I'm only half trough the podcast and I have to pause it in order to relish on what has been said. Thank you so much Mr. Raghavan, I'm a big fan of the channel, but this time you really hit it out the field with your questions, and is always such a pleasure to listen to Dr.Bryant and see how his passion for the subject channels his profound knowledge. Also from my humble point of view I'm hundred percent with you on bhakti being the other side of the coin with jñana, Ramanuja explicitly states it about the end of his Vedharthasamgraha "bhaktisca jñanavisesa eva iti", Bhakti is just a kind of knoledge. To love is to know.Thank you so much again.
Though Bhagavad Gita is seen as a Bhakti Shastra, the bhakti schools still had to contend with the vedic statement, that says only Jnana leads to liberation. Ramanujacharya frames it as Jnana in the form of Bhakti . Madhvacharya too agrees that Jnana is the path to Moksha. However interpretation of final stage of Jnana varies.
Bhakti involves jñana. If you do not know your love, is it really love? The gopīs are the ultimate examples of śuddha bhaktas. They did not have any jñana, but they probably had to go through it in their past lives, being revered sages. However, bhakti does not necessarily demand jñana if the person has bhāva. It’s because we know that bhakti is causeless and secondly, many of us have been performing bhakti and developing jñana for several lives. Mādhava sampradāya gives importance to jñana for mokśa but it’s not so for Śri or other sampradāyas where bhakti is seen as an efficient cause for mokśa (although true bhaktas don’t even want that for purification purposes)
Sri Ramakrishna said one who is nirguna is also saguna, Brahman-Shakti abhed (inseparable). Regarding salvation (final goal) he gave 2 broad categories : 1. Those who want to become sugar (Merge in nirguna) 2. Those who want to eat sugar (Eternal relation with Saguna) . Sri Ramakrishna's Kathaamrita provides very simple yet sophisticated framework to harmonize different school of thoughts. He didn't create hierarchy between Jnana and Bhakti, according to him both are at same level
Both cannot be at the same level. According to our bhakti tradition, the experience of one's own atman is like a droplet compared to the experience of the source of the atman, bhagavan, which like a whole ocean.
@mayanksharma6927 Right, as per Bhakti tradition Bhakti is higher. As per Jaina tradition Jaina is higher. As per Sri Ramakrishna, both are valid states of salvation. The path one follows depends on ones temperament. Although, Sri Ramakrishna used to say that Bhakti is more suitable for Kali Yuga
@@prasenjitghosh5852Yes everything's valid, we do not reject jñana mārga where the goal is the experience of one's svarūpa. However, it doesn't solve anything. In the bhāgavatam, there are examples of fall-down from that state of sat-cit-ānanda and those beings being satiated only by the experience of bhagavān's rūpa. So in that way, it is the highest, which Krishna confirms in the Gita (Refer to Chapter 12))
Very nice conversation! But I am confused on a few points. What does Dr Bryant mean when he says that the texts of other religions might also be shastras? How are we to reconcile the contradictions between these different shastras? How are we supposed to accept a text which says something like "I thy Lord am a jealous God, thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not bow before any graven image" with texts like the Bhagavatam which assert that Bhagavan is not only infinitely beautiful but has a mutlitude of forms and can be worshipped through images? If we are supposed to accept that all these different philosophies are equally true and lead to equally valid (though different) experiences, then why even have bhakti? If everything is true, then anything is true, and there is no distinction between truth and falsehood. Furthermore, Dr. Bryant says that Hindu philosophies leave the origins of suffering open-ended by saying its due to anaadi karma or maya but that is alright since their priority is to offer a way out of suffering. But how can you put an end to suffering without inquiring into its causes? In fact, Buddhism does seek to put an end to suffering by understanding its causes - i.e. human desires and attachments. It makes sense for the Buddha to say he is uninterested in the origins of the universe because that has no relevance to his project of eradicating suffering, just like a physician doesn't need to know who shot an arrow to remove it. But that analogy cannot be applied to Dr. Bryant's case since the Buddha is not agnostic about the origins of suffering itself. In fact, to build on the analogy, a physician has to see how the arrow has penetrated the flesh in order to best determine how to extract it. Similarly, how can any darshana provide an effective solution to the problem of suffering without providing a convincing account of its origins? On the contrary, by proposing that the world is created by an all-loving and all-attractive Ishvara, bhakti philosophies open up a new can of worms. Why would such an all-loving Bhagavan create a world with "sarvam duhkham" as Dr. Bryant claims. And if this suffering is anaadi, or worse the result of Bhagavan's own maya, then what is the guarantee it will end through devotional surrender to Bhagavan? Finally, what does Mukunda ji mean when he says that the historicity of avataarapurushas like Rama and Krishna is unimportant to modern Hinduism? They might be unimportant to other Hindus but to a bhakta, who claims that not only is there a loving God with infinite beauty and forms but that said God took birth in human form for the liberation of his bhaktas and that knowledge about such a God can be attained through shastra pramanas like the Bhagavatam, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc., wouldn't it be important that shastra pramana agrees with scientifically verifiable facts? After all the bhakti of a bhakta does not merely depend on the rasa and emotive-literary qualities of the text but rather on the truth of the fact that Bhagavan exists and shall descend "yuge-yuge".
