you know, the meaning will be the same.
There was somebody who wanted to He's writing in the chat. And there's another one interesting here. There can be multiple levels of understanding the same truth according to the mood and different roles.
Exactly, exactly, exactly. Thank you very much.
Yes, definitely there can be layers of depth and the same universal truth can be explained or expressed with different depths from different angles of vision and therefore it can be formulated somewhat differently in different schools of thoughts.
And some people may get it wrong. That's also not such a rare occasion. Some people may get it wrong. The Māyāvāda siddhānta, we don't subscribe to Māyāvāda siddhānta. They have their own siddhānta, their conclusions.
And we argue with them, we say that it's wrong conclusions, not exactly correct conclusions. Sometimes we may also see that there are different religions which basically speak about many similar things.
Like, all religions speak about devotion. Devotional service. All religion speak about that, you know, some religions say God is person, some religions say God is ultimately impersonal. So siddhānta may be different.
It doesn't mean that, you know, they're all equally correct. But we stick to our siddhānta and we have very good reasons to stick. But we also respect the same truths formulated in different way in other traditions.
If we see, like Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura says, when I see how other people worship my God, my heart rejoices. He says, I come to a church and I see these people worship my God. God is one and I feel happy.
So, that's a very important understanding of what siddhānta is. We already answered this and we also covered a little bit of this. Gaudiya Vaiṣṇava siddhānta is different from that of other sampradāya schools.
Does it mean that we're only ones who have access to internal universal and transcontextual truths? No.
Distinguishing contextual statements from siddhanta
But we definitely have pride, in a good sense, that our explanation of reality is very deep and very beautiful and very consistent too. So another important point in our consideration today, in our lesson today.
And this is the mistake which people often do when they speak about hermeneutics.
You know, does it mean that everything which is there in the books of Śrīla Prabhupāda is siddhānta? Does it mean that every word which Śrīla Prabhupāda said or any other ācārya said is an absolute truth which is universal, transcontextual and eternal?
Please answer this crucial question. Okay, so we're getting no, no, no. Okay, okay, okay. I'm happy to get this unanimous no. Yes, we have to be very clear about this. It's extremely important.
It's not an offense to say that not everything is just eternal transcontextual truth, not everything is siddhānta in the proper sense of the word.
There are many contextual statements in Prabhupāda's books, in Prabhupāda's letters, lectures and everything. And we have to be able to distinguish between them and siddhānta.
We have to know and for that we need to know siddhānta very clearly.
To understand siddhānta very clearly, as I said, it's a very herculean task to understand everything which Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote, all his lectures and everything.
But to really deal with this huge body of information and to be able to distinguish it and to put it in a proper context we need to know a concise statement of siddhānta.
By knowing the concise statement of siddhānta we will be able to relate every other statement with the concise statement of siddhānta and basically place the statement in the context of siddhānta.
That's why I said my first statement is that meaning can only be known by the context. So by context we mean siddhānta.
Any statement which we hear we have to put in the context of siddhānta and try to understand it from the angle of vision of siddhānta. And by doing this we will be able to accomplish hermeneutical process successfully.
Concise summaries of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy
That's very important. So now I will just give examples of different And therefore our ācāryas they produced different concise statements of siddhānta.
You know, the first statement of this sort was given in the first commentary to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam by Śrīnātha Cakravartī.
ārādhya bhagavān vrajeśa-tad-dhāma vṛndāvanaṁ ramyā kācid upāsanā vraja-vadhū-vargyeṇa yā kalpitā śrīmad-bhāgavatam pramāṇam amalam premā pum-arthān mahān śrī-caitanya-mahāprabhor matam idam tatrādaro na paraḥ.
This is what we respect as Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. He gave the concise statement of siddhānta.
Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura said that this is not the proper siddhānta because the proper siddhānta was given by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in his analysis of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in his magnus, in his opus magnum Ṣaṭ-sandarbhas.
And Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa as the latest great philosopher in our line, of course, you know, Prabhupāda and Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was there, but Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa his contribution was very significant.
He gave this one simple śloka. And this śloka is written on the basis of or verse. This verse is written on the basis of Vyāsa Tīrtha who is a disciple of follower, not direct disciple of Madhvācārya.
And on the basis of this statement, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura wrote this statement Daśa-mūla-tattva.
This statement is so important that Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī demanded that every member of Gauḍīya Maṭha would know this verse by heart.
So that's daśa-mūla-tattva, that's concise statement of siddhānta given by Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura.
He elaborated on this in many places specifically in Jīva Dharma where he devoted many many 12 or 13 chapters to describe this Daśa-mūla-tattva. This is the main point. So basically please listen very carefully.
Hopefully you will read it again. This statement is there in your participant's handbook and is more elaborately described in the supplementary materials. Page 250 something or 60 something.
