Hermeneutics and Siddhanta
Бхакти Вигьяна Госвами · 2022
Главы
Opening invocation and lesson aims
Vāñchā-kalpatarubhyaś ca kṛpā-sindhubhya eva ca patītānāṁ pāvane-bhyo vaiṣṇave-bhyo namo namaḥ Śrī-Kṛṣṇa-Caitanya Prabhur Nityānanda Śrī-Advaita Gadādhara Śrīvāsādi-gaura-bhakta-vṛnda Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare, Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare.
Mūkaṁ karoti vācālaṁ paṅguṁ laṅghayate girim yat-kṛpā tam ahaṁ vande śrī-guruṁ dīna-tāraṇam anyām, 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 last lesson is of utmost importance. And the name of the lesson is Hermeneutics and Siddhānta, or a simple and basic way to apply hermeneutics.
Just to restate very quickly uh that's the uh 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 Shastrik Advisory Committee.
And the second aim is to deepen the understanding of what Gaudiya Vaiṣṇava Siddhānta is and its role in hermeneutics.
As Mother Urmila said yesterday, I believe, that even if we understand this one thing from the whole course, we will be greatly benefited and we will make some advancement in regard to hermeneutics.
So understanding what the hermeneutical process is. If we understand how to apply Siddhanta, because most of the confusions which people have is because they don't apply the
Siddhāntic 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.
Meditation on desiring to see God
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 verses of
the universe are being quoted: Yasya svarūpaṁ kavayo mīṁsanto guṇeṣu dārūṣv iva jātavedasam mathnanti mathan manasā didṛkṣavo gūḍhaṁ kriyārtham ārād ātmane.
The main word here is didṛkṣavaḥ, 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 the Paschitaha, the absolute truth, 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 Dhidriksava, which literally means those who are desiring to see, who 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 our scriptures.
By the way, and I wanted to say this from the outset, that the word Didrikshavaha, desiring to see, is very similar to the word mimamsa, 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 of Mimamsa. And literally Mimamsen means With the same doubling of the root Didriksavaha, Mimamsa,
Titikshava, Yojavaha, Momuksu and Jigyasu, you can see this again and again and again in Sanskrit. This doubling of the root means the desire. Desire to do.
So mimsa means desire to understand, from the root man to sing, desire to think, to think properly, to think elaborately. So that's basically what we are going to do, or what we are going to learn,
Historical need for hermeneutics today
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, to take 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 yesterday 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 are 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 paths. And first generation is basically Prabhupāda himself, or four things are in place. There are problems or issues.
There are particular instructions which Prabhupāda 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, the again, the intent or intention of the author you know 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 Śrīla Prabhupāda is a very interesting situation. The issues are there. We are basically dealing with the same issues which Śrīla Prabhupāda dealt.
His instructions are there, they are 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 for hermeneutics are very very acute at this moment of time.
The hermeneutics itself, Omimamsa, 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 uh you know, over the time uh instructions are too voluminous and too many and uh too many other books were written and I 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 uh uh where I wanted to start. Uh and um uh and again uh I'm sorry for little digression.
But again, very quickly, I wanted to say that how did the hermeneutical process look like during Śrīla Prabhupāda's time? It was very easy, very simple.
You know, if you didn't understand anything, some instruction of Śrīla Prabhupāda, you would ask him after the class, you would write him a letter, or you would ask Tamal Krishna Maharaj or some of his secretaries, so that they could ask him. Simple process, no need for hermeneutics at all. Because the uh 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 Gopal Krishna Maharaj or 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 uh discredit themselves or were discredited by some other people, some you know.
There are some unpleasant processes which are going on with the time. And uh we are more or less losing the face. It's a very unfortunate situation we're dealing with now is
therefore the hermeneutical process becomes much more difficult. 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 you answer this question, you know, you get somebody and he is 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 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 to under 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 we if we have good and positive thinking process, then we will say yes we'll there will be very knowledgeable people who will be expert in hermeneutics and there will be books written on the particular issues and this and that.
But in any case, what I wanted to say is that her hermeneutics is very relative now. Relevant now, sorry, not relative, 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 Matajik, can you help me? Anything? Yes. Or shall I continue? How much how much time do you want to do?
And uh I don't know if it was understandable or not. Was it relevant uh in your opinion?
Was it relevant in 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.
Um if anyone has any question if you would uh raise your hand uh so let's go again. Uh time no seek. Um I have a question. Um I presume the theory uh and application of hermeneutics is is a i is a um everlasting problem.
