mani@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mani Varadarajan) (08/15/90)
From: pgd@bbt.se (P.Garbha) P. Garbha writes: >Krishna over and over again points out that He more than Brahman, that >He is the person behind Brahman. That just worshiping Brahman is not >as good as worshiping Him with love. (bhakti) Why are you constantly assuming that Krishna and Brahman are different? It is quite clear in the Gita that Krishna *is* the Parabrahman, or Supreme Brahman. To make them out to be different entities is putting a superstructure over the Gita that doesn't exist in the first place. True, there are verses referring to something as the ``womb'' of creation, but that clearly refers only to matter existent in the universe. >So, to repeat, the theists also reach the nirvana stage, but they >don't stay there. They continue, to get the realization of the >personal feature of the Lord. They who worship the impersonal Brahman, >they stay in Brahman, and don't reach the Lord as a person. Maybe some don't want to reach the ``Lord as a person''! I have a theistic conception of God as well, but to make the claim that Buddhist liberation is inferior is uncalled for. To each his own. >>Moreover, I hope all of the rest of you know where Mr. Garbha >>is posting from--the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, a branch of the >>Hare Krishna movement. >What does this mean? Where I post from does not neccesarily have any >relationship with my opinions. You post from "sybase.com" or >"headcrash.berkeley.edu". Does that mean that you speak the official >standpoint for for the whole Berkeley university, just because your >mail is going through their computer, or that you are using one of >their computer terminals? No. Neither Sybase nor U.C. Berkeley is a religious institution. But, if I were posting from the Vatican, it's clear what kind of religious mindsets I would have to start with. Or, if I posted an article as to what I thought was the best engineering University, my being from Berkeley certainly would indicate bias. You've also referred to traditional ISKCON teachers as ``experts''; therefore, I make the implication above. >>some of the Hare Krishna movement's distortions of Sanskrit >>texts are absolutely unbearable. Their founder, Swami >>Prabhupada, seemingly pulls words out of the sky and inserts >>them into the original at his own fancy, so that the texts say >>what he wants them to. >This is also not very nicely said. >If someone calls "Einstein" an idiot, and that his the theories are >completely wrong, who is taking that person seriously? Only be having >a deep knowledge about the subject matter, and by proofs, can you >question his theories. Just loose words in the air, speak more about >the person who speaks these words, than about his intended object. >(No other comparisions with Einstein meant) I think I have enough knowledge of Sanskrit and Hindu religious texts to know what's a distortion and what's not. All one has to do is open up Prabhupada's commentary on the Gita and see what he has done; disclaimer: Prabupada is a great devotee of God, but I think that his devotion has blinded his scholarship--no disrespect intended. Wherever he can, for example, he brings in the name of Krishna, even when there isn't the slightest hint that Godhead is being referred to. In addition, his comments that women are of ``lesser intelligence'' aren't very nice for anyone to read, man or woman. Regarding the narrowness of the H. Krishna movement's scholarship, I refer to my many conversations with the devotees here in Berkeley. I've asked them, ``Have you read the commentary of Ramanuja or Sankara on the Gita or the Upanisads?'' (Sankara and Ramanuja are the two most important systematic religious philosophers in Indian history) The reply I always get is, ``No, we don't read theirs. We have our own books to read.'' Prabhupada's commentaries also show a severe lack of knowledge of traditional commentaries; see, for example, his commentary on the Isa Upanisad, which, as any introductory Sanskrit student can see, is *absolutely* overinterpreted to the point of error. In addition are the claims that the Mahabharata war was in 3000 B.C., etc. Claims such as those have been archeologically denied, but the H. Krishnas don't care. Mani Mani mani@sybase.com mani@headcrash.berkeley.edu ``Without there being any reason, he just did it!'' -- Nammal_var