There are some essays on Daśa-mūla-tattva written by Vrajavāsī Prabhu and Nārāyaṇa Nīmāṭājī. You can read them. And basically he gives this 10 mulas, 10 roots. Daśa-mūla-tattva. He says: Amnāya prāha first.
You can understand any statement by amnāya. Amnāya means Vedas, not specifically the Vedas, but the Vedas received through guru-paramparā. That's what the word amnāya means.
Not any statement from any śāstra, you know, any saṁhitā or whatever. But specifically the statements which you receive through guru-paramparā. This is the first, that's pramāṇa. And there are nine prameyans.
Krishna is the absolute, supreme absolute truth. Krishna is in doubt with all the energies. [Amnai prahat attvam harimiha paramam. Sarvasaktim Krishna is in doubt with all energies. Krishna is the Ocean of Rasa.
Rasabdhim, Abdhim he is the Ocean of Rasa. Jivas Prakritikavalitam. Jivas are Aamshas, Vibhinamshas. They're separated parts and parcels of the Lord.
They're Prakriti Kvalitam, inbound state that Jivas are under influence of matter. Kavalitam literally means that they are inside the matter, they are totally completely merged with the matter.
In the liberated states tadvi mukhtamscha, may be liberated, free from the influence of matter due to their tatashtha nature. Jivas and the material world are both different from and identical with the Lord.
Bedda, bedda, prakasasakalam. Everything is bedda and abedda, these statements. Suda Bhaktim is the process, pure devotional service is the process to liberate Jivas. And ultimately pure love of God is the goal.
Prittim is the Sadhya. So the same statements are given by Śrīla Prabhupāda in the purport of the last verse of Catur-ślokī of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as explained in Ādi-līlā of Caitanya-caritāmṛta.
The last verse, the fourth verse of Catur-ślokī, which is in itself is the concise statement of siddhānta or very compressed and concise statement of the essence of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
In the purport to this last verse, Śrīla Prabhupāda basically formulates the same 10 points in a slightly different order. Lord Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
He has his external inferior or material energy, māyā. He has also his internal superior or spiritual energy. He has his parts and parcels, the living entities who are spiritual by nature.
The living entities in the material world are conditioned by external energy. The living entities in the spiritual world are liberated.
Acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, simultaneous oneness and difference of the Lord and his energies. Love of God is the highest goal of life. To achieve love of God one should practice devotional service.
This knowledge can only be received by us from śāstra, first of all Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and Bhagavad-gītā, through the disciplic succession.
Basically you can see, you can compare all the same 10 points in a different order. Here we have nine first the Prameas, what is to be proven And the tenth one is the means to prove these statements.
That this is the statements from the Shastra, from Shruti. So this is the tenth one is the Pramana. The first seven one is sambandha-tattva, sambandha-jñāna. About the Lord he has the energies internal, external.
He enjoys this spiritual energy being the Ocean of Rasa. And about the parts and parcels. These first seven are sambandha-jñāna-tattva. The eighth one is the prayojana-tattva. Love of Godhead is the highest goal of life.
And the ninth one is the abhidheya-tattva. To achieve this one should practice devotional service.
So that's the concise statement of siddhānta and that's the basically the context, the shortest explanation of the context which we have to know very clearly to understand any other statement.
Basically if you graphically understand this, if we have a semantic field we have certain crucial points and these crucial points they define the semantic field, the field of meanings. And this is the statement.
Of course every one of these statements can be elaborated further and further and further. And Prabhupāda does it again and again and again. But at least we have to know very clearly these 10 statements.
I understand that in Kali Yuga to know something which is more than three is very difficult. But at least we should try sincerely applying our intelligence. So is there any questions to this?
Again, this is all in your participants' handbook. I'm just trying to explain this in my own words in case you didn't understand anything or you know.
But it's good if you read before and then you will be much better equipped to understand what is being explained now. Because now we will practically apply this in some example and you will see how relevant it is.
Any questions?
Three steps of the hermeneutical path
I'm not sure if have time for any questions since we just have an hour left. We need to do a quick demo on for them. So, okay.
So then I will do quick demonstration of the hermeneutical path and then we will do practical work, right? That's the I have something like twenty minutes for the hermeneutical path and then we will do the practical work.
Okay, thank you. I follow your order. You are my master. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. It's correct. Okay, so the hermeneutical process, the example how to apply this.
Again, it's in your book and it's in the foundational document. Please open your foundational document on the page eleven, twelve and thirteen.
First 11 And this whole process is in these three pages of your foundational document. So, how to do this? We know the siddhānta statement.
We know that we have to put any particular difficult statement which we ponder about in the context of this siddhānta. How to do it properly? So for this here is the suggested path.
Obviously you will not be able to do it every time with all the details, but at least you should know how it should look like. First is self analysis, self introspection.
You have to really ask yourself pertinent questions which are there in the page number 11 of your foundational document. Am I right? 11 or 12? 11, yes. So you ask these questions yourself.
