Îãëàâëåíèå | Êàòàëîã áèáëèîòåêè | Äàëåå»»»

íå ïðî÷èòàíî
Ïðî÷èòàíî: 0%

`DRAFTØExplanation àon the "Sat-sandarbhas" of Srila Jiva Goswami àgiven Í by Satyanarayana dasa in February of 1992. 
   In Indian philosophical system there are atheistic and àtheisÍ tic philosophies.
   The àphilosophy of Carvaka Muni, the Buddhist àphilosophy àand Í the Jain philosophy come under the category of atheistic philosoÍ phies. àAnd then there are the philosophies which àare àdefeating Í them and they are considered as theistic philosophies in which we Í have àsix systems mainly. These six systems are divided in àthree Í pairs: àsankhya àand àyoga, nyaya and vaisasika, àand àpurva àand Í uttara-mimamsas.  Most àof àthe àtheistic philosophies àfall àin àthese àclasses Í athough each one of them have many subdivisions. But predominantÍ ly àall the theistic philosophies can be classified unto the àsix Í systems.  -  Sankhya the philosophy of Kapila. There are two Kapilas. àOne Í is àconsidered also as an atheist in the sense that he àdoes ànot Í accept àthe existence of God as the Cause behind creation. He àis Í not denying Him but he is not worried about Him. He explains àhis Í philosophy àwithout considering the existence of God. àIn àIndian Í philosophy a person is called theist if he does accept the àVedas Í even àif àhe àdoes not accept God. In that àsense àthe àso-called Í atheist àKapila is counted among the theist philosophers àbecause Í he àaccepts the Vedas even if he does not prove that God àis àthe Í ultimate Cause behind creation. This is why we refer to him as an Í atheist.
   Then there is Kapila that we know from Srimad-Bhagavatam, àthe Í son of Devahuti.


- Yoga  the philosophy of Patanjali who is considered its àmain Í

propounder although the Yoga system was existing before him. àBut Í the àpresent philosophy of Yoga is coming from Patanjali àwho àis Í also àconsidered àas an incarnation of Sesa Naga. He has àdone àa Í work àon Sanskrit grammar and wrote commentaries known as à"Maha-Í bhasya". àHe àalso wrote books on Ayur-veda (--?-samhita àis àatÍ tributed àto àPatanjali). àHe àalso àwrote àthe à"Patanjali àYoga Í sutras".


- àNyaya, logic, the philosophical system of Gautama who was àa Í

great àsage. àHis wife was cursed by himself to àbecome àa àstone Í piece àwho later on came back to life by the touch of Lord àRamaÍ candra's lotus foot.


- Vaisasika started by a sage name Kannada. This philosophy àis Í similar to logic. They are considered as twins.


   The new system of logic which was mainly started at àNavadvipa Í around 500 years ago, at the time of Lord Caitanya's, advent is a Í mixture àof both Nyaya and Vaisisika. Now it is called àas à"Nava Í Nyaya" or the Newer Logic System.
   Purva-mimamsa was propounded by the sage Jaimini one of àSrila Í Vyasadeva's àdisciples àwho put him in charge of àthe àSoma-veda. Í This philosophy is generally called as Karma-kanda system or àthe Í system àwhich explains the various rituals since birth until àthe Í sraddha ceremony after death. In his philosophy, Jaimini more àor Í less àspeaks àabout àkarma. He has given lots àof àimportance àto Í karma, means performing activity. He also does not give very much Í importance àto the Lord. He believes that basically if àone àper ¨7Ð3 ÍÊforms àkarma, then karma is bound to give him the result. àIt àis Í not ànecessary to accept a personality behind everything àwho àis Í controlling àand arranging the result of our karma. Jaimini àsays Í that by performing karma there is some kind of 'adrsya', àinvisiÍ ble àresult àwhich is accrued by the person and he àwill àget àit Í later on in this life or in the next.
   Uttara-mimamasa is the Vedanta-sutras or Brahma-sutras of àSri Í Badranarayana Rsi, Sri Vyasadeva. In his work Vyasadeva gives the Í conclusion àof all the knowledge of the Vedas, what is the àultiÍ mate reality.
   The àfirst àsutra àis:"atatho brahma-jijnasa", à"now àwe àwill Í enquire into Brahman or the Supreme Reality". "Now" means à"after Í going through the other philosophies and not being satisfied with Í them, we propound this".
   Because àmost of the sutras in the Vedanta-sutra are not àvery Í explicit àin their meaning different people have àwriten àcommenÍ taries àon àthem. These commentaries are mainly àdivided àin àtwo Í divisions: personalists and impersonalists.
   The impersonalists are mainly headed by Sankaracarya. He wrote Í "Sariraka-bhasya" àor "Sankara-bhasya", commentaries on àVedanta-Í sutra and from that there are also further branches.
   The àpersonalists àare mainly the Vaisnavas and we àhave àfour Í main schools: school of Ramanujacarya who wrote "Sri-bhasya";