I think professor Bryant is a bit more liberal when it comes to accepting the validity of other religions. As a Vaishnava, you usually are convinced of Lord Vishnu's supremacy based on your reading and understanding of the shastras but he takes more of a Hindu approach that says: All gods are same. Of course, I disagree with him on this but I guess he has a few different beliefs from his lineage of Vaishnavism.
I wanted to ask anusha who talked on dvaita, about nirgunatva of the jeeva . If god dosent possess the prakrutic gunas so he is nirguna. Arent jeevas nirgunas in terms of devoid of prakrutic gunas too at there swaroopa ?
Yes that is correct. brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati. This is partly the reason why everyone in Vaikunṭha looks like Lord Viṣṇu. Their minds are so absorbed in bhagavān that their whole existence becomes nothing but godly, free from all dualities and only focused on love and service towards their lord.
1:05:22 interesting discussion from a few minutes before this. About the Vaishnav idea of God. However, Krishna traditions such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism becomes so prakritic in their idea of nitya lilas. Gaudiya Vaishnavism becomes very erotic in nature in their internal texts written by their gurus, resembles very prakritic experiences of love, sex, and eroticism. So I'd say, there could be a God with form, but it doesn't make sense if God has these nitya lilas consisting of eroticism, etc.
You've missed the whole point. The madhurya bhava is not for neophytes and it's not like mundane material love. The sadhakas are extremely strict about it. In fact, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and many of his disciples themselves were celibate monks so how can you claim that they promote such things? Prabhupada in his purports makes it clear that the madhurya bhava is very rare in the sadhakas and is acheived after several lifetimes of shudhha bhakti, after which the sadhaka gets a gopi bhava and this is just one of the many bhavas. You can worship Krishna with any bhava as long as it is pure and immaterial, not for mundane sense enjoyment and is transcendental. This is why most people are not advised to read the lilas, an impure mind only sees impurity. Just like one cannot describe the atman to the one who has not experienced it. One cannot truly understand the lilas if they haven't loved Krishna in a pure and innocent way. In fact, this is how the bhagavatam describes the rasa lila, like an innocent child laughing and playing with his own reflection in the mirror.
@@akrishnadevotee thanks for your reply. I'm quite well aware of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, so I'm not missing any point. I hope we'll have a nice discussion on this topic. I suspect if Gaudiya Vaishnavas have read the philosophy of Upanishads and even Yoga Sutra for that matter. Although Baladeva Vidyabhusan has wrote a bhasya on Vedanta Sutra, it is radically different than Gaudiya Vaishnavism that is taught by Shad-Goswamis in their literature, where many philosophical truths of Upanishads are contradicted. Let me give you an example. Yoga Sutra 1.5 talks about klishta (unfavorable) and aklishta (favorable) vrittis. Ultimately, one has to go beyond both klishta and aklishta vrittis in order to attain asamprajanta samadhi or Moksha, as these vrittis are still prakritic in nature. Gaudiya Vaishnavas have simply imposed aklishta (favorable) vrittis on their idea of God, Radha Krsna. The point I'm trying to make is, Upanishads and Yoga Sutra talk about going beyond avidya, samaskras, and prakritic experiences. However, all those erotic pastimes (where Gaudiya literature show Krsna engaging in sexual pastimes with Radha and gopis for eternity in so-called nitya-lilas), these invented Gaudiya literature are simply based on prakritic experience of this world rather than spiritual world, which is beyond one's imagination. Now here comes the real problem, Gaudiya Vaishnavas teachers claim to base their school of thought Achintya Bhedbheda on Vedanta tradition, but what they preach is completely antithetical to the basic Vedantic philosophy.