Am I really equipped to understand this statement? Am I really impartial to understand it properly? Am I prepared to understand it?
You know, am I honest now or I just want to prove myself that I'm right and everyone else is wrong? I'm just trying to find some quotes. So first this is the foundation. Foundation is Vaishnava qualities.
Conscientiously I'm trying to say am I capable to understand it in principle or better I ask somebody else who is more equipped than myself. Somebody who is more advanced maybe he will be able to do it.
Otherwise I will be just bewildered because I'm not equipped properly. So then the second one is the theory. We really have to look what is the context of this statement and how does it relate to the siddhānta.
We have to know these tenets of siddhānta. And we have to relate or connect this particular statement with the siddhānta. Again, specifically we will show by example.
And finally, by solving this problem on the second level, by understanding how does it relate to a particular siddhāntic statement out of the 10 tenets. We will be able to apply tools, concrete tools.
And by applying concrete tools hopefully we will be able to solve the problem. But we also have to be very clear that it's not necessarily that Vaishnava scriptures are not mathematics.
And not necessarily everyone will arrive to the same conclusion. So it's again, it's an art. Hermeneutics is a science but it's also an art. And therefore it requires prayers.
It requires revelation or involvement of the Absolute Truths himself to reveal to us. That's the simple process which is described here in this presentation. And basically first we have to relay this statement to ourself.
How to do it is described on the page 11. Then we have to relate this statement with the siddhānta, which is how to do it is described on the page number 12.
And then we have to try use different hermeneutical tools which are briefly described on the page 13 and more elaborately in the supplementary materials.
Hermeneutical analysis of marriage purport
So now we will take an example of the statement and try to analyze this, try to go very quickly through this whole process.
It's a statement from Sri Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya-līlā, thirteenth chapter, which describes the life of Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī.
And the verse number 112 says, after eight months when Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu bid farewell to Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa, the Lord flatly forbade him to marry. Do not marry, the Lord said.
And Prabhupāda writes a very important purport: Raghunātha Bhaṭṭācārya had become a greatly advanced devotee, while still unmarried. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu could see this and therefore he advised him not to begin the process of material sense gratification.
Marriage is a concession for people who are unable to control their senses. Raghunātha, however, being an advanced devotee of Krishna, naturally had no desire for sense gratification.
Therefore Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu advised him not to enter the bondage of marriage. And here is very enigmatic and difficult statement.
Generally a person cannot make much advancement in spiritual consciousness if he is married.
He becomes attached to his family and is prone to sense gratification, thus his spiritual advancement is very slow or almost nil. So does it mean that we quickly have to divorce ourselves if we are married?
Does it mean that this is a universal truth which is applicable in all cases and it's completely transcontextual and it has to be quickly somehow rather ISKCON leadership overlooked this statement and allowed these useless marriages in ISKCON which is completely māyā?
What does it mean? How do I understand this? So here is the process. Let's try to go through this.
Please open your books on the page number 11 and I will also try to open my book on the page number 11 and we will go through the recommended process of self introspection. Here are some questions.
Naturally you will not be able to ask all these questions every time when you ponder over something. But it just shows what you have to do and you can do it very quickly. You know, do I have a good sadhana?
If you don't have a good sadhana basically you're not well equipped to solve any sedantiques questions because you will just speculate.
Am I aiming towards a mood of surrender and service to Śrīla Prabhupāda and my spiritual master? Yes. What is my aim?
Do I want to prove that I am the best or I just want to surrender myself? To understand it in a very humble way. Do I have sufficient concrete experience of the topic in my personal life?
Well, in this case probably the question will be yes. We all have some experience of how entangling the spiritual, sorry, the married life can be.
So definitely we can say yes, I do have something, I do understand something. Do I have sufficient personal realization of the topic from my experience? Interesting questions.
Well, you know, may not, I'm being a sannyāsī who has never been married, may not have sufficient personal realization. But I do have sufficient realizations by seeing other people doing this and understanding what is going on.
Am I working towards embracing the principle of unity in diversity? Why this question is important? Because what I'm trying to do here?
Do I want to prove my point and to endanger the whole society for the split, for the dissension? Am I working as the devil's advocate? No, sorry, not the devil's advocate.
And am I working to really create the quarrels within a society? Or I really want to come to a proper conclusion to bring more unity in our society? It's a difficult question.
I'm sincerely trying to understand this and my intention is to bring more unity to the society. Either I'm doing it in my personal way or for my personal understanding or to explain others.
Like for example the very famous question about falling down of jīva. You know, it's such a controversial question and people may argue about it with no end. You know, I have to answer this question. What I'm doing here?
I'm sincerely trying to understand it myself and give a satisfactory understanding to others. Or I'm trying to just create dissension in the society?
Do I have sufficient śraddhā to accept that the motive behind the statement is pure and benevolent? Again very important question.
Do I believe that Śrīla Prabhupāda is not ill motivated here? That he is not trying to put everyone in an awkward position and to put everyone as unmerit? You know, I really have to ask this question.