school of Madvacarya who wrote ...?-bhasya";
school of Nimbarka;
school of Visnusvami.


   There àare àno commentaries available of these last àtwo, àbut Í later àthere àare commentaries writen by Vallabhacarya àfrom àthe Í Visnusvami àsampradaya and some acarya from Nimbarka àschool àhas Í writen àa commentary which is attributed to Nimbarka àhimself àby Í some people.
   These commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra give different àexplaÍ nations about the ultimate reality.
   As àGaudiya-vaisnavas àwe follow Sri Caitanya àMahaprabhu àwho Í proposed the natural commentary of Vedanta-sutra writen by àSrila Í Vyasadeva himself which is called Srimad-Bhagavatam. Therefore if Í we àwant to understand the highest Absolute Truth we àmust àstudy Í this Srimad-Bhagavatam. If an author writes a book we should know Í what àis his opinion, what he wants to say, not that we take àhis Í words and write commentary and say something which may not àagree Í with the author. When we make a statement it may have many àmeanÍ ings àbut àwhat is the meaning which the author wants àto àconvey Í that is best understood if we can read his own commentary.
   But àwhen we come to Srimad-Bhagavatam we find that also àmany Í people àhave writen commentaries and again they àhave àpropounded Í various philosophies. Even the impersonalist have writen commenÍ taries àon the Srimad-Bhagavatam. Although àSankaracarya àhimself Í did ànot comment on Srimad-Bhagavatam, later on some àacaryas àon Í his line have commented on it and they gave impersonal conclusion Í from Srimad-Bhagavatam.
   Again àthe same problem comes. The ultimate purpose for àwhich Í Srila àVyasadeva has writen all this huge ammount of àliterature, Í the àVedas, the Puranas, the Itihasas, the Sutras, the àSamhitas, Í the àUpanisads, and finally the Vedanta-Sutra and its àcommentary Í the àSrimad-Bhagavatam has been covered again. What does he àwant  ¨7Ð3 ÍÊto say?
   So, àour àGoswamis being ordered by Sri àMahaprabhu, àanalized Í Srimad-Bhagavatam àto put forward the opinion of the author àhimÍ self.
   These à'sat-sandarbhas' (sat means six) are also known àorigiÍ nally as 'Bhagavat-sandarbha'. They are the books writen by Srila Í Jiva Goswami to give an analysis of Srimad-Bhagavatam. If we want Í to àunderstand the hidden meaning of Srimad-Bhagavatam, the àreal Í fundamental message conveyed by Sri Vyasa, then we have to àstudy Í the "sat-sandharbas'.
   These àprevious explanations were meant to show how the àsat-Í sandarbhas àfit àon the all scene of literature and what àis àthe Í purpose in writing them.
   The àmessage àthat àSrila Jiva Goswami conveys àin àhis à'sat-Í sandarbhas' is actually the heart of Srila Vyasadeva. He àhimself Í said "now I am going to analyze the heart of Vyasadeva, now I àam Í going àto analyze the heart of Sukadeva Goswami and the heart àof Í Suta Goswami", because these three are the main personalities who Í have àcomposed and taught Srimad-Bhagavatam. Then he proves àthat Í whatever àhe àsays is what they have said and all àthree àare àin Í harmony. He explains how all of them have said the same thing.
   Sandarbha àmeans àa book which explains àthe àhidden àmeanings Í which àgives àthe àessence and the various àexplanations àof àthe Í subject àmatter. àSrimad-Bhagavatam àis not a book àthat àcan àbe Í understood àvery àesily. In sanskrit community àthere àis àfamous Í saying: à"the àtest of one's scholarship àis àSrimad-Bhagavatam". Í This àmeans that if one can understand Srimad-Bhagavatam àand àhe Í can àexplain àit, he must be a scholar. All àgreat àVaisnavas àin Í India wrote commentaries on Srimad-Bhagavatam because this is one Í of the means to show or test their scholarship which unables them Í to give the message to others.