It is not a problem that that has arisen just after the departure of Śrīla Prabhupāda.
It's it's been present since śāstra uh has was written and uh the the paramparā system uh continues to try and propagate the the the message.
So this must be a continuous process which hasn't necess it's obviously from our perspective it's been exacerbated because of Śrīla Prabhupāda's teachings were much more clearer for our understanding of the less.
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 distinct problem now. Yes.
What is the solution that is provided that gives the pramāṇa for providing an everlasting solution to this we can apply. Thank you very much for this question. Yes.
Historically we can see that mmm y you're absolutely right. Uh this problem was uh always there.
Historical roots of hermeneutics in Mimamsa
Oh please uh mute your microphone. This problem has been always there.
And in particular, 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, the or the Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, 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 Mimamsa which is fully and wholeheartedly embraced by our acharyas.
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 Mimamsa, in the school of Mimamsa, Purva Mimamsa specifically, Jaimini school. All our acharyas, they don't question their consideration or their conclusions about the principles of hermeneutics or principles of Mimamsa 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 Paramātma-sandarbha and in his Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha specifically, he gives just a brilliant, brilliant example.
How to apply the principles worked out by Mimamsakas in case of analyzing the Siddhānta of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Specifically, this Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān 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.
So basically, this hermeneutic course is more or less the result of studying application of Mimamsa by our acharyas, in particular, 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 Mimamsa Sutra, and therefore I again say this not very pleasant statement that I think this course should be called Mimamsa course. But anyway, it's called hermeneutics. So did I answer your question?
Yes, Maharaja, somewhat. I'm I'm I'm still looking I I guess uh um because of my my as to what the śāstrik Burmand is as to how these matters were dealt with.
Uh are we are we uh uh uh uh effectively replicating Saskic Roman or are we effectively deducing um how Śrīla Prabhupāda and uh Guru... No.
Again, these principles are formulated by Mīmāṁsakas, and some principles are there in original Shastra as well. We are not deducing Śrīla Prabhupāda is just giving us a brilliant example how to use this.
But ultimately, originally it's there in the Shastras as well. But some of the tools are worked out by the acharyas of Mīmāṁsā school. Like for example, very common tool which is used in hermeneutics is this ṣaḍ-liṅga.
Perhaps you have heard this when you want to uh Śyāmasundara Prabhu 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 Upanishad, or even one verse. You can use this ṣaḍ-liṅga tool.
Śaḍ-liṅga means you see what is there in the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, what is the... let's take Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śukadeva 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 the 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 ācāryas and applied by our ācāryas towards our goals. Um, I'm sorry, Mahārāja, I'm... the reason I'm asking this is I think I was... so I
was... if I could just ask you, um, because Mahārāja has a lot to cover here. I know very and and everything you're bringing up is in the supplementary materials. Very quick one.
So I I'm a mathematician and uh um by by a scientific sort of deduction, if a if a principle is uh provided then the deduction will always be the same if you follow the process.
So the reason I'm asking this is that why if this is a śāstric pramāṇa why others end up with the wrong deduction outside of the our our uh
paramparā, why others that follow the same śāstric pramāṇa for deduction end up with this with the wrong conclusion? Because because Sastras are not mathematics. Because shastras are very multi-dimensional.
Sanskrit is by definition is very multi-dimensional language, and you know 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 we 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. That's the sutra 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 are dealing with transrational realities.
So there is in every hermeneutical process there is some sort of revelation should be implied hopefully. Urmile please direct uh shall we ask another question or go further because I do have a lot of material to cover
I I think I think we should go further okay that's whatever yeah, uh we'll answer at the end if there will be some extra time, okay? Okay.
Context in defining textual meaning
So now uh the main uh part of our uh lesson today. And before we start this, I wanted to ask you well, it's um obviously, you have heard the phrase a quote out of context. So, what does it really mean?
Usually, when we say that some somebody is faulty in his uh trying to prove his point. We say and he's supporting by giving some quote. We routinely or you know habitually say that you quote out of context 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 an inevitable mistake which you do.
Because uh, 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 ātmā. Yesterday somebody asked, what is the word ātmā? 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 the 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 word, 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 uh how wide 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 Prabhupada, I need to know everything which Śrīla 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.
Role of Siddhanta in scriptural analysis
So, here we come to the need of Siddhanta.
Basically, the point which I want to make here is that to understand any statement of Prabhupada, 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 Siddhanta.
What 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 Siddhanta 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 Siddhanta or that Siddhanta, you know, please explain this Siddhanta. 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 siddhanta in a second term. It's very important.