Do I believe that this is said with a good intention, with intention to bring some benefit to me? Do I have the humility to adequately acknowledge that I may not understand correctly? Again very important questions.
Do I strive to be free from offenses especially towards vaiṣṇavas? What am I doing? Am I increasing my offensive mentalities?
Nourishing my offensive mentalities by pondering over these questions and trying to prove that I'm right or I'm decreasing it. Then another very important question.
Is my present state of mind conducive to understanding the statement? Am I in the right mind, in the right frame of mind?
Or maybe I'm very agitated or very tired or very frustrated and very, you know, much offended by somebody.
And I'm trying to understand this in this slightly changed state of consciousness, not a normal state of consciousness. Am I really impartial in understanding this? Am I willing to apply this in my life?
If I come to a conclusion that this is the statement which is universal, am I ready to apply it in my life? Again, important questions to ask. Do I have spiritual adhikāra to answer this question?
Sometimes the questions like for example this famous question about falling the jīva. Do I have adhikāra to understand this? Do I really have spiritual? Is it entirely clearly just a logical question or not?
Or it's just a question of also some spiritual realization? Like now the very intense debate is going on whether the svarūpa of jīva is inherent or it is inherited.
Very important question but to answer this question first have to answer this. Do I have adhikāra, spiritual adhikāra to understand the answer to this question? Do I have sufficient spiritual realization?
Or it will be just useless logical debate, endless debate. Have I read the major works of Śrīla Prabhupāda?
But again sometimes people they're not very well read but they're trying to discuss these lofty questions and you know whereas they don't know the basic philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā.
How well do I know the language I'm reading or hearing? That's another very important question.
You know, I'm once I was many times actually I was speaking with some people who don't understand English enough and they're trying to argue that you know, that their understanding is correct. And the translator did some mistake whereas they don't understand the English. They don't understand how the English works. And they were so convinced about this.
I, and two last questions to be very quick. Am I comfortable with uncertainty or paradox if needed? You know, we know sometimes we can come to a very paradoxical statement.
We may not completely logically understand everything or analyze everything.
We may just admit that you know there is a paradox and I don't understand and maybe in the future I will understand or I will have to reconcile this paradoxical statement or not controversial but the statement which is self contradictory or paradoxical.
Like Acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. It's acintya. Am I willing to pray and wait for the understanding to emerge? Very important. Again very important thing. Okay, we really have to rush.
Four categories of scriptural statements
I want to explain the next point which is the most important point. How to relate it to siddhānta? In your book, participant handbook, on the page number 12 there is explanation. It's foundations, Mara, not participant.
Oh yeah, sorry. In the foundational document which you have. In page number 12 there is a description how to relate this particular statement to the siddhānta.
And it is said that every statement in the scriptures or in the words of Śrīla Prabhupāda, in his letters or in his lectures can fall into four categories. First category is simple.
It's just statement or restatement or elucidation of siddhanta. It's basically siddhanta but spoken in some other way, in some other words. Sometimes Śrīla Prabhupāda may say Krishna is the Supreme Personality of God.
Sometimes he can say Krishna is God. Or sometimes he may say God is the Supreme. Or sometimes he may say something else. But it's all basically the same. It's different statements of the same siddhānta.
And you can very clearly see it and you can trace it down. Sometimes of course all these tenets they're very big.
And therefore I'm on the request of GBC writing a separate word which elaborates little bit, keeping the same structure, elaborates on some of these points. Like for example that jīvas are conditioned by nature.
Prakritikavalitam. The jīvas which are the aṁśas of the Lord, they are prakṛti-kāvalitām. What does it mean that they are more or less devoured by the prakṛti? Prakṛti-kāvalitām means that they are devoured.
It means that they have the mind, intelligence, false ego and how this whole thing works and how the saṁskāras are there. So that's all included into this very grave and very deep profound statement.
So sometimes to relate particular statement from the book to the statements of siddhānta. You need little elaboration of the siddhāntic statements. If you need I can provide you this work which I'm working now.
It's unfortunately not completely finished. Maybe I shouldn't. But in any case it's there. The elaboration is there. But still the first category is relatively simple.
The second is, is this statement an application of a particular tenet of siddhānta for the particular context? Basically, you know, the statement of siddhānta says that śuddha-bhakti is the process, is the abhidheya.
You know, see somewhere that you should chant, like I spoke with Svarnimila Mataji, she said, Nārada Muni says to Dhruva Mahārāja chant oṁ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya.
So it's very clearly, it's an application of this siddhānta, that śuddha-bhakti is the process to a particular context.
What concrete form of śuddha-bhakti Dhruva Mahārāja has to do in his concrete situation, his Guru Mahārāja says to him, Nārada Muni. The third one is the statement supports the siddhānta.
So supports the siddhānta basically it's not the restatement of siddhānta.
