Philosophy of Guaranga

sri sachi dulala balya bala sangha cancalam
akumara sarva shastra daksha tarka mangalam
chatra sangha ranga digjigishu darpa samharam
prema dhama devam eva naumi gaura-sundaram

The young son of Sachidevi, Sri Gaurasundara, enjoyed mischief-
making with other naughty boys, just as He had enjoyed making
mischief in the previous age when he appearead as Krishna, the son
of Yasoda. These childhood pastimes were enjoyable not only for the
Lord and his young friends but also for the adults who were
witnesses to his pranks and merry-making.

In his adolescence Sri Gaurasundara was recognised as a prodigy in
matters of logic and debate. At that time he was known as Nimai
Pandit, the son of Sachi and Jagannatha Mishra. Sri Gaurasundara
used the skills of a logician to teach that the doctrine of pure
devotion is the last word in philosophic thought.

On the banks of the Ganges at Sri Nabadwip Dham, Nimai Pandit met
the most learned scholar of Sanskrit of all times, Digvijayi Pandit,
and defeated the pandit in a debate. Digvijayi Pandit was amazed to
find this boy Nimai Pandit could remember everything he had heard or
read only once. The Digvijayi Pandit was lost for words to counter
the logic and arguments of Sri Nimai Pandit. Students witnessing the
debate began to laugh at Digvijayi Pandit, but gentle-hearted Nimai
Pandit told the boys to be silent and not show disrespect. Then
playful Nimai deconstructed his own arguments and stated that the
arguments Digvijayi Pandit had put forward were correct. Digvijayi
Pandit was utterly awestruck to see the depth of the boy's
intelligence.

I sing with joy the unending glories of my sweet Lord, my golden
Gaurasundara, the one and only divine abode of pure love.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj

There are many schools of atheist philosophers. The most famous
atheist in Indian philosophy was Charvak Muni. His philosophy is
paralleled by the extreme atheists of Western philosophy. According
to their opinion, consciousness is the by-product of the chemical
combinations of different material substances. With the dissolution
of this physical body, neither soul nor consciousness remains. Only
the physical combinations of the different elements of the body
remain. Just as the combinations of different chemicals produces
something more than the individual chemicals themselves, the
physical combination of different material elements produce
consciousness. With the dissolution of this fleshy body, nothing
remains. This philosophy was first propounded in the West by
Epicurus.

Then comes the Buddhist school of philosophy. They say that when the
physical body is dissolved the subtle body -- the mental system --
goes on to take another birth. The Buddhists admit transmigration
from one body to the next, or reincarnation. According to them,
although this body may vanish, we must enter another body according
to our karma. If we work in a particular way, then the subtle body --
the mental system -- dissolves, and nothing remains. According to
the Buddists, there is no soul.

Sankaracharya's philosophy is similar -- with a slight difference.
The Buddhist school says that the individual soul does not exist.
According to them there is no permanent individual soul. Sankara
also said that no permanent individual soul exists. But Sankara says
that conscious substance (Brahman) exists as the ultimate reality.
This is the difference between Sankara and the Buddhists. According
to Sankara, consciousness itself is true; it is only the
consciousness of separate existence that is false. In his view, with
the dissolution of the mental system no individual soul remains. The
individual soul is only a reflection of the conscious substance
which is the ultimate reality (Brahman). With the dissolution of the
mental system, each soul's consciousness of individuality vanishes;
it is non-existent in the ultimate plane of reality.

According to Shankara, the ultimate reality is conscious substance:
Brahman. The example is given of the moon and its reflection in a
mirror. Remove the mirror and there is no reflection. His view is
that all individual souls are reflections from the common source:
Brahman, consciousness. So, Sankara says, in reality individual
souls are one and the same with Brahman.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's interpretation of Vedanta is different
from Shankaracharya's. Sri Caitanya says that we have to accept the
Vedic truth in its entirety, without any modification. Sankaracharya
has accepted only a few Vedic aphorisms according to his own choice.
And even that is a partial representation and not the whole truth.
For example, his four principle expressions from the Vedas are aham
brahmasmi: "I am Brahman;" tattvam asi: "Thou art that;" so'ham: "I
am that;" and sarvam khalv idam brahma: "Everything is Brahman."

Sri Caitanya analysed the meaning of the aphorism sarvam khalv idam
brahma [everything is Brahman] as follows: "According to
Sankaracarya, everything is one. He says brahma satyam jagan
mithya: 'Spirit is true, the world is false.' Sankaracharya says
that Brahma (spirit) exists, and that sarva (everything) does not
exist. If this is actually true, and everything is one, then why
does the question of existence or non-existence arise at all?

In the aphorism sarva khalv idam brahma, sarva -- "everything" --
exists and brahma -- "spirit" -- also exists. In this
expression, "many" exists and "one" also exists. There is many and
there is one. "Again, if everything is one, then the question
arises, "to whom are we speaking?" "For whom have the Vedas come
with this advice?" Both the relative and the Absolute exist
together; they are coexistent. The absolute and the relative are
also represented in the Vedantic aphorism tat tvam asi: "Thou art
that. Tat or "that" is there and tvam "you" is also there. Both
variety and unity are found represented in the aphorism tat tvam
asi, but Sankaracarya accepts one and rejects the other. His
explanation is therefore a misinterpretation of the original meaning
of the Vedanta-sutras. It is not a proper interpretation of the
Vedas, because he has thrust his own idea or conception forward in
the name of the Vedanta. Sankaracarya's interpretation of Vedanta is
artificial. It is selfish and provincial.

This is the refutation of Sankaracarya given by Sri Caitanya
Mahaprabhu, and, as far as we are concerned, it cannot be seen
otherwise. If we try to follow the interpretation of Shankaracarya,
then what meaning can be found in this statement of the Upanishads --
Yato va imani bhutani jayante yena jatani jivanti? "The Absolute
Truth is He from whom everything is coming, who is maintaining
everything and within whom everything exists, into whom everything
enters at the time of annihilation." What does this statement of the
Upanishads mean? It is sufficient for our understanding to accept
the direct meaning: Is not the self-explanatory meaning of these
words sufficient to understand this simple statement of the
Upanishads? Is it not specific? Does this statement say that the
Absolute Truth is non-differentiated? How it can be?

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu defeats Sankaracharya through common sense.
The unique characteristic of his argument is that he refutes
opposing views through common sense. He defeats his philosophical
opponents not with abstract, difficult, and intellectual arguments
but with common sense.

When Sri Caitanya wanted to demonstrate with common sense the
supremacy of Narayana over Siva, he said that one may just consider
the position of the Ganges. The Ganges is the water that washes the
feet of Narayana, and yet she rests on the head of Shiva. From this,
we can easily use common sense to see which of the two holds the
superior position. When Sri Caitanya wanted to show that Krishna is
greater than Narayana, he pointed out that we may take the example
of Lakshmidevi. Lakshmidevi aspires after the association of
Krishna. Although she has everything she might need with Narayana,
still she has some aspiration for the company of Krishna. On the
other hand, when the gopis meet Narayana, they pray that their
devotion to Krishna may be enhanced by His grace. They have no
attraction for Narayana.

In this way, by applying our common sense, our intuition, one may
judge the nature of reality. Intuition will be far more helpful than
abstruse argument. Vedanta confirms this in the aphorism tarka
pratishtanat: "Argument can never help us reach any real
conclusion." Rather it is only intuition and common sense that can
really help us. This is the recommendation of Sri Caitanya, and this
is how he refuted many scholars, including even the great all-
conquering Digvijaya Pandit of Kashmir.


Index Of All Verses Next Verse