Not just a particular little statement which can also be called siddhanta and sometimes called by our Acharyas. And in your participant handbook, you will see this definition of Siddhanta.
We are using term the Siddhanta 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.
You know when we speak about Siddhanta, we're speaking about the truth which is which does not depend on the context.
Like, for example, Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This statement, like also Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says, Kṛṣṇaḥ tu bhagavān svayam. He says, this statement is independent.
It is śruti, śruti 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. Kṛṣṇa will always be the Supreme Personality of Godhead here, now, in the past, in the future, in next Yuga, in every time, in every space.
So, so uh uh I hope you read this already in uh uh in your participant handbook. And uh uh I just wanted to have a quick uh 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, huh?
I I'm 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. It 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 uh you ultimately have to accept. Yes, very interesting. Something else? Set of axiomatic philosophical conclusions, conclusive statement. Yeah.
Statements which are true in all places, times, and circumstances, requires faith and established school of thought. 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 uh 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. Uh how does it change the context? In which way? As I understand it is beyond space and time. Yes.
Yes, but Mars's question is how can we say then that a particular school has some siddhanta if it's universal? If it's 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 in our chat, or we have an answer here. Um the audience is dynamic so needs relevant presentation and there can be coexisting schools of thought.
Another one is śraddhā of the particular school defines siddhānta. Yeah. That's that's interesting. That's very definitely answers the questions to a certain extent because yeah,
we can explain this universal truth uh in a different way, by different ways using different words, using different terminology. But um you know, the meaning will be uh the same.
There was somebody who wanted to uh Oh he's writing in the chat. Um and there's another one interesting here. There can be multiple levels of understanding the same truth according to the mood and different things. Exactly.
Exactly. Exactly. Thank you very much. Yes. Uh definitely there can be layers of depth depth, and
the same universal truths 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 might get it wrong. That's also not such a rare occasion. Some people may get it wrong. You know the Mayavad Siddhanta, we don't subscribe to Mayavad Siddhanta.
They have their own Siddhanta, their conclusions. And we argue with them. We say that it's wrong conclusions, not exactly correct conclusions.
Sometimes you know we may also see that there are different religions which basically speak about many similar things like you know all religions speak about devotion, devotional service. All religions speak about that you know some religions say God is personal, some rel some religions say God is ultimately impersonal.
You know, so uh Siddhanta may be different. It doesn't mean that you know uh they're all equally correct but we stick to our Siddhanta and we have very good reasons to stick.
But we also respect the same truths formulated in a different way in other traditions. If we see, like Bhaktivinoda 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 Siddhanta is, we already answered this.
And we also covered a little bit of this.
Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta is different from that of other sampradayas and schools, does it mean that we're only ones who have access to internal, eternal, universal, and transcontextual truths? No.
But we definitely have pride or good in a good sense that our explanation of reality is very deep and very beautiful and very consistent too.
So 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. 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 truths. Not everything is Siddhanta 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 Siddhanta.
We have to know, and for that, we need to know Siddhanta very clearly.
To understand Siddhanta very clearly, as I said, it's a very Herculean task to understand everything which Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote, all his lectures and everything.
Although he was repeating the same Siddhanta again and again and again practically everywhere.
But to really deal with 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 concise statement of Siddhanta.
By knowing the concise statement of Siddhanta, we will be able to relate every other statement with the concise statement of Siddhanta and basically place the statement in the context of Siddhanta.
That's why I said that the 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 Siddhanta and try to understand it from the angle of vision of Siddhanta. And by doing this, we will be able to accomplish hermeneutical process successfully.
That's very important.
Concise statements of Siddhanta by acharyas
So now I will just give examples So of different—and therefore, our ācāryas, they produced different concise statements of Siddhanta. You know, the first statement of this sort was given in
the first commentary to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam by Śrīnātha Cakravartī: Ārādhyo bhagavān vrajeśa-tanayas tad-dhāma vṛndāvanam, ramyaṁ kācid upāsanā vraja-vadhū-vargeṇā yā kalpitā, śrīmad-bhāgavatam pramāṇam amalam premā pum-artho mahān, śrī-cai-tanya-mahāprabhor matam idam tatrādaro na paraḥ. Vrajawadu Vargena Yakalpitah, Shimad Bhagavatam Pramana Mamalam, Prema Pumarta Mahan, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhor matam idam tatrādaro na paraḥ.
This is what we respect as Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. He gave the concise statement of Siddhanta. Baladev—uh sorry, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura said that this is not the proper Siddhanta because the proper Siddhanta 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 sloka.