It's not the application of siddhāntic statement to particular context, but it's a certain siddhāntic statement in a particular context which is, you know, this statement supports the siddhānta in a sense that if you do this, then ultimately you will come to some of the siddhāntic statements.
There are some examples in your foundational documents that quite, I mean, let me see. The statement supports the siddhānta, helping people to practically work towards realization of the siddhānta.
And some statements from the Shastras are given there. And there are some statements in the śāstras which are opposed to siddhānta. Like Hiraṇyakaśipu says something which is not necessarily pure siddhānta.
Or sometimes he says something which is siddhānta.
But oftentimes when the demons speak or sometimes there is some statement which are poetic in nature and you cannot take them literally and they may be even opposed to siddhānta. So such statements are there.
What I want to say is that the first statement and the fourth statement they're simple to deal with. The second and third one are difficult.
And basically if we look in this particular statement which we are dealing with about that nobody should ever marry it. Generally person cannot make much advancement in spiritual consciousness if he is married. He becomes attached to his family and is prone to sense gratification. Thus his spiritual advancement is very slow and almost nil.
So this statement is clearly of the third category. Because it supports the siddhantic statement. Two siddhantic statements. One siddhantic statement is that jīvas in this world are conditioned.
Another one is that there is a process of liberation. The third one that's pure devotional service is the process of liberation. So basically this statement deals with these three siddhantic statements.
But it's not a direct application of this siddhanta in a particular context. But it rather some sort of supporting explanation. And obviously it's not the absolute statement because Śrīla Prabhupāda gave this.
So anyway, on this second thing you just relate it to one of the four categories. That's the principle. And then we have the last thing is the tools method using the hermeneutical tools. And for that you have to go
I'm thinking if we could go through this very quickly because we need about a week Yeah, very quickly I can go. Know, yeah, I just basically two minutes.
You know, you look in the page number 13 and you just see the tools and by using these tools you will be able to understand how to understand this clearly.
You will be able to define what is the context of this particular statement by using these tools. What is being said here? What is the worst purport of this context?
Maybe this is something which is called pūrvapakṣa, the statement of the opponent. Something which is opposite, something which we argue with. Sometimes these statements are there.
Obviously it's not—it's something which is not against the siddhānta. This is from Caitanya-caritāmṛta. It's a very high ranking shastra. Here it is said what is this particular shastra and what its place in hierarchy.
Sometimes maybe some statement is taken from a letter of Śrīla Prabhupāda or his from his conversation. Naturally it will have less weight according to the hierarchy of the Shastra.
Because to understand properly you have to take into consideration all these things. And so on so forth.
By doing this quick analysis you will be able to very quickly to understand this statement that basically this statement is a statement which relates to Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa and actually Śrīla Prabhupāda is very clear here. That it's a particular case and there are more general statements by Śrīla Prabhupāda that you have to be in your natural situation like in Gajendra-mokṣa section of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam where Śrīla Prabhupāda says that everyone has to be in his natural state and he will be stronger. You shouldn't imitate this and so many other instructions are there.
So by placing this in the context of siddhānta you will be very clearly able to understand that this is not an absolute statement.
That this is a statement which is basically inspiring us to be very careful if we are married, not to be too much entangled in material attachments, to keep focus on the spiritual life and it should not be applied literally in each and every case.
So that's a simple example of the hermeneutical process and I guess now we are ready to start our group work. Would you like to manage this with the admins when you want? I would ask you to manage this.
You know, basically what we have to do now, you will have two-three minutes, you will have to choose.
You actually are supposed already to choose. I cannot somehow rather I can't let me Yeah, they've all already chosen words. You already chosen, okay. So I just yeah.
So you've chosen the difficult statements, one of the three, which is suggested by the authors of this course. Very quickly you do self introspection according to the page number 11 in regard to these questions.
And after that the admin will form the groups. And in the group you will do step number two, step number three. And then we'll get together and share目 the results of our work.
Self assessment and statement classification
So for all these things we need two, three minutes for self introspection. We cannot do it more quickly. And then maximum twenty minutes for group work, right? Yeah. That would be good.
So everybody could start if you go to you have a page here, page, 20 in your in your participants' handbook, and then you're using pages, as Mares has said, 12, 11.
So just to do just page 11 right now on your own from the foundations book.
Just those introspective questions, and you just kind of have few minutes, and then our admins are gonna put you into groups according to your questions. But please do the introspective self introspective stuff first.
So that's starting now. Happy to see everyone back. So I hope you had a good discussion with each other. ...all the hermeneutical problems which were there.
In five minutes or in four minutes our session is supposed to finish. So if somebody has questions, you're welcome to stay longer, maybe ten fifteen minutes.
If somebody needs some urgent things to do, please feel free to leave. We may continue our discussion for some time more. Yes, Radhakrishna Prabhu. You want to ask some question? I don't know.