@@Sankhyame Prabhupada has extensively talked about Sahajīyas, which are not part of Gauḍiya philosophy. Purāṇas with sensual descriptions of the līlās are also not accepted by Gaudiya Ācāryas. In fact, Satyanārāyaṇa dasā bābājī wrote a whole blog post about the interpolations in the shastras and how many of these intimate līlās do not find any references in the authoritative texts in the paramparā. While you're right that these look prākṛtik in nature, sages practicing gopī bhāva explain these līlās in their own way. It is said that the acāryas would sometimes be so lost in samādhī that when they would open their eyes, they’d sometimes have a beetle-nut in their mouth, having experienced these līlās. In the theology, the material world is seen as a distorted reflection of the spiritual world, so it’s not rare to see such materially motivated perceptions, in fact, I would agree with you because madhurya bhāva is transcendental and not meant for everyone, especially jīvas like us who might mistake it for material lust. I personally do not know any ācāryas that support such mundane views towards these transcendental līlās. In fact, Professor Bryant talked about this in his bhagavatam lectures, how it’s easy to misunderstand these topics and they’re not meant for every bhakta.
There might be some souls who have gone in the wrong direction with this, very much like the sahajīyas, we can do nothing for them except pray that they can find purity and true love.
@@Sankhyame Also, I’d say that you’re imposing the views of sāṁkhya on bhakti traditions. The practice of sāṁkhya is very different from bhakti. I’d highly recommend watching Edwin Bryant’s sāṁkhya svādhyāya. Saying this as a fan of sāṁkhya and a Kṛṣṇa bhakta myself.
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Two gyanis kicking back and having an illuminating conversation ! I love the freedom and humility of these guys what a gift to all of us
I'm only half trough the podcast and I have to pause it in order to relish on what has been said. Thank you so much Mr. Raghavan, I'm a big fan of the channel, but this time you really hit it out the field with your questions, and is always such a pleasure to listen to Dr.Bryant and see how his passion for the subject channels his profound knowledge. Also from my humble point of view I'm hundred percent with you on bhakti being the other side of the coin with jñana, Ramanuja explicitly states it about the end of his Vedharthasamgraha "bhaktisca jñanavisesa eva iti", Bhakti is just a kind of knoledge. To love is to know.Thank you so much again.
Спасибо большое за столь увлекательную беседу!
Easily, one of the best episodes yet! I've been waiting for this one for months now
This discussion is really really Scholarly.
Thank You very much Mukunda Ji & Dr Edwin Bryant.
Awesome episode! And really impressive editing. Kudos to whoever did it!
💛🙏💛 So grateful to both of you.
Very nice conversation. Hope to see more in future.
Though Bhagavad Gita is seen as a Bhakti Shastra, the bhakti schools still had to contend with the vedic statement, that says only Jnana leads to liberation. Ramanujacharya frames it as Jnana in the form of Bhakti . Madhvacharya too agrees that Jnana is the path to Moksha. However interpretation of final stage of Jnana varies.
I have heard that it's Because bakthi is effect and it's cause is gyana, from a dvaitic point.
Bhakti involves jñana. If you do not know your love, is it really love?
The gopīs are the ultimate examples of śuddha bhaktas. They did not have any jñana, but they probably had to go through it in their past lives, being revered sages.
However, bhakti does not necessarily demand jñana if the person has bhāva. It’s because we know that bhakti is causeless and secondly, many of us have been performing bhakti and developing jñana for several lives.
Mādhava sampradāya gives importance to jñana for mokśa but it’s not so for Śri or other sampradāyas where bhakti is seen as an efficient cause for mokśa (although true bhaktas don’t even want that for purification purposes)
Awesome Discussion !
OMG. I have been looking for discussions like this. Where can I find more? Thank you so much.
Sri Ramakrishna said one who is nirguna is also saguna, Brahman-Shakti abhed (inseparable). Regarding salvation (final goal) he gave 2 broad categories : 1. Those who want to become sugar (Merge in nirguna) 2. Those who want to eat sugar (Eternal relation with Saguna) . Sri Ramakrishna's Kathaamrita provides very simple yet sophisticated framework to harmonize different school of thoughts. He didn't create hierarchy between Jnana and Bhakti, according to him both are at same level
Both cannot be at the same level. According to our bhakti tradition, the experience of one's own atman is like a droplet compared to the experience of the source of the atman, bhagavan, which like a whole ocean.