And this śloka is written on the basis of uh or verse— this verse is written on the basis of Vyāsa Tīrtha, who is a disciple of uh follower, not direct disciple of Madhvacharya.
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.
Āmnāyaḥ prāha tattvaṁ harimiha paramaṁ sarva-śaktiṁ rasābdhiṁ tad-bhinnāṁśca jīvān prakṛti-kavalitān tad-vimuktāṁśca bhāvāt, bhedābheda-prakāśaṁ sakalamapi hareḥ sādhanaṁ śuddha-bhaktiṁ sādhyaṁ tat-prītimevetyupadiśati ca gauḍacandraḥ svayaṁ saḥ. nam samscha, Jivan, Prakritika Valitam, tatvimuktams chabhavat, beda, beda, prakashatalam, api harek, sadhana nam suuda bhaktim, sad dhyam tat priti mayvety putisati
ca gauḍacandraḥ svayaṁ saḥ. 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 Jaiva Dharma, where he devoted many, many twelve or certain 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 participants' handbook and is more elaborately described in the supplementary materials page
250 something or 60 something. There are some essays on the Śāma-tattva written by Brijabasi Prabhu and Narayani Mataji.
Analysis of the ten fundamental truths
You can read them. And basically he gives this ten mullas, ten roots, daśa-mūlatva.
He says āmnāya prāha first, you can understand any statement by āmnāya, āmnāya means Vedas, not specifically the Vedas, but the Vedas received through guru-paramparā. That's what the word āmnāya means.
Not any statement from any siddha, 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 prameyas.
Krishna is the absolute supreme absolute truth. Krishna is endowed with all the energies. Āmnāya prāha tattvam harihaṁ paramam, sarva-śaktim, Kṛṣṇa is endowed with all energies.
is the ocean of rasa, rasābhdhim, rasābhdhim, he is the ocean of rasa. Divya-prākṛtika-valītam, jīvāṁśa vibhinnāṁśāḥ, they are separated parts and parcels of the Lord. They are prakṛti-kāvalītam.
In bound state, the jīvas are under influence of matter. Kāvalītam literally means that they are inside the matter, they are totally, completely merged with the matter.
In the liberated state, tad-vimuktāś ca, they may be liberated, free from the influence of matter due to their taṭastha nature. Jīvas and the material world are both different from and identical with the Lord, bhedābheda.
Prakāśa sakalam. Everything is bheda and abheda. These statements: śuddhā bhaktir is the process, pure devotional service is the process to liberate jīvas, and ultimately pure love of God is the goal. Prītir is the goal.
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 Chatur Sloki, which is in itself is the concise statement of Sid Siddhanta, 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 ten 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 ten points in a different order. Here we have nine; first are 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 śāstra, from śruti. So this is the tenth one is the pramāṇa. The first seventh one, uh, 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 Siddhanta, and that's the basically the uh 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 of this, every one of this statement 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 ten 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? I'm not sure if we have time for any questions since we just have an hour left for you to do a following for them to do that. Okay, so okay.
So then I will do uh quick demonstration of the hermeneutical path and then we will do practical work, right? That's the I have something like twenty minutes 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.
this again it's in your book and it's in a foundational document; please open your foundational document on the pages 11, 12 and 13, uh first 11 and this whole process is in these three pages of your foundational document.
Three steps of the hermeneutical path
So, how to do this? We know the Siddhanta statement. We know that we have to put any particular difficult statement which we ponder about in the context of this Siddhanta, 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 eleven of your foundational document. Am I right? Eleven or twelve? eleven, 1.1.
Uh so you ask this question yourself. Am I really equipped uh to understand this statement? Am I really impartial uh to understand it properly? Am I prepared to understand it?
Do I have sufficient spiritual experience to understand this statement properly? We will ask this question, but I'm just giving the example. You know, am I honest now?
Or do I just want to prove myself that I am 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 Siddhanta? We have to know this 10 tenets of Siddhanta.
And we have to relate or connect this particular statement with the Siddhanta. 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 Siddhantic statement out of the ten 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 truth himself to reveal to us.
That's the simple process which is described here in this presentation. And basically, first we have to relate the statement to ourself. How to do it is described on the page 11.
Then we have to relate this statement with the Siddhanta, which is how to do it, is described on the page number 12.
Case study on celibacy and marriage
And then we have to try use different hermeneutical tools which are briefly described in on the page on the page 13 and more elaborately in the supplementary materials. 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 Caitanya-caritāmṛta, antyā-līlā, 13th chapter, which describes the life of Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī.
