"Hogs, Dogs, Camels, and Asses, and Fools and Rascals," Who Said That?
BY: ACARYAVILASA DASA
Mar 05, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, USA (SUN) — A friendly reply to "Logical Fallacy in the Jiva Tattva Debate" by Gokula dasa. The comments of Acaryavilasa, presaged with "Comment:" and within […] are interspersed with the text of Gokula dasa.
Gokula dasa starts:
"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."
Comment: [He who criticises me is my friend, he who praises me is my enemy. This maxim in very pertinent, so we thank Gokula dasa for his attentions and hope that he, Bahushira dasa, Gauragopala dasa and Rupavilasa dasa will also accept my analyses of their Goloka-Envy-Fallvada misconception-essays in the same light. However, we must state right from the onset that we are always amazed why devotees of many years just cannot understand a basic practice of realising Vaisnava Siddhanta. What is that practice? It is to see all the statements of guru, in this case Srila Prabhupada, in the light of the Vedas, smrti and sruti. One should never draw inferences from the words of guru that are against the plain statements of the Vedas. But that is the basic strategy of the Goloka-Envy-Fallvadis. Firstly they completely ignore all the Vedas, Brahma Samhita and Bhagavad-gita verses that this writer has constantly given to corroborate the Vaisnava Siddhanta that irrefutably and unequivocally establishes (1) that the initial fall of the jiva is from the margin of the Causal Ocean by his own free will after creation from Sri Maha Visnu (See Appendix One); and (2) that the jiva once attaining Goloka never again falls to the material conditioning (See Appendix Two). These are not my statements but the statements of the Vedas and the direct words of Sri Krsna. Now isn't that amazing? Here we have a "debate" on these two points of siddhanta and one side acts as if the words of Vedas and Sri Krsna have no existence, even though they are being offered time and time again….! And then these GEFs not only ignore the words of Sri Krsna and Vedas, but also ignore the conclusion of Srila Prabhupada:
Srila Prabhupada's Conclusion:
Purport, Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.16.26:
"The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuntha planet, for it is the eternal abode."
Now, isn't that amazing? The above is just one of many unequivocal similar statements, but the GEFs compulsively argue against this "conclusion". Sri Krsna says "no return" in many places directly in the Gita, but the GEFs argue against the Supreme Lord directly. Now you say one shouldn't "get personal", but in the Gita, Sri Krsna has a whole list of names for those that don't surrender to Him:
Bhagavad-gita 7.15:
na mam duskrtino mudhah
prapadyante naradhamah
mayayapahrta-jnana
asuram bhavam asritah
"Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me."
So Sri Krsna has a very personal and judgmental attitude towards those that don't accept His perfect words – "lowest, foolish, miscreants, illusioned, and demons". Then there is Sukadeva Goswami in the Bhagavatam calling certain people "hogs, dogs, camels and asses". Famously, Srila Prabhupada many times classified persons as "fools and rascals". Pretty heavy words.
Perhaps you have not understood the difference between the ‘ad hominid' attack and the ‘a fools is known when he opens his mouth' understanding. ‘Ad hominid' is a tactic where one simply attacks the person of a person, such as calling him a "dim-wit" or "thief", as a means of distracting the discussion from the winning points he is making. The personal attack has no relationship to his points. This stands in stark contrast to the inevitable conclusions one must reach when a person insists on something quite ridiculous, such as saying that "we are all on a bed in Goloka dreaming we are in the material world". Then one can engage the tactic of reductio ad absurdum, reducing an idea to absurdity. For example, when Gauragopala and fellow GEFs assert that "we are all on a bed in Goloka dreaming we are in the material world and body" we can then extrapolate the implications of such an idea to illustrate its ridiculous nature. For example, if Gauragopala believes that, then there must be a section of Goloka where unlimited beds are laid out with zillions times zillions of souls dreaming. And then after billions of earthy births, they just wake up and carry on! Similarly, when the GEFs are driving down the freeway in L.A. taking the kids to school while they are dreaming on a bed in Goloka, we certainly hope they don't wake up in Goloka while at seventy miles an hour with the kids in the back seat.