@mayanksharma6927 Right, as per Bhakti tradition Bhakti is higher. As per Jaina tradition Jaina is higher. As per Sri Ramakrishna, both are valid states of salvation. The path one follows depends on ones temperament. Although, Sri Ramakrishna used to say that Bhakti is more suitable for Kali Yuga
@@prasenjitghosh5852Yes everything's valid, we do not reject jñana mārga where the goal is the experience of one's svarūpa. However, it doesn't solve anything. In the bhāgavatam, there are examples of fall-down from that state of sat-cit-ānanda and those beings being satiated only by the experience of bhagavān's rūpa. So in that way, it is the highest, which Krishna confirms in the Gita (Refer to Chapter 12))
20:40 the similar kind of thing is Ramkrishna Paramhamsa's philosophy of Vijnana Vedanta as per Swami Medhananda.
Very nice conversation! But I am confused on a few points.
What does Dr Bryant mean when he says that the texts of other religions might also be shastras? How are we to reconcile the contradictions between these different shastras? How are we supposed to accept a text which says something like "I thy Lord am a jealous God, thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not bow before any graven image" with texts like the Bhagavatam which assert that Bhagavan is not only infinitely beautiful but has a mutlitude of forms and can be worshipped through images? If we are supposed to accept that all these different philosophies are equally true and lead to equally valid (though different) experiences, then why even have bhakti? If everything is true, then anything is true, and there is no distinction between truth and falsehood.
Furthermore, Dr. Bryant says that Hindu philosophies leave the origins of suffering open-ended by saying its due to anaadi karma or maya but that is alright since their priority is to offer a way out of suffering. But how can you put an end to suffering without inquiring into its causes? In fact, Buddhism does seek to put an end to suffering by understanding its causes - i.e. human desires and attachments. It makes sense for the Buddha to say he is uninterested in the origins of the universe because that has no relevance to his project of eradicating suffering, just like a physician doesn't need to know who shot an arrow to remove it. But that analogy cannot be applied to Dr. Bryant's case since the Buddha is not agnostic about the origins of suffering itself. In fact, to build on the analogy, a physician has to see how the arrow has penetrated the flesh in order to best determine how to extract it. Similarly, how can any darshana provide an effective solution to the problem of suffering without providing a convincing account of its origins? On the contrary, by proposing that the world is created by an all-loving and all-attractive Ishvara, bhakti philosophies open up a new can of worms. Why would such an all-loving Bhagavan create a world with "sarvam duhkham" as Dr. Bryant claims. And if this suffering is anaadi, or worse the result of Bhagavan's own maya, then what is the guarantee it will end through devotional surrender to Bhagavan?
Finally, what does Mukunda ji mean when he says that the historicity of avataarapurushas like Rama and Krishna is unimportant to modern Hinduism? They might be unimportant to other Hindus but to a bhakta, who claims that not only is there a loving God with infinite beauty and forms but that said God took birth in human form for the liberation of his bhaktas and that knowledge about such a God can be attained through shastra pramanas like the Bhagavatam, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc., wouldn't it be important that shastra pramana agrees with scientifically verifiable facts? After all the bhakti of a bhakta does not merely depend on the rasa and emotive-literary qualities of the text but rather on the truth of the fact that Bhagavan exists and shall descend "yuge-yuge".
I think professor Bryant is a bit more liberal when it comes to accepting the validity of other religions. As a Vaishnava, you usually are convinced of Lord Vishnu's supremacy based on your reading and understanding of the shastras but he takes more of a Hindu approach that says: All gods are same. Of course, I disagree with him on this but I guess he has a few different beliefs from his lineage of Vaishnavism.
I wanted to ask anusha who talked on dvaita, about nirgunatva of the jeeva . If god dosent possess the prakrutic gunas so he is nirguna. Arent jeevas nirgunas in terms of devoid of prakrutic gunas too at there swaroopa ?
Yes that is correct. brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati. This is partly the reason why everyone in Vaikunṭha looks like Lord Viṣṇu. Their minds are so absorbed in bhagavān that their whole existence becomes nothing but godly, free from all dualities and only focused on love and service towards their lord.
When speaking of the baby Krishna, I think you have tapped into what true Christians feel about Jesus as God
1:05:22 interesting discussion from a few minutes before this. About the Vaishnav idea of God.