And the verse number 112 says: after 8 months when Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu bade 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.
Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu 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 a 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 or other. Iskon leadership overlooked the statement and allowed these useless marriages in ISKCON, which is completely māyā.
What does it mean? How do we 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 Siddhanta questions because you will just speculate.
Am I aiming towards a mood of surrender and service to Srila Prabhupada 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 the sorry the married life can be so uh definitely we can say yes I 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, I may not I'm being a sannyāsī who has never been married may not have sufficient personal realization, but um I do have sufficient realizations by seeing other people uh 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 to to endanger the whole society for the split, for the dissension?
Am I working as the devil's advocate and uh not 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 other in our society.
It's a difficult question. I'm sincerely trying to understand this, and my intention is to to bring more unity to the to the society.
I either I'm doing it in a in my personal way or you know 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, and uh you know I have to answer this question. What I'm doing here.
I'm sincerely trying to, you know, understand it myself and give a satisfactory understanding to others, so 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 uh to put everyone as a you know unmerited. You know, I really have to ask this question. What do I believe that this is said with a good intention?
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 offences especially towards Vaishnavas? You know 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 am right or I am 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 am very agitated or very tired or very frustrated and very you know much offended by somebody and I am trying to understand this in this slightly changed state of consciousness, not in 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 hadikara to answer this question? Sometimes the questions, like for example, this famous question about falling the jiva. Do I have a right to understand this?
Do I really have spiritual... is it entirely clearly just a logical question or not? Or is it 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, I 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 readalos the major works of Śrīla Prabhupāda?
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. Gita.
How well do I know the language I am referring I am 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.
So, am 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 contro not controversial, but ja, the statement which is self-contradictory or paradoxical. Yeah.
Like, like, Acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, it's acintya. And uh, am I willing to pray and wait for the understanding to emerge? Very important. Again, very important thing. OK, we really have to rush.
Categorizing statements in relation to Siddhanta
I want to explain the next point, which is the most important point: how to relate it to Siddhanta in your book, a participant handbook on the page number twelve. There is explanation.
It's foundation foundations, Mars, not participant. Oh yeah, sorry. In a foundational document which you have in page number 12: there is a description how to relate this particular statement to the Siddhanta.
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 Srila Prabhupada may say Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Sometimes he can say Krishna is God, or sometimes he may say God is the Supreme. Sometimes He may say something else.
But it's all basically the same, it's different statements of the same Siddhanta, and you can very clearly see it, and you can trace it down. Sometimes, of course, all these ten tenets they're very big.
And therefore, I'm on the request of GBC writing a separate work which elaborates a little bit keeping the same uh structure elaborates on some of these points.
Like for example, you know that jivas are conditioned by nature prakṛti-valitam. The jīvas which are the aṁśas of the Lord, the prakṛti-kāvalitam. What does it mean that they are more or less devoured by the Prakriti?
Prakṛti-kāvalitam means that they're devoured. It 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 uh included into this very grave and very deep profound statement.
So sometimes to relate particular statement from the book to the statements of Siddhanta, you need little elaboration of the Siddhantic 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 the statement an application of a particular tenet of Siddhanta for the particular context, basically, you know the statement of Siddhanta says that Sudha Bhakti is the process is the beat.
So the you know the uh and we see somewhere that you should chant, uh like I spoke with Urmila Mataji, she said, Nārada Muni says to Dhruva Mahārāja, chant Om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya.
So it's very clearly it's an application of this Siddhanta that Sudha Bhakti is the process to a particular context.
What concrete form of śuddhā-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 Siddhanta.
So supports the Siddhanta basically, it's not the restatement of Siddhanta, it's not the application of Siddhantic statement to particular context,
but it's a certain siddhāntic statement. In a particular context, which is you know this statement supports the Siddhanta, in a sense that, if you do this, then ultimately you will come to some of the Sedantic statements.
There are some examples in your foundational documents. They're quite, I mean, they're, let me see. The statement supports the Siddhanta, helping people to practically work towards realization the Siddhanta.
And some statements from the Shastras are given there. And there are some statements in the Shastra which are opposed to Siddhanta. Like Hiranya Kashipu says something which is not necessarily pure Siddhanta.
Or sometimes he says something which is Siddhanta.
But oftentimes, when the demons speak, or sometimes you know there is some statement which is poetic in nature, and you cannot take them literally, and they may be even opposed to Siddhanta. 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. Generally, the 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 Vedantic statement, two Vedantic statements. One Sedantic statement is that jivas 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 Prabhupāda gave this.