Are we going into the Q and A now? Ah. For the next three minutes. Please guide me or me like Well, we we wanted to I'm sorry I was not here.
What we wanted to do is have some time to discuss what people did in their breakout rooms. I don't think we're gonna have any general Q&A time today.
But anything that people wanna discuss from what they did in their breakout rooms or any questions we have, I'll leave you here. Sure. Then may I? Sure, sure, sure. Why not? So
we had a quite enlightening discussion because it was really great. We spent some time on the self awareness part of the pain.
And the question was that there are 21 questions, out of which there are 12 that are qualitative.
And usually, when I when I come across these qualitative statements, it's not easy to quantify whether I am to that level to discuss hermeneutical issues? Like, do I have a good sadhana to discuss this fine issue?
What would that mean, that good sound? Or would that mean that I I am there each and every day at Mongola Arapi?
And or it's I chant my 60 rounds, all of the regular principles, and I study Shastra, but I'm not in the temple. What does it mean good? And then there are several other.
Do I have sufficient COVID experience, sufficient personal realization? To understand what sufficient is, I'm not sure whether it's a self assessment tool.
There should be someone who tells me that, okay, you have the OTI to discuss these things. And then once we discussed this part, then we went to the Siddhanta part. And that was really interesting.
That was really interesting because what we had the five groups or one of the five groups, and we definitely eliminated number four. It's not opposed to siddhānta.
But then the discussion started whether it's a restatement, an application, or its support. And it was really interesting because some said that it's direct siddhānta.
But then it was a very good explanation that 'direct siddhānta' would mean that it could be transcontextual, and this is not. So if we take this out of context, it would not be applicable. So it cannot be number one.
It's not direct siddhānta. It could be application or could be supporting.
And then finally, we got to the conclusion that it is an application of siddhānta because this is how to apply knowledge of bhakti-yoga applied in our life, meaning doing our duty.
But then we did not have time to do anything with the tools, and we did not understand the tools. So we couldn't get there.
So maybe you could elaborate a bit about these qualitative statements and self assessment or someone else is saying that I had the adhikāra and whether we come to the right conclusion in regards to the fight thing that it is an application of siddhānta because it's not transparent contact anymore.
Yeah, thank you very much Fabrik Kris Prabhu.
Regarding the self analysis, you know, I would say that this self analysis or self introspection is needed you know, sometimes to really exclude you from these attempts to understand something.
When you just clearly say to yourself, No, I don't have sufficient experience, I shouldn't even try. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura gives a very interesting statement in Bhakty-āloka.
He says that if one is trying to discuss things which are acintya, the result will be only the increase of anarthas.
So, you know, to a certain extent, you know, if we're honest enough we can understand, yeah, you know, for simple things like stand up and fight, probably to understand this properly my sadhana is enough.
I don't have to be there every maṅgala-ārati to understand this statement. But maybe for some other more important statement which really kind of involve revelation, involve some really mystical sort of experience.
Will have to say, No, my sadhana is not enough to understand this stuff. I need to chant you know three lakhs a day for at least five years and then maybe I will be able to understand this.
So it really depends on the question at hand and it more or less simple thing to make you conscientious.
What is my state of mind and whether I'm honest in my attempt to understand this or I'm just you know, have some political agenda. Not more than this.
It's not that you have to answer every question and then, you know, put the tics there. And if one tick is not there, you just close the book and, you know, forget about it.
But this the conclusion which he may come too by doing this is that I'm not sufficiently equipped to understand this. Better I ask somebody who is better equipped.
Better I humbly ask somebody to explain to me these things. But something like this. Regarding the second thing, definitely you are right because the direct statement of siddhānta is very easily understandable.
But it's easily understandable and most of the problems and also the fourth one is also oftentimes easily understandable.
Most of the problems are between this two and three and actually most of the problems is about the number three. Because people take the statement which is supportive to siddhānta and they're trying to make it more absolute than it really is. They're trying to make it more, know, it's relative to a particular context with a particular situation and things like this. But people are trying to make the whole thing out of this, the whole theory out of this.
So, this is the most crucial to distinguish between, you know, one, two and three and to try to understand the shades. And most of the difficult statements they belong to the category of number three I would say.
Because number one is easy, it's easily recognizable. Number two is also not so difficult.
But number three, of course, number one you can also have some difficult. Number two you can also have some difficulties, some self contradictory statement or whatever.
And regarding tools, yeah, I I think you should study it yourself because it's it's an important, and maybe you can get together with your group and put some time, separate time, and discuss this. Thank you.
May I say something, Artis? Yes. Please, please, please, please, please, please 50.
So ātmas-tṛpteḥ, my understanding of sthāna-yuddha is that it's in category three rather than in category two. Because it's you you can't take any
of the ten tenets of siddhānta and say like, which one did you take again, did you say? He said it it's it's number two. Do your duty. Do your duty. Tenets of siddhānta that you said. He said, do your duty. Perform your duty.
