Dhanurdhara Swami’s response to “Sakhyam’s Razor”
by Dhanurdhara Swami
Vrndaranya asked me to respond to her article. To honor my doubts about the relevance of these discussions, I will be brief and mainly focus on an issue I feel is relevant, namely, when and where it is proper for dialogues like this to take place – one of the main contentions of my paper, and one that Vrndaranya failed to address.
I read and responded to Babhru’s article in the spirit of vada (seeking truth). Throughout my paper I thus acknowledged the strength of his arguments and lauded the substantial evidence he had collected. I then added my opinion that the issue could also be looked at in other ways. Finally, I pointed out a few cases where I thought his evidence was forced, like when he connected Srila Prabhupada’s strong preaching spirit to sakhya-rasa.
Requested by her guru to write something, Vrndaranya did not see merit in anything I wrote. Of course, it may be possible that I failed to make any relevant points – I’ll leave it to objective readers to decide. But her somewhat confrontational stance makes me wonder if she somehow missed my point altogether. So please let me state my modest claims again:
1) Although Babhru made a strong case for Srila Prabhupada being in sakhya-rasa, his attempts to show that there were no other possible options were weak.
2) It’s important to consider where philosophical discussions such as this one should take place.
To keep my paper brief, I will limit my response to one example, where “Sakhyam’s Razor” shreds only a straw man and not my actual argument. There is little need to get into more. Although I gave many reasons to support my case, to address only one now will be sufficient. I also think it will be edifying to correct Vrndaranya’s misapplication of Ockham’s razor as well as her narrow interpretation of Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja’s famous adage that we should not shy away from discussing siddhanta.
Before continuing, I stand corrected that Babhru never said that madhurya-rasa was only found outside Srila Prabhupada’s mission. He argued that the details of manjari-bhava were gleaned from outside his mission, as far as he knows. I am still uncertain as to the truth of his claim. I wrote Babhru for clarification, and await his reply.
Now, to again state the point of my argument about discerning Srila Prabhupada’s inner life: I argued that it is reasonable to look at this issue in other ways. Babhru, or at least Vrndaranya representing Babhru, argued that it is not. To contest their claim, I quoted Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s direct statement conceding the possibility of Srila Prabhupada’s inner life being in madhurya-rasa, although the evidence, in his opinion, points to sakhya-rasa. Vrndaranya argues that by using Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s quote I am actually supporting Srila Prabhupada in sakhya-rasa. But her reasoning misses my point. I was making the point that Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s statement supports the possibility that one can see the issue in other ways. Directly, clearly, and irrefutably the quote does that.
I also see a problem in Vrndaranya’s selective use of Ockham’s razor in that she does not apply it to her own arguments, which are often certainly not “the simplest explanations of phenomena.” For example, her explanations of how Srila Prabhupada’s expressions of madhurya-rasa actually point to priyanarma are tedious and unnecessarily complicated. A similar problem is found in her attempt to discount as evidence his clear cut and simple statement “that somehow or other he was now engaged in that [Radha’s] service” by giving undue importance to the phrase “somehow or other.” Prabhupada often used such phrases in ordinary conversation, and they are hardly indicators of deep theological significance. To juggle such a phrase’s meaning is unwarranted convolution.1
Again, I am not trying to prove that Srila Prabhupada can only be in madhurya-rasa. Rather, I argued that although Babhru presented a well-reasoned case for Srila Prabhupada in sakhya-rasa, there are good reasons to think he could be in some other mood. Therefore I personally feel that it is best to allow advanced devotees to follow their own spiritual conscience when making the determination.
Beyond just these few clarifications in reference to “Sakhyam’s Razor,” I don’t feel it necessary to say much more on this issue. I am confident in my accommodating conclusion and also satisfied to let thoughtful readers come to their own conclusions after reading Babhru’s paper, my paper, “Sakhyam’s Razor,” and any forthcoming response from Babhru.