   Although àwe worship Krsna as the Supreme Personality of àGodÍ head àand àwe àquote àthe verse from àS.B. à"krsnas àtu àbhagavan Í svayam", but in SB itself there are so many statements which àsay Í that àKrsna àis an incarnation of hair of Lord Visnu, àHe àis àan Í incarnation àof àGarbhodakasayi Visnu, He is àan àincarnation àof Í Anirudha, àHe àis an incarnation of Lord Ramacandra..., àso àmany Í statements. àSo, how to understand the real meaning behind àthat? Í All this analizis is done in the Sandarbhas.
   Jiva àGoswami was the son of Anupama and the nephew àof àSrila Í Rupa àGoswami and Srila Sanatana Goswami. He was born in 1518 àin Í the àvillage àof Ramakeli. He saw Lord Caitanya when He àcame àto Í Ramakeli to meet Rupa and Sanatana. It is said that he was a very Í young boy at that time maybe 4 or 5 years old. His father, AnupaÍ ma was a great devotee of Ramachandra died when Jiva Goswami àwas Í very young. Later on when Srila Rupa and Srila Sanatana they came Í to Vrndavana he also left home and went to Navadvipa where he met Í Sri àNityananda Prabhu who had already predicted his àarrival àin Í Navadvipa. àThen Nityananda Prabhu took him around, in àparikrama Í to àNavadvipa ( the first Navadvipa Parikrama of our àparampara). Í Then àNityananda àPrabhu ordered him "I have blessed àyou, àI've Í given you enough mercy, but Lord Caitanya has fixed the place àof Í your àfamily in Vrndavana. You go and join your uncles àRupa àand Í Sanatana." He was by that time about 16 years old.
   àWhile àgoing to Vrndavana he stayed for few years in àBenares  ¨7Ð3 ÍÊwhich àwas àconsidered by that time as a city àof àlearning àlike Í Navadvipa à(even now is considered as a city of learning àin àthe Í field àof Sanskrit and Vedic philosophies). Because he àwas àvery Í intelligent, in a very short period of time, he mastered all àthe Í six àsystems ofphilosophy, the sanskrit grammar, àastrology, àthe Í six àVedangas, the Vedas.... Everything he studied there. àIt àis Í said àthat he studied under the great scholar named àMadhusudhana Í Vacaspati àwho, some people say, was the brother àof àSarvabhauma Í Battacharya. àThen àhe went to Vrndavana to join Srila àRupa àand Í Sanatana. He became initiated by Srila Rupa Goswami.
   Because he was a great scholar he was helping Rupa and SanataÍ na. All the editing work was done by him. Srila Rupa Goswami used Í to give anything he wrote, to Jiva Goswami, to edit. Jiva Goswami Í wrote àcommentaries àon "Ujjvala-nilamani' and àother àworks àof Í Srila Rupa Goswami. Besides writing his own books, he wrote àmany Í commentaries. Of all the Goswamis he was the most prolific àwritÍ er. àIt is said that all his works are equal, in ammount, to àthe Í 18 àPuranas à(without using the help of Ganesa). There àa àsaying Í about him that when he would write a page he would not wait until Í the ink get dried to write on the other side. He would go to àthe Í next àpaper and write and then would come to the previous àpaper. Í He àcomposed everything in his mind like a computer. And once àhe Í wrote no editing was necessary - that was the final print.
   The à'sat-sandarbhas' àwere composed in Gokula. àIn àthe àbook Í itself àhe says that some work was done by Gopala Bhatta àGoswami Í but àit àwas neither complete nor in the proper order ànor àfully Í available. àTherefore he writes himself for the pleasure of àRupa Í and Sanatana.
   The six sandarbhas are known as "Tattva-sandarbha", à"BhagavaÍ ta-sandarbha" à(this Bhagavata refers to the Supreme àPersonality Í of àGodhead ànot to the book àBhagavata), à"Paramatma-sandarbha", Í "Krsna-sandarbha", "Bhakti-sandarbha" and "Prtti-sandarbha".