However, Krishna traditions such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism becomes so prakritic in their idea of nitya lilas. Gaudiya Vaishnavism becomes very erotic in nature in their internal texts written by their gurus, resembles very prakritic experiences of love, sex, and eroticism.
So I'd say, there could be a God with form, but it doesn't make sense if God has these nitya lilas consisting of eroticism, etc.
You've missed the whole point. The madhurya bhava is not for neophytes and it's not like mundane material love. The sadhakas are extremely strict about it. In fact, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and many of his disciples themselves were celibate monks so how can you claim that they promote such things?
Prabhupada in his purports makes it clear that the madhurya bhava is very rare in the sadhakas and is acheived after several lifetimes of shudhha bhakti, after which the sadhaka gets a gopi bhava and this is just one of the many bhavas. You can worship Krishna with any bhava as long as it is pure and immaterial, not for mundane sense enjoyment and is transcendental.
This is why most people are not advised to read the lilas, an impure mind only sees impurity. Just like one cannot describe the atman to the one who has not experienced it. One cannot truly understand the lilas if they haven't loved Krishna in a pure and innocent way. In fact, this is how the bhagavatam describes the rasa lila, like an innocent child laughing and playing with his own reflection in the mirror.
@@akrishnadevotee thanks for your reply. I'm quite well aware of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, so I'm not missing any point.
I hope we'll have a nice discussion on this topic.
I suspect if Gaudiya Vaishnavas have read the philosophy of Upanishads and even Yoga Sutra for that matter. Although Baladeva Vidyabhusan has wrote a bhasya on Vedanta Sutra, it is radically different than Gaudiya Vaishnavism that is taught by Shad-Goswamis in their literature, where many philosophical truths of Upanishads are contradicted.
Let me give you an example. Yoga Sutra 1.5 talks about klishta (unfavorable) and aklishta (favorable) vrittis. Ultimately, one has to go beyond both klishta and aklishta vrittis in order to attain asamprajanta samadhi or Moksha, as these vrittis are still prakritic in nature.
Gaudiya Vaishnavas have simply imposed aklishta (favorable) vrittis on their idea of God, Radha Krsna.
The point I'm trying to make is, Upanishads and Yoga Sutra talk about going beyond avidya, samaskras, and prakritic experiences. However, all those erotic pastimes (where Gaudiya literature show Krsna engaging in sexual pastimes with Radha and gopis for eternity in so-called nitya-lilas), these invented Gaudiya literature are simply based on prakritic experience of this world rather than spiritual world, which is beyond one's imagination.
Now here comes the real problem, Gaudiya Vaishnavas teachers claim to base their school of thought Achintya Bhedbheda on Vedanta tradition, but what they preach is completely antithetical to the basic Vedantic philosophy.
@@Sankhyame Prabhupada has extensively talked about Sahajīyas, which are not part of Gauḍiya philosophy. Purāṇas with sensual descriptions of the līlās are also not accepted by Gaudiya Ācāryas. In fact, Satyanārāyaṇa dasā bābājī wrote a whole blog post about the interpolations in the shastras and how many of these intimate līlās do not find any references in the authoritative texts in the paramparā.
While you're right that these look prākṛtik in nature, sages practicing gopī bhāva explain these līlās in their own way. It is said that the acāryas would sometimes be so lost in samādhī that when they would open their eyes, they’d sometimes have a beetle-nut in their mouth, having experienced these līlās. In the theology, the material world is seen as a distorted reflection of the spiritual world, so it’s not rare to see such materially motivated perceptions, in fact, I would agree with you because madhurya bhāva is transcendental and not meant for everyone, especially jīvas like us who might mistake it for material lust.
I personally do not know any ācāryas that support such mundane views towards these transcendental līlās. In fact, Professor Bryant talked about this in his bhagavatam lectures, how it’s easy to misunderstand these topics and they’re not meant for every bhakta.
There might be some souls who have gone in the wrong direction with this, very much like the sahajīyas, we can do nothing for them except pray that they can find purity and true love.
@@Sankhyame Also, I’d say that you’re imposing the views of sāṁkhya on bhakti traditions.
The practice of sāṁkhya is very different from bhakti. I’d highly recommend watching Edwin Bryant’s sāṁkhya svādhyāya.
Saying this as a fan of sāṁkhya and a Kṛṣṇa bhakta myself.