So there is a big difference between purely personal attacks and illustrating that a person is ridiculous for asserting ridiculous non-Vedic ideas. After all, a man is known by his philosophy. And just as a spade is a spade; a fool is a fool. And Sri Krsna and Srila Prabhupada are not shy about judging persons on the basis of the Vedas. And as stated in previous essays, someone who doesn't accept the Vedic Siddhanta is defined as a pasandi, an atheist. Take the Vedas and you are a devotee; leave the Vedas aside and you are an atheist, a demon.
So ultimately, everything is personal because that is Vaisnavism. The Lord is the Supreme Person, so when Gokula dasa asserts that he will reply in the "non-personal" manner, well this is not really possible, simply because he is a person and he is replying to a person. Thus how is a "non-personal" reply or interchange actually possible?]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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."
Comment: [This is a very loose definition of the "strawman tactic". Actually strawman means to ascribe widely differing views to a person and then knock them down. However even if we accept this definition, it is not enough to just accuse a person; one is obliged to give evidence or examples of the transgression, which Gokula doesn't and so this degrades his assertion to just "throwing mud", which is no argument at all.]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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."
Comment: [Well, if you prefer not "to engage in those particulars", then why have you?]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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)."
Comment: [Thank you for your kind words, and I will check myself for mistakes. I recognise your gentle and unassuming nature But may I say at this point that logic and argument have their limits and Srila Prabhupada spoke on this. Our Vaisnava ontological paradigm is not based on logic and argument, but rather contemplation of the import of sastra – As It Is. So I agree that logic and argument can be boorish and useless, but it can be employed to expose the fallacies of those that only have that in their armoury, which is all the GEFs have. They can only ignore the Vedas and Gita, and apply misinterpretation to selected quotes of Srila Prabhupada, because frankly according to Vedas their ‘philosophy' is one hundred per cent bogus. A spade is a spade; and nonsense is nonsense. To assert that mundane envy operates in Goloka-Vrndavana is nonsense of the lowest order. And it is very offensive to propagate such nonsense in the name of Srila Prabhupada.]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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."
Comment: [If Bahushira has the philosophy of Goloka satyam, jagat mithya, ‘I'm sleeping on a bed in Goloka, dreaming my material life, partially here and there', then his status must be judged accordingly as explained above. The learned will understand that this "dreaming" misconception is closely related to Mayavada philosophy in its many distortions of Vedas, so if one asserts Mayavada, then what is one?]
Gokula dasa writes:
Comment: [If Bahushira is a "faithful" disciple, then why doesn't he accept without equivocation the conclusion of Srila Prabhupada:
Purport, Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.16.26:
"The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuntha planet, for it is the eternal abode."
As Srila Prabhupada would say, "What is the difficulty!"]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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."
Comment: [Bahushira wasn't offensive and personal in his previous postings?]
Gokula dasa writes:
Comment: [A person is known by his words, inevitably. Vaisnavism, the ultimate siddhanta, is personalism.]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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."
Comment: [Now Gokula is getting personal, while pretending to not get personal. What is that called?]
Gokula dasa writes:
Comment: ["It seems to me". Whenever we read something like that, we can be quite sure that mental speculation is following.]
Gokula dasa writes:
"…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?"
Comment: [Gokula doesn't disappoint. The above paragraph is simply an embarrassing display of conjecture and speculation from a mind that should instead be contemplating the Vedas on these points of Vaisnava Siddhanta, rather than exercising the imagination.]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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."
Comment: [I recognize you have a "logical problem", so the best solution is to get out the Vedas, smrti and sruti, and start contemplating their import. Then by the grace of Sri Krsna in the heart enlightenment may come. What did Srila Prabhupada say: "Read my Books!"]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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.)"