   Tattva-sandarbha which is the smallest has two sections:
   - the first can be called pramana or the epistomology;
   - the second is called prameya  or the object of knowledge.
   Whenever àwe discuss a philosophy we have to explain what àare Í the valid means of knowledge. Different philosophers they àaccept Í different àmeans àof àknowledge as valid. There àis àalways àsome Í arguments àand counter-arguments about which one is bona-fide àor Í not.
   In àthe first section or first half of the book, more or àless Í it àdiscusses these things. Then in the second half it àdiscusses Í what is the object of knowledge, what is knowable, what is to àbe Í known.
   There àare 63 sections or divisions which are called àanuchedÍ das.
   The first 29 are dealing with the epistomologic part; and then Í the next sections are the premeya or the knowable.
   In àthe first section, first he begins with the Invocation àor Í Mangalacaram. àAnd àby performing this Invocation, àhe àquotes àa Í verse ààfrom àSB: à"krsna-varnam ààtvisakrsnam\ ààsangopangastra-Í parsadam\ yajnaih sankirtana-prayair\ yajanti hi su-medhasah. àBy Í this verse he opens the book, that means he indirectly àindicates Í that àour worshipable book is Srimad-Bhagavatam, we are going àto  ¨7Ð3 ÍÊaccept àits authority and therefore we are beginning our àinvocaÍ tion àwith àthe àSrimad-Bhagavatam. It also àindicates àthat àour Í worshipable àDeity is Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, therefore we àare Í quoting àthe verse about His appearance. He also says à"I àaccept Í the àSrimad-Bhagavatam and even though there are other verses àin Í other àscriptures àabout àLord Caitanya, àI àjust àquote àSrimad-Í Bhagavatam." àIt also shows that sankirtana is the abhidheya, àor Í the àmeans to attain or please Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. And àwho Í will perform this sankirtana? Su-medhasah, the intelligent àclass Í of people will take to this process.
   This àis àa custom in Vedic system, to begin àeverything àwith Í Mangalacarana, àor asking for the blessings of the Lord àso àthen Í the work can be completed without any disturbances.
   Then àSrila àJiva àGoswami writes his own verse àto àgive àthe Í meaning àto this verse and there he explains "antah krsnam àbahir Í gauram", àinside is Krsna and outside is Gaura. Then he àexplains Í the àmeaning. After that in the remaining of the verses he àgives Í the àmeaning or the reason why he is writing this book. He àprays Í to Rupa and Sanatana Goswami and he says that "they have àengaged Í me to write this book" so people do not think that he is àwriting Í as a show of scholarship. He says that he is just expanding whatÍ ever àSri Rupa wrote that was not arranged properly or àavailable Í completely.
   Then àhe àexplains for whom is he writing, because if àone àis Í writing àa book is has to know who are the people àqualified àto Í read it. So he says "yah sri-krsna-padambhoja.... " "I am writing Í this àbook only for those people whose only desire is to àrender Í service unto the lotus feet of Lord Sri Krsna or Krsna àCaitanya. Í Please àdon't show my book to anyone else. My book should not àbe Í shown to anyone who don't desire to render service to Krsna."
   After àthat he prays to his teachers from whom he studied àthe Í Srimad-Bhagavatam àand his initiating spiritual master, àthen àhe Í begins writing.
   Finally he composes one verse which is also found in CC àwhere Í he àexplains that there is one Personality of Godhead, àLord àSri Í Krsna àwho is also called Brahma. That Brahma is not àother àthan Í Lord Sri Krsna, without variety. And His one potency is àglorious Í and controls Maya - His Paramatma feature. In another form He àis Í existing in Vaikuntha as Narayana. May this Lord Krsna grant àHis Í prema to those people who are serving His lotus feet.