The second main point in my paper is that we must consider where such siddhantantic discussions are most profitably held. I alluded to the following considerations:
1) the place (public or private)
2) the audience (its qualification and the relevance of the discussion for any particular group)
3) people’s sentiments (how the spiritual master can reveal himself to the disciple in different ways)
I then gave reasons why I thought some of these conditions apply to this topic, especially stressing the fact that there are contending groups serving under various advanced Vaisnavas who have been inspired by Srila Prabhupada in different ways. I was not arguing for censorship but for sensitivity.
Vrndaranya ignored these considerations and instead cited Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja’s well-known quote that we should never shy away from discussing siddhanta. Of course, this is true, but that doesn’t resolve the question of where and with whom such discussions should be held. Was Krishnadasa Kaviraja thinking of the Internet when he made his pronouncement?
By quoting Kaviraja Gosvami in response to my proposition that one should carefully consider the best way to hold dialogues such as these, Vrndaranya appears to endorse the following principle: “There are no conditions on where and with whom siddhanta should be discussed.”
I thus think that the proper way for any dialogue on this topic to continue is to first establish a principle to guide the discussion. Is the principle that there are no conditions on the “wheres” and “with whoms” in the discussion of siddhanta, or should a discussion like this one be held more exclusively? If more exclusively, then what should be considered and how will it best apply to the present discussion? Now, that’s a relevant topic for open dialogue.
- Of course, Vrndaranya may argue that she is applying the principle to the totality of evidence. If that’s the case, then she should have the confidence to take contrary evidence seriously and not explain it away. Her hermeneutical strategy is reminiscent of Sankaracarya, who only graced with the status of highest truth Upanashadic statements with which he agreed and who relegated those with which he disagreed to a lower status. The principle of Ockham’s razor is to posit the explanation for the data in the simplest way, and not to disavow data that is contrary. [↩]
“Of course, this is true, but that doesn’t resolve the question of where and with whom such discussions should be held. Was Krishnadasa Kaviraja thinking of the Internet when he made his pronouncement?”
I disagree with Maharaja’s line of reasoning here. Obviously, there was no Internet at the time of KDK yet by putting his pronouncement in a book it was tantamount to putting it out on the Internet today. KDK intentions and purpose is the same although his medium was obviously different.
To add to my previous comment although KDK message would not have reached as many people as fast as the Internet in his day it was certainly substantial as books have very long shelf lives. Centuries later his words are being discussed on the Internet.
I agree with DDS’s opinion about not discussing this topic with general audience. But it is boring and taxing to belabor the point that Narayana maharaja’s opinion has already been public for a long time and this article was mainly to balance the skewed view in the public.
Why then do you not think it is not appropriate for public consumption? Several reasons as to why some think it is appropriate have been posted in the comments section of Vridaranya’s article. Do you disagree with them, and if so why?
I personally think that it is hard for people without deep spiritual experience and for those who are new to spiritual life and entrapped by the three modes of material nature to not get bewildered by arguments between advanced devotees on this topic. And I am not convinced of the power of logic in settling the matter for people who have made up their mind especially in spiritual life where people follow their gurus opinions completely. Just my thoughts. I don’t have specific sastric quotes to back my thoughts but I could think of couple of things. In the B.G itself confidential nature of particular knowledge is spoken about. Similarly it is an offence even to instruct a faithless person on the glories of the holy name.
I disagree with DDS’s way of using Sankaracarya’s example to discredit Vrindaranya. Every philosophy based on the Vedas weighs different quotes according to the goal they have in mind. And GV is no different. To many people outside GV it is a stretch how GV concepts are proven using vedas and evidence to the contrary is rejected. For example, GV favors S.B over other evidence. So there is nothing new in what Vrindaranya has done.
Its possible for Prabhupada (or anyone, for that matter) to have more than one spiritual identity. However, I think the real issue lies in the surprising fact that he did not tell his disciples what he was or what he aspired to, which is par for the course with Gaudiya Vaishnava gurus. Why he refrained from making that clear to his disciples is beyond me, but obviously it has become an issue.