So anyway, on this second uh 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.
uh method using the hermeneutical tools and for that you have to go you think I'm thinking Mara if you could go through this very quickly because we're we need about it. Yeah, very quickly.
And you just uh 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? You know what is the verse purport of this context? Maybe this is something which is called Purva Paksha, the statement of the opponent, something which is opposite, something which we argue with.
Sometimes these statements are there. Obviously, it's not uh it's something which uh which is uh not against the Siddhanta. Uh this is from Caitanya-caritāmṛta, it's a very high-ranking shastra.
Uh here it is said: you know, what is this particular Shastra and what is 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 this things. And so on and 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 Rabunat Bhatta and actually Śrīla Prabhupāda is very clear here.
That it's a particular case. And there are more general statements by Śrīla Prabhupāda.
They 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 Siddhanta, you will be very clearly and able to understand that this is not an absolute statement, that this is a statement which is basically inspiring us to be very careful uh if we are married, uh not to be too much entangled in material attachments, uh to keep focus on the spiritual uh life and uh 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 uh to uh start our group work?
Would you like to um to to manage this with the admins one more I would uh I would uh ask you to manage this.
You know but uh basically uh what we have to do now uh you will have two three minutes uh you will have to choose I uh uh you you actually are supposed already to choose. I cannot somehow rather I can't let me Yeah.
They've already chosen one. You're you already chosen. Okay. So I just Yeah.
So you chosen the difficult statements, one of the three, which is suggested by the authors, authors of this course. Very quickly you do self introspection according to the page number eleven uh in regard to these questions and after that uh the uh admin
will uh form the groups and in the group you will do step number two and step number three and then we'll get together and share the results of our work.
So for all these things, we need two three minutes for self-introspection. We cannot do it more quickly. And then maximum 20 minutes for uh for group work, right? Yeah, that would be good.
So everybody could start if you go to you have a page here, page uh 20 in your in your participants handbook and then you're using pages as ours is said twelve uh eleven.
So just to do just page eleven right now on your own from the foundation's book.
Just those introspective questions and you're just gonna have a 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.
Unfortunately we will not be able to uh check the results of your work, but I'm sure that you uh quite intelligently solved all the hermeneuticals problems which were there.
Uh in five minutes or in four minutes, our session is supposed to finish. So if somebody has questions, uh you're welcome to stay longer, maybe 10-15 minutes.
If somebody needs some urgent things to do, please feel free to leave. We may continue our discussion for some time more. Yes, Radha Krishna Prabhu, you want to ask some question?
Reviewing self-introspection and statement categories
I accept my obeisances, all glories. Uh I don't know, are we going into the Q and A now or anything else for the next three minutes? Please guide me.
I'm so embarrassed when we left. What we wanted to do is uh have some time to discuss what people did in their breakup piece. I don't think we're gonna have any general queue time today.
But anything that people want to discuss from what they did in their breakout groups or any uh questions from that, uh we could do then may I? Sure, sure, sure, why not?
So we had a quite enlivening discussion. It was it was really great. We spent some time on on the self-awareness part of the thing, and the question was that there are 21 questions out of which there are 12 that are qualitative.
And uh 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 the five issue what would that mean that good sadhana or would that mean that I am there each and every day at Mangala Ārati and or if I chant my 16 rounds, follow the regulatory principles and I study śāstra, 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 or it should be, there should be someone who tells me that okay, you have to be audited to discuss these things.
And then once we discuss this part, then we went uh to the Siddhanta part and that was really interesting.
That was really interesting because well we had the five groups or one of the five groups and we definitely eliminated number four it's not opposed to Siddhanta but then the discussion started whether it's a restatement an application or it's support and it was really interesting
because uh some said that it's direct sidanta but then it was a very good explanation that direct sidanta 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 Siddhanta. It could be application or could be a support thing.
And then finally we got to the conclusion that it is an application of Siddhanta 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 we we couldn't get there.
So maybe you could elaborate a bit about this qualitative statement and self-assessment or someone else is saying that I had the audit card and whether we come to the right conclusion in regards to the five thing that it is an application of Siddhānta because it's not transcontextual.
Yeah, thank you very much, Rādhā-kṛṣṇa Prabhu.
Regarding the self-analysis, you know I would say that the self-analysis or self-introspection is uh 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 Bhakti-loka. 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 are honest enough we can uh understand yeah you know for uh simple things like stand up and fight uh 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 uh revelation involve the you know sam really mystical s sort of experience. No, my sadhana is not enough.