   Then he begins explaining.
   On àsection number 9 onwards, he first explains directly àwhat Í is àsambandha, àabhideya and prayojana.
   The question then, is to know what are the means, the àprocess Í to àunderstand àthis. Is it based on direct perception or àis àit Í based àon the scriptures, or inference or similarity? On what àis Í it based?
   Then àhe àexplains that although there are àvarious àmeans àof Í acquiring àknowledge àand different àphilosophers àhave àaccepted Í different means. The Carvakas beleive only in direct àperception. Í They àthat àthe only pramana is pratyaksa-pramana àand àno àother Í processe àis valid. They say that there are only àfour àelements: Í earth, àwater, fire and air. They don't accept ether or sky. àFor Í them àconsciousness does not exist separately from àmatter. àWhen Í the four elements come together to form the body then àconscious ¨7Ð3 ÍÊness come into existence. They say: "don't eat meat or fish, àeat Í food made with ghee. Beg, borrow, buy or steal, somehow or àother Í get àghee." They think that the only happiness is here, àso à"eat Í nicely, àenjoy, àbecause the only happiness is àhere, àheaven àis Í here".
   Next is the Buddhist philosophy: they accept direct perception Í as well as inference (anumana). There are four divisions on their Í philosophy: à1) Nirvana- as the Carvakas, they that one àhas àto Í become free from material desires, renounce everything, only then Í can àone be peaceful and happy. But they don't accept the àexistÍ ence of the soul.
   The àother philosophy is the Jainism. They only àaccept àthese Í two àprocess: direct perception and inference. They are a àlittle Í more àadvanced then the Buddhists because they accept the àexistÍ ence àof the soul, but for them soul is not atomic in size. àThey Í say that the soul has the same size as the body. If there is àone Í elephant then the soul is the size of an elephant. If there is an Í ant, the soul is the size of an ant. They say that is àimpossible Í that the soul is localized in one place of the body and feels àin Í another place.
   Then àwe have Yoga and Sankhya. They accept àsabda-pramana àas Í the àvalid means besides anumana and pratyaksa. They àaccept àthe Í word of the scriptures. This is also what we accept. Most VaisnaÍ vas accept these three pramanas and we, Gaudiya-Vaisnavas, accept Í that. But we consider sabda-pramana as the topmost.
   Even though there are other processes, Srila Jiva Goswami only Í accepts àthese àthree on the grounds that Srila àMadvacarya àonly Í accepted àthese àthree as the valid means of knowledge. àThen àhe Í says that a human being cannot convey proper knowledge because he Í is endowed with four defects, brahma, pramada, vipraliksa and à?, Í that is: delusion (taking one thing for another e.g. àconsidering Í the àrope as snake or the human being as a tree), then àinadvertÍ ence à(it means that even when the conditions are alright, àstill Í one will not be able to get proper knowledge. One may be àsitting Í in the class, the eyes and ears may be opened, but one may not be Í listening), àthen the desire to cheat (I know something àproperly Í but àI will convey it as improper so he will not get àthe àproper Í knowledge), then there is limitation of the senses (all our sense Í perception is very limited). Some of these defects are innate àin Í us, some depend on the circumstances, some depend on the àpersonÍ ality, àon the character of the person.

Îãëàâëåíèå | Êàòàëîã áèáëèîòåêè | Äàëåå»»»