But, if you keep in mind that more than one identity can be attained, then it doesn’t have to be an issue. However, I still do not understand how a disciple can perform bhajan without knowing at least this basic information about his or her guru. Rather than conversing about “is he this or is he that”, I think the real issue is “how can I do bhajan?”
dasi writes, “Its possible for Prabhupada (or anyone, for that matter) to have more than one spiritual identity.”
I would be very interested in seeing the pramana which dasi feels supports her statement. What I address in my booklet is readily accessible external evidence for Srila Prabhupada’s sthayi-bhava. Of the five varieties of bhava that combine to constitute rasa–vibhava, anubhava, sattvika-bhava, vyabhicari-bhava, and sthayi-bhava–sthayi-bhava is what Srila Prabhupada characterizes as “continuous ecstacy.” It refers to one of the five direct moods of service to Krishna. By “continuous” he means it is the one thing that does not change according to circumstances. So a devotee’s sthayi-bhava is either one of passive appreciation, servitude, friendly love, parental love, or conjugal love. I wonder if dasi can show me evidence from Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu that indicates one may be in friendly love and conjugal love at the same time. Of course, this can easily be resolved by examining the four main groups of friends: sakhas, priya sakhas, suhrit sakhas, and priyanarma sakhas. The sakhas’ love is influenced by a mood of servitorship. They are the younger boys in the group. The priya sakhas’ love is kevala, pure, not tinged by the influence of other sthayi-bhavas. They are Krishna’s equals in age, strength, etc. The suhrit sakhas’ friendly love is influenced by vatalya bhava. They are older boys, led by Balarama, and their nature is to feel protective of Krishna. And the priyanarma sakhas’ love, as I point out in my booklet, is very much influenced by an appreciation for the way the younger gopis and manjaris love Krishna. They are his most intimate friends and are instrumental in different ways in his pursuing his affairs with the girls of Vrindavana.
dasi also writes, “However, I think the real issue lies in the surprising fact that he did not tell his disciples what he was or what he aspired to, which is par for the course with Gaudiya Vaishnava gurus. Why he refrained from making that clear to his disciples is beyond me, but obviously it has become an issue.” Although there’s a little confusion in the pronoun reference in this sentence, it appears she means it is “par for the course” for a Gaudiya vaisnava guru to tell his or her disciples just what his or her spiritual identity is. This may be commonly practiced among some groups of Gaudiya vaishnavas. This is not the case, however, in the line coming from Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. We learn from those acharyas that these things are revealed by the holy name in the course of our progressive sadhana.
dasi further writes, “However, I still do not understand how a disciple can perform bhajan without knowing at least this basic information about his or her guru. Rather than conversing about ‘is he this or is he that,’ I think the real issue is ‘how can I do bhajan?’” In fact, bhajan is facilitated more by the sadhaka’s surrender than by any information he or she may glean about anyone else’s internal identity.
As I alluded to above, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura tells us that the details necessary for bhajan are revealed by the holy names as we progress in our dedication to service: “When the name is even slightly revealed, it shows me my own spiritual form and characteristics. It steals my mind and takes it to Krishna’s side. When the name is fully revealed, it takes me directly to Vraja, where it shows me my personal role in the eternal pastimes.”
The real issue, then, as I have stated many places, is “How can I progress in sad-anga saranagati?”
Dasi asks,
“However, I still do not understand how a disciple can perform bhajan without knowing at least this basic information about his or her guru. Rather than conversing about “is he this or is he that”, I think the real issue is ‘how can I do bhajan?’”
I have already addressed this question here where you asked it earlier. But here is a question to you that may help answer it in another way. How did Gopa Kumara of Brihat-bhagavatamrita do bhajana and attain his gopa svarupa without being told this basic information?
I like this cool comment…..It is like a breeze of fresh air to me: How can i do bhajan and How did Gopa Kumara of Brihat-bhagavatamrita do bhajana and attain his gopa svarupa without being told this basic information?