Perform your duty and it's a particular But which of the 10? Well, that can be a part of pure devotional service, sadhana.
It could be, but then we have that this particular duty is in varṇāśrama. It's his duty as et cetera. Rūpa Gosvāmī specifically says that varṇāśrama is not part of the angas of bhakti. He explicitly said that.
So, I mean, if we look at the ten tenets of Gauḍīya siddhānta that we have here, what would you put it in? What would you say it's a contextualization of? I mean, that's That that's a fantastic question.
We did not get there. We Okay. Okay. So that would be that would be the question.
If you're gonna say it's in category, it's option two, when it's a contextualization of siddhānta, you'd have to find something in these tenets that it's a contextualization of. Otherwise, it will be supportive siddhānta.
Correct. Yeah. So I have that with I also wanted to add something. Basically, you know, thank you very much for this explanation.
Basically what you need to do, you need to really track down this statement to one of the statements of siddhānta and to see the relationship between this statement and the particular statement of siddhānta which you are connecting it with.
And then it will become very clear.
So in this particular case if it is if we take that this is connected with our process or abideia then you know and if it is, you know, you stand up and fight. If we don't take it figuratively, stand up and fight, utishte means not necessarily the direct meaning is applied.
But anyway, if we take it literally, if we take the Mukhyavriti not Laksanavriti, then it is connected with the statement of pure devotional service and it's supportive.
So, you know, when you clearly state this is the sedante which he's talking about, then you will be able to see the relationship. That is very helpful. Thank you. Thank you so much. You're very helpful. Yeah.
Avaya Nārāyaṇa Prabhu. Aditya Narayan, sorry. Aditya Narayan Prabhu. Hare Krishna.
So, Mahārāja, we were discussing the part of the purport, you know, where our Prabhupāda says that one should not take any side of the party and that in that way be carefree. And we had a question which I think slightly you referred to in this previous question, that is it an application of siddhānta or is it that supports siddhānta?
Like, we are thinking, like, it's kind of both.
It is like supports pure devotional service, and it is also the application of pure devotional service that you want to, for coming to a secure devotional service, you need to give up your designation. So we were actually in both.
And is it, like, can you assign it to both, or does it have to be exclusive? That was
See, basically the purpose of this analysis is to understand how what is the distance between this particular statement and the absolute statement of Sedanta. The more distanced it is, the more relative it is. The more contextual it is. But it's a little more remote, so to speak.
So you just by analyzing this, by using this again and again and again very quickly you will get this feeling that this is little more remote from sedanta. And therefore, you know, the more remote it is, the more sometimes paradoxical the statement may be because it's so remote.
And it may take a very special, very unusual shape and forms. So it's not absolute, it's not like here something stops and something else starts.
It's just more or less the gradual progression, how further away it is from the direct statement of siddhānta. Thank you, Mahārāja. There's one more point that came up in the discussion which we needed some clarity.
Is it okay to go now? Yeah. Sure. Okay. So the last point, Maharaj, like, that we are discussing is in the methods.
Like, Prabhupāda is saying, okay. Why should one not take side of any party? And then we see the, like, the entire context as Krishna is saying, okay. Fight on the side of Pāṇḍavas. So that's already taking a party.
And Mhmm. So we are discussing, like, it's it is, like like, my thinking was, like, okay. That is one thing that is we are talking about the philosophy.
That is one part where we actually take it to the application, but even, you know, like, statement is, like, okay. Preaching is the essence. So, yes, there is some philosophical part, but that is a mood of the profile.
So how do we actually bring the application and the statements of this analysis together? So these tools are there to give you more clear understanding what is the intent behind this statement.
Because ultimately what we are talking about the whole hermeneutics is about the original intent of the speaker. In this case of Śrīla Prabhupāda who writes this. What he wants us to do? What's his thing?
And you made a very correct analysis. You said that this is in a particular context, but Prabhupāda is saying something apparently different from the context. So he's more or less speaking about the higher principle.
On a certain level we can take parts, but is taking us to a little higher level and says that in general, if not necessary, if there is no dharma involved, don't take part in all this useless quarreling as a vaiṣṇava.
Don't agitate your mind. Basically you understand the intent. You understand that in some cases you not only may but you should take part.
You should not misapply this statement in these situations where you have to take part, where you have to take stance, you know. This is the truth, I have to speak about this. And there are some other situations.
So basically this analysis make it very clear what is the application of this statement in your own life.
You know, that it's not universal, it's not applicable in all situations but you start more clearly understand how to apply it. You know, in which situation it is applicable. Because it's true!
Prabhupāda is speaking truths, important truths, but you know, to understand it properly we have to understand all these nuances, and all the tools are helping us to understand these nuances. Thank you so much. Okay.
Reconciling direct and indirect scriptural meanings
Jaya Śrī Mataji. So could you just explain that? You want to explain? Sure.
