Logical Fallacy in the Jiva Tattva Debate
BY: GOKULA DAS
Mar 04, CALIFORNIA, USA (SUN) — The scholarship on both sides of the Jiva Tattva debate is intimidating, so I stayed out of it. But it appears that both an aparadha, and simultaneously the most basic of logical fallacies -- attacking the speaker instead of just what is spoken by him -- has been committed against Bahushira dasa by Acaryavilasa dasa. I intend to keep my response as non-personal as possible, however.
In his attempted refutation of Bahushira dasa's article, "The Srimad Bhagavatam and the Fall of the Jiva," (or at least in his other articles), Acaryavilasa shows a knowledge of logic and its fallacies. Yet (and firstly here), he committed the ‘straw-man' fallacy several times. This is where one recapitulates an opponent's argument or position in a way that is easy to knock down or to make it look bad, which it seems he did many times.
However, up front, I'll state openly that I prefer not to engage in those particulars as it can become quite involved, each instance growing many legs, chasing off in different tangent directions. I prefer to focus on a more fundamental point below. I'm just addressing this one problem above, early on here. Acaryavilasa seems like a sincere Vaisnava just defending his understanding of our philosophy. So I'll only suggest that he check himself for the possibility that he is doing that (the 'straw man' fallacy).
My focus is on the fact that he committed the most basic logical fallacy of attacking the person of Bahushira as opposed to just his arguments in several instances, one in which he says that Bahushira is or must be a Mayavadi for his position. Bahushira is a longtime faithful disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Anyone who knows him personally would find this accusation laughable. Bahushira, on other hand, knows that personal attacks of an opponent won't help the logic of his case. Moreover he is being careful not to step into the minefield of Vaisnava apharad.
Acaryavilasa should have sought a way of making his points without getting personal. For instance, I have an argument against his position wherein I could say that Acaryavilasa is like a ‘get-saved' Christian. Howsoever, what I can do instead of making a low-blow personal comment like that is make a logical comparison of an aspect of his understanding of our Vaisnava philosophy to some Christians so that he can see my problem with it, without insult.
Here it is. It seems to me that an overall effect or result of his point of view is similar to Christians who have a need to believe that once they are saved, nothing can change that, not even their own future wrongful or non-Christian behavior. Their salvation is once and for all time, no matter what they do or what else happens. This compares to the thinking that once you are with Krishna, it is impossible for you to fall down from that relationship – not that you won't, but that you actually can't. But this suggests that free will only exists outside of a relationship with Krishna, and that once you are with Him you're permanently locked-in (saved). Nothing else can change that, as though, once you're with Him, you no longer have a choice but to be with Him. This would be consoling in the sense that you can't possibly come back to this material "hell' again. And who in their right mind would want to leave Krishna? But if you can't do that anyway, like it is actually impossible once you are with Him, then what is the meaning of the love in that relationship since you have no choice in it from that point on?
I think (I hope) I've stated my logical problem with Acaryavilasa's position in this example without personal assault, but that only a purely logical doubt was expressed.
While I'm on topic (fallvada verses can't fallvada), I'll weigh in very meagerly here, by citing one of Srila Prabhupada's favorite phrases: "Back Home, Back To Godhead." He didn't say "Home to Godhead." The word "back" appears there twice. And if this is taken in it's simplest, most direct meaning, it is suggestive of Prabhupada's overall point of view on the topic – that we must return. (This is admittedly a simplistic argument, but I think it has some merit.)
I should also respectfully submit one other suggestion about where we are getting our shastra. Acaryavilasa cites texts from Upanishads and Vedanta literature in some cases without citing the sources or lineage for the translations he uses. If one pulls these texts off the web, from a college library or some other public source, it is likely that one can also find the same text elsewhere with a practically opposite meaning/translation. Most Vedic texts from such non-Sampradaya sources are translated by secular scholars and self-interested swamis or cult groups. They can really butcher the Sanskrit language.
Acaryavilasa may have good translations, but if he got them from such sources the reliability of the translations are like a lottery. It is best to use Vedic texts translated and handed down from one of the authorized disciplic lines (which is also Vedic tradition) so that there will be a long line of consistency in the way the Sanskrit language is translated. Then one can compare the documented history of translations, and their siddhanta, between authentic Sampradayas in order to choose the one that he or she finds is closest to their heart. One should then commit and stick with that one Sampradaya – the one in which one presumably finds their guru – and the translations should be received in that way.
Authentic Sampradayas have track records to follow for translation consistency. And the purpose for the way they translate, their siddhanta, is up front, making one's decision for a guru and Sampradaya clear. (And thus one also avoids the festering cesspool of molten weirdness that comprizes the ubiquitous karmi translations of the Vedas.) I'm not saying that that is where Acaryavilasa got the texts in question, I'm just saying that he didn't report their source or lineage one way or the other in many cases.
Hari Bol, Vaisnavas.