Comment: ["I think" is not a valid argument; we want to know what the Vedas say. Again we must establish the principle that the words of the spiritual master should not be interpreted against the Vedas. This is a case of applying non-Vedic misinterpretation to selective quoting. To assert that one's own interpretation of magazine motif has more weight than the verses of the Upanisads is a grand mistake.]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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."
Comment: [My translations come from Vedabase. Practically exclusively. It's easier to cut and paste them.]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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."
Comment: [I agree entirely; thus I use the Vedabase.]
Gokula dasa writes:
"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."
Comment: [Yes, those terrible karmi translators. Thank Sri Krsna and Ekanatha dasa for the Vedabase. So Gokula dasa, thanks for the input. Read the sastra, and be ready to change your opinions if you find they conflict with the Vedas. And remember: Don't interpret Srila Prabhupada against the plain words of the Vedas. Here some samples:
Appendix One: The Initial Fall of the Jiva
Sri Brahma Samhita, 5.11:
sahasra-sirsa purusah
sahasraksah sahasra-pat
sahasra-bahur visvatma
sahasramsah sahasra-suh
"The Lord of the mundane world, Maha-Visnu, possesses thousands of thousands of heads, eyes, and hands. He is the source of thousands of thousands of avataras in His thousands of thousands of subjective portions. He is the creator of thousands of thousands of individual souls."
Comment: Sri Maha Visnu, situated within the Causal Ocean is "the creator of thousands of thousands of individual souls." So Sri Maha Visnu creates souls and in the tata or margin between the material and spiritual realms these tatastha-shakti-jivas choose devotion or rebellion in the spiritual and material realms respectively as explained in the following Upanisad:
In the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad, 4.3.9, we find a description of the jiva situated in the Causal Ocean:
tasya va etasya purunasya dve eva sthane bhavata
idam ca paraloka-sthanam ca sandhyam trtiyam
svapna-sthanam tasmin sandhye sthane tinthan ete
ubhe sthane pasyati idam ca paraloka-sthanam ca
"The jiva has access to two places, both of which he may seek, this material world and the spiritual realm. He is situated in svapna-sthanam, the dream-like third state, on the margin of these two worlds [the Casual Ocean]. From that middle position he is able to see both the material and the spiritual worlds."
The Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad, 4.3.18, further describes the nature of the marginal position of the jiva and the choice with which he is presented initially:
tad yatha maha matsya ubhe kule'
nusancarati purvam ca param caivam
evayam purusa etav ubhav antav
anusancarati svapnantam ca buddhantam ca
"The symptoms of the marginal existence are like those of a huge aquatic who is capable of living on both the eastern and western sides of the river at his own will. Similarly, the jiva soul, situated within the waters of the Causal Ocean, which lies between the material and spiritual worlds, is able to reside in both the dream world of matter and the spiritual world of divine wakefulness."
Appendix Two: No Fall upon Attainment of Vaikuntha Planets
Bhagavad-gita 8.21:
paras tasmat tu bhavo 'nyo
'vyakto 'vyaktat sanatanah
yah sa sarvesu bhutesu
nasyatsu na vinasyati
"That which the Vedantists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination that place from which having attained it, one never returns—that is My supreme abode."
Purport of Srila Prabhupada:
"When one attains to it [the Supreme Abode], he [the soul] never returns to the material world."
Purport Srila Prabhupada Bhagavad-gita 8.22:
"It is here clearly stated that the supreme destination, from which there is no return, is the abode of Krsna, the Supreme Person."
Bhagavad-gita 8.15:
mam upetya punar janma
duhkhalayam asasvatam
napnuvanti mahatmanah
samsiddhim paramam gatah
"After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogis in devotion, never return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because they have attained the highest perfection."
Bhagavad-gita 8.16:
a-brahma-bhuvanal lokah
punar avartino 'rjuna
mam upetya tu kaunteya
punar janma na vidyate
"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again."
Comment: Sri Krsna and the Vedas are the Highest Authority and the words of the spiritual master should never be twisted against the clear conclusions that Sri Krsna and the Vedas present as above. That is the Mad-Elephant Offense.
Aum Tat Sat
