Question for gaudiya vaishnavas

[Shakta]

Hello,

I have a few questions that I have been wondering about for sometime now. I have tried to find answers elsewhere on the Internet, but only find abstract answers that beat around the bush. First on is, is there a Gaudiya Vaishnavism outside of ISKCON? I do respect Srila Prabhupada, but I am a very liberal and unconventional individual, and he seems to be quite a fundamentalist, and conservative.
Secondly, do all gaudiya vaishnavas accept the Puranas of Krishna, Vishnu, etc. literally? I am quite let down by much of what Prabhupada said in regards to the moon being further away then the sun and accepting the puranas all as literal. I look at them as ways of expressing huge truths threw metaphors. Following the creation theory from the Puranas and taking it literally, well I have a hard time believing that. And if GV's dont all accept the Puranas as real, where do you draw the line?

Thank you for reading m:

 

[Andal]

While I am not Gaudiya, maybe I can be of help. There is Gaudiya outside of Iskcon. Iskcon is a new development in the span of Gauidya Vaishnavism.

There is variance everywhere. The Puranas may be taken literally, partially literal, or metaphorically. There is room. I know many Gaudiya who do not take it as literal truth.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Madhuri]

There are definitely a few Gaudiya Vaishnava sects besides ISKCON. Gaudiya religion has existed for over 500yrs but ISKCON is only very recent.

I am not sure if any of these traditions preach that the Puranas are allegorical. I only know that there are individuals within the sects who take this view (myself for example). And after speaking with some Gaudiya devotees from outside of ISKCON, I get the impression that even they think Prabhupada was a dualistic, literal fundamentalist.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Secondly, do all gaudiya vaishnavas accept the Puranas of Krishna, Vishnu, etc. literally? I am quite let down by much of what Prabhupada said in regards to the moon being further away then the sun and accepting the puranas all as literal. I look at them as ways of expressing huge truths threw metaphors. Following the creation theory from the Puranas and taking it literally, well I have a hard time believing that. And if GV's dont all accept the Puranas as real, where do you draw the line?

Thank you for reading m:

I'd say that most "GV's" are probably fundamentalists, but there's also a more correctly vedantist strain that relies far more on the prasthanatrayi (upanishads, brahma sutra & bhagavad gita) than puranas.

I get the impression that even they think Prabhupada was a dualistic, literal fundamentalist.

What else could he be?

 

[Gaura Priya]

There are a few Gaudiya organisations outside of ISKCON. I take the understanding that organisations are not the Gaudiya Vaishnava religion, and the utmost importance in Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta is the parampara rather than any institution.

That being said...

As a person who has dealt with the Gaudiya community, specifically with Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math (SCS Math), Srila Sridhar Maharaj took some aspects of the Scriptures as 'spiritual' rather than literal.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj, being a contemporary and Godbrother of Srila Prabhupad, professed the same Chaitanyaite Vaishnavism. Although he saw the Incarnation of Sri Chaitanya as literally so, he saw the devatas, that is the gods who are not Vishnu-tattva (Sri Krishna, Sri Vishnu, etc.), as personifications of nature. The reason why they are personified was because the Vedic sages wanted us to realise that every part of this manifestation is brimming with consciousness and shakti, and thus we have Varuna (water), Vayu (air), Sarasvati (intelligence), etc.

These personifications are indeed worshippable, but by worshipping God Himself as the Supreme Beautiful Absolute, the Absolute Beauty, all the devatas, the manifestations of nature and natural occurrences, are also blessed.

Another example is the idea of Rahu eating up the sun. Since we must take the Vedic Scriptures seriously, he argued, and since nothing in nature can go against the laws of the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna, Rahu thus is the personified manifestation of the shadow's eclipse; thus when the shadow hides the sun during an eclipse, that shadow is called Rahu.

You can find more information about this from his book, Subjective Evolution of Consciousness: The Play of the Sweet Absolute. You can order it, or just read the free e-book!