But when we're looking at this, we're not looking at that point of statement, just a. We're looking at the statement, simply the statement, stand and fight. Just that statement.
So that statement in context is something Krishna is saying to Arjuna. Arjuna had literally, physically sat down.
He's telling him literally, physically to stand up, and he's telling him literally, physically to pick up his bow and arrow and shoot arrows.
That is not a statement in and of itself, the literal meaning, that is universal. It's not an eternal statement. Arjuna doesn't always stand and fight even when he's with Krishna.
Sometimes they're just talking and reading and joking. So it's not an eternal instruction from Krishna. It's not universal. It doesn't apply to you, at least not right now.
It doesn't apply to me ever, and it certainly isn't transcontextual. It's not out of the battlefield. And if you want to look at the 10 tenets, it's not contextualizing any of them.
Lord Krishna is the Supreme Personality. God, it doesn't contextualize that. He has his external inferior omnichannel energy. He doesn't contextualize that. You could you could have a statement about that.
It's using that in a particular context. But it it's not. The only thing that comes anywhere close is to achieve love of god and to practice devotional service.
And you could say, well, this is the context of our genius devotional service. However, that's not one of the aṅgas of bhakti. It just isn't. It isn't an aṅga of bhakti applied to a particular circle.
If it was an instruction, Arjuna, should go worship the Ganga, or, Arjuna, you should serve the devotees, or, Arjuna, you know, that's that would be now if you look at, say, eight seven, mām anusmara yudhya ca, think of me while you fight. That's a contextualization of Siddhantik point number nine. Now one should always meditate on Krishna, but it's in the context of Arjuna's fighting. But just to tell Arjuna to stand and fight, that in and of itself, it is not.
But it supports siddhānta. Why does it support siddhānta? Well, because Krishna is telling him, and then you look at the whole context, and you see in the context, context, it's supported by siddhānta.
But in and of itself, it is not a contextual and sovereign statement of siddhānta, nor does it take siddhānta, take something that's universal and internal and and applies in all contexts but applying it to a particular context. And I really like what Mara said is that it's kind of a continuum that you've got something, well, this is applying to particular context. And that always kind of it's not a universal and internal truth at all. It's something that's that's true at a particular time. It's true at a particular place. It's true for a particular person. It's true in a particular context. But it helps that person or other people reading about it come to things that are universal, internal, and translating.
It assists them in coming to them. So, Arjun, if you stand in, I it'll help you to come to something. But it it isn't in a nutshell.
Otherwise, we're always standing up and taking that, obviously, would not be the right thing. I may add something. I may make it more complicated, but I think it's important.
I'm not objecting to what you said, but I'm suggesting and basically that's what Jaya Sri Devi also means when she asks her question.
We know that there is this direct meaning of the words and there is mukhyavriti and laksanavriti. So if we take mukhyavriti, definitely at best the third category of statement if we take the direct statement.
So if the rule, one of the hermeneutical rules is that if the direct statement is not applicable and we know that the statements of Krishna even though they're set directly toward Arjuna but he also addresses them to us. So if we take that this is the statement towards us and Krishna says to us and we're supposed to take his words as if he is addressing us directly.
So if we take this, of course, naturally, mukhya-vṛtti meaning is not applicable. As you rightly said, you know, we read this and we all of a sudden we all got up and, you know, where is my bow, where is my Gāṇḍīva bow.
So literal meaning if we take it that it's for us is not taken. Therefore when the literal meaning is not possible to apply then the lakṣaṇa-vṛtti has to be taken.
The famous example of lakṣaṇa-vṛtti which Prabhupada gives in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣaḥ, the village on Ganga. You know naturally village cannot stand on Ganga because Ganga is a river. So this statement should be understood in lakṣaṇā-vṛtti. It basically means that this is the village which is near Ganga.
So if we take this statement "stand and fight" from the lakṣaṇā-vṛtti point of view, then we will understand, and it will make this statement closer to siddhānta, because if we apply the lakṣaṇā-vṛtti in this case, it basically means you take this position and fight with your difficulties, fight for devotional service. Stand up means don't be in this state of depression, as Arjuna was, if it is directed to us.
And in this case and basically what this is what you mean, right? When you ask your question. This is your understanding.
So this understanding, what I want to say, is also possible if we take lakṣaṇā-vṛtti. If we take mukhya-vṛtti, literal meaning, naturally this is what Urmila Mataji says, but in lakṣaṇā-vṛtti, yes, you're right. It's it's closer to siddhānta.
Thank you, Mātājī, and thank you, Mahārāja. As you rightly said, we have to apply this time in and time out, and then we'll get a hang of it. Otherwise, it's just up in the air a little bit. But thank you so much. Okay.
I need to close this this Zoom, I guess. Yes. I guess. Yes. And I have the things that I have to continue to read particular yes, times. Thank you very much.
So thank you for your attention and for your participation in this course. Thank you very much.