To understand this stuff, I need to chant three lakhs a day for at least five years, and then maybe I will be able to understand this.
So it it really depends on the question at hand, and it more or less simple thing to uh to make you conscientious.
What is my state of mind and uh you know whether I am honest in my attempt to understand this or I'm just you know, mm have some political agenda. Not more than this.
It's not that you have to answer every question and then, you know, put the ticks there and if one tick is not there, you just close the book and you know forget about it.
But uh this uh the conclusion which he may come uh to uh by doing this is that uh 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 Siddhanta is very easily understandable. Of course, for that you need to know and to study the Siddhanta very well. 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 these two and three, and actually most of the problems is about the numbers three.
Because people take the statement which is supportive Siddhanta and they're trying to make it more absolute than it really is. They're trying to make it more uh you know it's relative to a particular context with a particular situation and things like this, but uh people are trying to make the whole thing out of this, the whole theory out of this.
Uh so this is the most crucial to distinguish between you 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 uh number three, of course, number one you can also have some difficulty, or 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 uh uh put some time separate time and discuss
this May may I may I say something Rakush? Yes, please, please, please, please, please, please feel free. So Radhakus Nukugu, um uh my understanding of standing site is that it's in category three Rather than category two.
Because it's you you can't take any of the ten tenants of Siddhanta and say, like which one did you take again did you say he
said it it's it's number two do your dewy do your deity of Siddhanta pickers He said do your duty. Perform your duty.
Perform your duty and it's a particular view, but which of the ten well that can be a part of pure devotional service. Sadhana. It it it could be, but then we have that this particular duty is in Vayashna.
It's his duty as kṣatriya, and Rūpa Gosvāmī specifically says that Varṇāśrama is not part of the unvisible. He explicitly says that.
So I mean if we look at the ten tenets of Gaudius Siddhanta that we have here, what would you put it in in? What would you say it's a contextualization of I'm asked? That's a fantastic question. We did not get there.
So that would be that would be the question.
If you're gonna say it's in category it's option two, but it's a contextualization of siddhānta, you'd have to find something in these tenants but it's a contextualization of otherwise it will be supportive. Correct. Yeah.
So yeah so and that that's keep going. Yeah I 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 Siddhanta and to see the relationship between this statement and the particular statement of Siddhanta 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 Abidea, then you know and if if it is you you know you stand up and fight.
If we don't take it figuratively, stand up and fight to teach them means not necessarily the direct meaning is applied.
But anyway, if we take it literally, if we Take the mukhya-vritti, not lakshana-vritti, then it is connected with the statement of pure devotional service and it's supportive.
So you know when when you clearly state this is the siddhanta which is talking about, then you will be able to see the relationship. That is very helpful. Thank you. Thank you so much. It is very helpful.
Yeah Narayan Prabhu. Aditya Narayan sorry. Aditya Narayan Prabhu. Hare Krishna, Maharaj.
So Maharaj, uh, we are discussing the part of the purport, you know, where, uh, Prabhupada 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 uh question that is it an application of Siddhanta or is it that supports Siddhanta?
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 the second stage of your 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 uh See, basically, the purpose of this analysis is to understand how what is the distance between this particular statement and the absolute statement of Siddhanta? The more distanced it is, the more relative it is. The more contextual it is.
So you know if it is party, it's definitely it's not in a category of two because category of two, you will be very easily be able to see that this is the connect connected with a particular thing you know in a in a in a specific context but it's little more remote so to speak.
So you you just by analyzing this by using this again and again and again very quickly you will get this feeling that this is a little more remote from Siddhanta. And therefore, you know, the more remote it is, the more sometimes paradoxical the statement may be because, it's it's so remote. And it it may take a very special very you know unusual shape and forms. So it's not absolute, it's not like you know, here you know something stops and something else starts. It's just more or less the gradual progression, you know uh how further away it is from the direct statement of Siddhanta.
Thank you, Marit. Uh there's one more point that came up in the discussion which uh we needed some clarity. Is it okay to go now? Yeah. Sure. Okay.
So uh the last point what is like uh that we are discussing is in the methods. Like uh Śrīla Prabhupāda is saying okay one should not take side of any party.
And then we see the uh like the entire context as Krishna is saying okay fight on the side of Pandavas so that's already taking a party.
And so we're discussing like it's it is like like my thinking was like okay that is one thing that is we are talking of the philosophy, there is one part where we actually take it to the application where even you know like statements like okay preaching is the essence.