~*~*~*~*~

In terms of ISKCON, there are a few devotees who do take the Puranas and other Vedic Scriptures metaphorically. My friend's father, Ananda Das, takes this view. What is most important in understanding Srila Prabhupada is that what is indeed eternal and spiritual are the tenets of the Vaishnava religion; what is temporary are his personal views that are subject to time, place, and circumstance (kala-desha-patra). He was educated in a Victorian-valued Scottish school, so I'm not so surprised!

What keeps people inspired by Srila Prabhupad is his dedication in spreading the teachings of Vaishnava Dharma to everyone, and it's something I still find a miracle even to this day.

Hope this helps! All glories to Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga!

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

Hello,

a) is there a Gaudiya Vaishnavism outside of ISKCON?

b) Do all gaudiya vaishnavas accept the Puranas of Krishna, Vishnu, etc. literally?

c) in regards to the moon being further away then the sun

d) accepting the puranas as literal.

e) I look at them as ways of expressing huge truths threw metaphors.

f) the creation theory from the Puranas

a) is there a Gaudiya Vaishnavism outside of ISKCON?
Yes. There are 4 Vaishnava schools. All stemming from Vyasa's codification of the Vedas 5000 years ago.

b) Do all gaudiya vaishnavas accept the Puranas of Krishna, Vishnu, etc. literally?
Yes. That is what the Puranas are for.

c) in regards to the moon being further away then the sun
This is what the Sanskrit scriptures state. That is what Prabhupada's scholarship accumen was all about, translating the sanskrit as-it-is.

The fact of the matter is it's a mystery and for all intents and purposes, it is un-verifiable.
Prabhupada did not seek to scientifically prove what the sanskrit scripture proclaims, and it is not verifiable by anyone unless they surrender to a research scientist or professor as Guru. To be judged by a jury of peers is different from accepting a private-interest group's scientist spokesperson proclaiming what 99% of the world's population cannot ever verify with there own experience.

Prabhupada said what the Vedas say about the moon.
The Newspapers report what the spokesman of a billion dollar undertaking of (space satellite radio technologists) vast networks of engineering companies and stockholders.

What stock do we have in the truth or untruth of the moon's distane ce?
As we read this billoins of people do not care a bit about this subject nor ever will or ever did.

The Vedas state things that are often mind-blowing.
The moon distance assertion in the Vedas is a slap in the face to modern technologies claims of "Know-it-all-ism"

d) accepting the puranas as literal.
Yes, that is why there are millions of verses to familiarize oneself with in the Vedic literatures.

The Histories (literally, Puranas) delineated in the Vedas are not a collection of un-related topics and random personalities. The entire plethora of Demigods, Saints, Punditas, Swamis, Maharajas and Maharanis form a family of related aristocracy that began with Brahma's birth.

e) I look at them as ways of expressing huge truths threw metaphors.
The Vedas are alway presented like Lawyers' contracts or like Clinical research papers ---there is formal protocol when the Vedic scriptures are read. Topics and Pretexts are often laid out before the text is un-ravelled. So there are so many twists and turns in the Puranas that any attempt to distill the volumes of Puranic writtings to just a dozen metaphorical "Facts of Life" is mis-leading.
The Vedas are voluminous due to the volume of Names, Places, things and persons that lived lives long ago in high and celestial times and places.

f) the creation theory from the Puranas
Be Marveled and get a good translation. Search out the best translation to get the whole story.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Vaishnavism in general tend to be more literal then many other groups of Hindu's.

 

[Braja Bhushan das]

GV parampara teaches that literal meaning is not predominant in Puranas. Baladeva Vidyabhushan states in his Sahitya-Kaumudi, First Chapter:

vedaH khalu zabda-prAdhAnyAt prabhu-sammitaH | purANAdiz cArtha-prAdhAnyat suhRt-sammitaH zAsti | kAvyaM tu zabdArthayor guNatayA rasAGga-bhUtaH-vyApAra-prAvaNyAt tad-vilakSaNam ataH kAntA-sammitaM taditi

Since in Vedas literal meaning prevails, they instruct like the master. In Puranas and others, the metaphoric or allegorical meaning prevails, thus they teach as a friend. In poetic works (kavya) literal and metaphoric meanings are secondary, their main component being rasa. (Mostly) devoid of ordinary everyday transactions, they are different from Vedas and Puranas, hence they instruct as a lover.