“I was making the point that Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s statement supports the possibility that one can see the issue in other ways. Directly, clearly, and irrefutably the quote does that.”
This statement which Srila Sridhara Maharaja made was a concession. Considering the context of the statement and the fact that recent contemplation of the time and circumstance of the writing of theJaladuta poem, seems to nullify the concession. It would seem then that this would be a very weak point to base one’s evidence that one can see the issue in other ways.
“For example, her explanations of how Srila Prabhupada’s expressions of madhurya-rasa actually point to priyanarma are tedious and unnecessarily complicated.”
I don’t agree with this at all. The explanations of priyanarma provide clarity to the discussion. How else could one harmonize the many statements within the totality of evidence? Certainly not by analyzing SP’s poem as his aspiring for gopi-bhava. It has been analyzed quite extensively on quite a few posts now that SP’s expressed sentiments are not consistent with the sentiment of one aspiring for manjari-bhava. Unless some other evidence is brought to the forefront to prove otherwise, what other sentiment can it be expressing but priyanarma and still dignify SP’s correct and realized knowledge of rasa and tattva?
Maharaja is reading a straw man argument in Vrindaranya’s article that is not there. I can see how he made this mistake. If anyone re-reads the section he takes issue with they will see it as well. He writes that he gave many reasons in support of his position but that it will be sufficient to discuss only one now. Again, look carefully at the one he has chosen to address and it’s clear that he has misunderstood the point Vrindaranya made. So it may not be sufficient for him to address only one point.
The following sentences in Maharaja’s article are truly loaded with negative implications and positioning.
“To keep my paper brief, I will limit my response to one example, where “Sakhyam’s Razor” shreds only a straw man and not my actual argument. There is little need to get into more. Although I gave many reasons to support my case, to address only one now will be sufficient.”
As one senior Godbrother wrote to me concerning the above,
“His making the one thing he responds to a sort of symbol for an innumerable list of faults he can’t take time to address is a rhetorical device. I don’t think it serves him well.”
I feel the vada Maharaja writes about is conspicuous by its absence in this article. Anyway I have my foot on the break here. So I will leave it at that.
I found this response to be pretty disappointing in its lack of substance. Maharaja failed to directly address the refutations Vrindaranya made and instead focussed on peripheral issues. She clearly demonstrated that Maharaja’s contention that it is reasonable to look at the evidence in other ways was a forced interpretation.
I think Maharaja’s concerns about discussing this issue in public are a bit late in coming since he is the one who posted his original reply to Babhru’s article on his blog. He could easily have chosen to send his response to Babhru privately. Once entering the public domain it’s totally unreasonable to think that it should not be discussed.
I still owe Dhanurdhara Maharaja a response. That I haven’t organized the time to compose it yet may serve as a lesson in keeping our lives simple, so we may focus our attention more sharply on those things that advance our surrender. I admit that, especially in light of our long association, postponing my response must seem discourteous to many. I intend no disrespect, either to Dhanurdhara Swami or his argument.
In the meantime, I want to reply very briefly to his restatement of the claims he made in his review. Here he writes,
With regard to the first claim, I feel my own claims were somewhat more modest than Maharaja makes them out to be. Rather than attempting to show there are no other possible explanations, I argue that the preponderance of the external evidence to which we have access seems to indicate a particular affinity in Srila Prabhupada’s character. I don’t claim other explanations are impossible; I do argue that the attempts to screw other explanations out of the evidence we have are, as Vrindaranya says, unnecessarily convoluted. To make more of my own claim than I intend seems to create a straw-man version, although I doubt that’s Maharaja’s intention.
Regarding his second claim, as I explain in the booklet, I have never discussed such things with more than a handful of devotees with whom I have quite confidential relationships. However, certain parties’ claims that Srila Prabhupada’s relationship with Krishna must be in madhurya bhava moved me to bring the body of evidence I’ve found to the forefront. In fact, it is their insistence that any explanation other than their own is impossible that is primarily responsible for my writing “O My Friend!”
There is more to say, and I am working on that, although rather carefully.