So yes, there is some philosophical part but that is a mood of Śrīla Prabhupāda. 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 uh 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?
So you know, and you made a very correct analysis. You said that this is in a particular context, but Prabhupada is saying something apparently different from the context.
So he's uh more or less um speaking about uh the higher principle. Uh you know the uh on on a certain level we can take parts, but Śrīla Prabhupāda is taking us to a little higher level, and says:
you know, that in general, you know, if if not necessary, if there is no dharma involved, you know, you don't take part in all this useless, you know, that quarreling as a vaiṣṇava, don't agitate your mind.
So, and uh basically you understand the intent. You understand that in some cases you not only may but you should take part.
Because you know for fighting for the truths and for some principle sayings, you know, you should take part.
You should not misapply this statement in these situations where you have to take part, 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 makes 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 to understand how to apply it. You know, in which situation it is applicable. Because it's true. Prabhupada is speaking truths, important truths.
But you know to to understand it properly we have to understand all these nuances and all the tools they helping us to understand these nuances. Thank you so much for, okay.
Jayshri Mataji, Hare Krishna Maharaj and Hare Krishna Mataji.
I'm still not clear what is the difference between category two and category three and how Mataji was mentioning that the fight thing was in category three and not category two because Krishna is telling Arjuna that do your duty by acting in knowledge and that will destroy all senseful reactions. So could you just explain that?
You want to explain? Sure. Sure. But when we're looking at this, we're not looking at that part of statement, 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 on the chariot, get up. Arjuna had literally physically sat down. He's telling him literally physically to stand up.
And he's telling you literally physically to pick up his bow and arrow and shoot arrows. That is not a statement in and of itself a 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 beating and joking. So it's not an eternal instruction from Krishna.
It's not universal, doesn't apply to you, at least not right now, doesn't apply to me ever. And it certainly isn't transcontextual. It's not out of the out of the battlefield.
And if you want to look at the ten tenets, it's not contextualizing any of them. Lord Kṛṣṇa's a supreme personality of God. It doesn't contextualize that.
He has an external inferior material energy, and it doesn't contextualize that. You could have a statement about that. It's using that in a particular context. But 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 Arjuna's 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 particular circumstances.
If it was an instruction, Arjuna, you should go worship the Gaṅgā, or Arjuna, you should serve the devotees, or Arjuna, you know, that's
that would be now. If you look at say 8.7, mām anusmara, think of me while you fight, that's a contextualization of siddhānta point nine.
That one should always meditate on Kṛṣṇa. But it's in the context of Arjuna's fighting. But just to tell Arjuna to stand and fight, that in and of itself is not. But it supports Siddhanta. Why does it support Siddhanta?
Well, because Krishna's telling him, and then you look at the whole context and you see in the context it supports supportive of śravaṇa.
But in and of itself, it is not a contextual, it's not a least favorite siddhānta, nor does it take siddhānta, take something that's universal and eternal and and applies in all contexts, but applying it to a particular context.
And I really like what Mara said, is that this kind of a continuum, that you've got something, well, this is applying it to a particular context, and now it's kind of it's not even universal and eternal 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, eternal, and transcendental.
It assists them in coming to. So Arjuna, if you stand and fight, it'll help you to come to something. But it it isn't in and of itself.
Otherwise we'd all be standing up and taking up arrows, which obviously would not be real. I may add something. I may make it more complicated but I think it's important.
I will uh I I'm not objecting to what you said but uh I'm uh suggesting and basically that's what uh Jāhnavī Sri Devi also uh means when she asks her question.
You know, we know that there is this direct meaning of the words and there is there is mukhyavriti and lakshanavriti. So if we take mukhyavriti, it's definitely at best the third category of statement.
If we take the direct statement. But 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 towards 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, then lit then of course, naturally, literal 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 Gandhī 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 lakshanavriti has to be taken.
The famous example of lakṣaṇā-vṛtti which Prabhupāda gives in Caitanya-caritāmṛta—gangāyāṁ ghoṣam. The village on Ganges. 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 know you take this position and fight with your difficulties, you know you 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 uh Urmila Mataji says.
But in lakṣaṇā-vṛtti, yes, you're right, it's closer to siddhānta. Thank you, Mataji, and thank you, Maharaj.
As you rightly said, we have to apply this time time in and 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.
Um close this this zoom. I guess yes. I guess yes. And I have the things that I have to continue to regret particularly science. Yes. Thank you very much.
So thank you for your attention and for your participation in this course. Thank you very much.