Since the original question in this thread concerned Puranas related to Krishna, it should be noted that Srimad-Bhagavatam, the King of Puranas, teaches in all three ways – as a master, friend and lover, employing all three meanings:

vedaH purANaM kAvyaM ca prabhur mitraM priyeva ca
bodhayantIti hi prAhus trivad bhAgavataM punaH​

“The learned people say that the Veda instructs like a master, Purana like a friend and kavya like a lover. Bhagavatam instructs in all three ways.” (Vopadeva)

The conclusion is that Puranas, though allowing to some extent for the literal approach, function mostly on the secondary meaning, while Srimad-Bhagavatam employs a suggested meaning as well.

And where to draw the line? Our acaryas have written a lot of works (Kavya-Kaustubha, Alankara-Kaustubha, Sahitya-Kaumudi, Bhakti-Rasamrita-Sesa etc) where they explain how to understand various types of meanings. poetical figures, rasa, dhvani etc. Their knowledge as well as the knowledge of commentaries by our parampara acaryas, coupled with sincere service to one’s Guru and Holy Name, should equip one thoroughly for correct understanding (not only) of Puranas.

 

[Prayag Das]

Hello,

I have a few questions that I have been wondering about for sometime now. I have tried to find answers elsewhere on the Internet, but only find abstract answers that beat around the bush. First on is, is there a Gaudiya Vaishnavism outside of ISKCON? I do respect Srila Prabhupada, but I am a very liberal and unconventional individual, and he seems to be quite a fundamentalist, and conservative.
Secondly, do all gaudiya vaishnavas accept the Puranas of Krishna, Vishnu, etc. literally? I am quite let down by much of what Prabhupada said in regards to the moon being further away then the sun and accepting the puranas all as literal. I look at them as ways of expressing huge truths threw metaphors. Following the creation theory from the Puranas and taking it literally, well I have a hard time believing that. And if GV's dont all accept the Puranas as real, where do you draw the line?

Thank you for reading m:

Haribol Shakta:

There are many GV scriptures that contradict each other. How can we know who wrote the Puranas, the Srimad Bhagavatan, etc. and if they were altered throughout the years? The belief is that they were passed down orally before writing was invented.

As far as the sun and moon issue, I believe Prabhupada misinterpreted the scriptures. In Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5 Chapter 22 text 8 it states:

"Above the rays of the sunshine by a distance of 100,000 yojanas [800,000 miles] is the moon, which travels at a speed faster than that of the sun. In two lunar fortnights the moon travels through the equivalent of a saṁvatsara of the sun, in two and a quarter days it passes through a month of the sun, and in one day it passes through a fortnight of the sun."

In this chapter, the word "above" means "above the plane of Bhu-mandala." It does not refer to distance measured radially from the surface of the earth globe. There is a book Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by Richard L. Thompson (Sadaputa dasa) that describes all this and can be purchased at Amazon.com. Very difficult reading.

Srila Prabhupada specifically said, during a morning walk with Jayadvaita, that the acarya is not omniscient. He does not know everything about everything.
He certainly was a fundamentalist.

Ramakrishna, who lived in the late 1800's said that the scriptures are like sand mixed with sugar and the ant removes just the sugar and leaves the sand. So that is my philosophy. If there is some statement that seems impossible, I simply ignore as it really has nothing to do with devotional service. Our goal should be to develop loving service to God and remember Him always so we may do so at the point of death.

The Gaudiya Math was started by Prabhupada's guru Bhaktisiddhanta and ISKCON is an offshoot of it. A Gaudiya Vaishnava is simply one who follows the teachings of Lord Caitanya. Bhaktisiddhanta's father Bhaktivinode is credited with reviving the teachings of Lord Caitanya, which had been corrupted. So a Gaudiya Vaishnava is effectively following the teachings of Bhaktivinode.

Hare Krishna.