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
hks@bbt.se (Harikesa Swami) (08/18/90)
In article <1885@idunno.Princeton.EDU> mtxinu!sybase!gumby!mani@ucbvax.Berkeley\ .EDU (Mani Varadarajan) writes: 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? You have misunderstood what P.Garbha has written. He does not assume that Krsna and Brahman are different, rather that Krsna is the personality behind Brahman. As stated in the Bhagavad gita itself, brahmano hi pratisthaham; "I am the basis of the impersonal brahman." Krsna is the source of Brahman. Brahman is the energy of Krsna who is the energetic source. Brahman is the effulgence emanating from the Supreme Personality, and as the energy of the Lord it is not different from Him. Therefore They are not two different entities, rather two aspects of the same absolute truth. But according to the Gita, Krsna is the source of Brahman. >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: Prabhupada is a great devotee of >God, but I think that his devotion has blinded his >scholarship--no disrespect intended. This, sir, is your biased personal opinion. It is not the opinion of the thousands of scholars in the US and other countries that have praised Prabhupada's literatures of being of a high standard and quality. The commentaries of Prabhupada's gita follow strictly in line with what Krsna Himself has said in the Bhagavad gita. You are speaking wildly, without attempting to prove what you are stating. Prabhupada is a mature scholar, not a new boy who is trying to translate an ancient text. His inclusion of 'extra' phrases into the text of the translations is to amplify the original intention of the speaker, not to cloud the original intention. One simply has to understand what the BG is saying to understand that this is so. I suspect that you do not understand what is said in the BG, otherwise how can you misinterpret so badly the intention of Krsna? Again and again through the gita Krsna is proclaiming that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and if Prabhupada amplifies that, what is the wrong? Here is what some of your academic superiors say about Prabhupada's version of the gita, "There is little question that this edition is one of the best books avail- able on the Gita and devotion. Prabhupada's translation is an ideal blend of literal accuracy and religious insight." Dr. Thomas J. Hopkins, Chairman, Dept. of Religious studies, Franklin and Marshall College. Indeed, 'an ideal blend of literal accuracy and religious insight.' Because you seem to display a lack of religious insight, you fail to see the good points in the book. You seem worried that P.Garbha is a Hare Krsna devotee and you seem to enjoy the role of a policeman informing the other network members that he is so, as if this was a fault, but sir, this is a conference on religion, and it seems that it requires more input from religious minded personalities with insight into the religious themes of the East. Your input is also welcome, but why do you impugn the input of a devotee of a great tradition as if he were something bad? You are displaying your own biases which are not necessarily welcome in the conference. Here is another quote from a Professor of Philosophy, "His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is, of course, profoundly sympathetic to the theme. He brings to it, moreover, a special interpretive insight, a powerful and persuasive presentation in the bhakti [devotional] tradition.- ...The Swami does a real service for students by investing the beloved Indian epic with fresh meaning. Whatever our outlook may be, we should all be grateful for the labor that has led to this illuminating work." Dr. Geddes MacGregor, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California. To save the net people money, I have only quoted two Professors, but there are thousands of reviews that echo the same sentiments. You stand in a minority group of narrow minded persons who cannot see past a literal translation due to their inability to enter into the spirit of a text. Stand aside and let the others see what a gift there is to receive from these books and stop trying to block the way. The others on the net have their own intelligence, and when they read the books of Srila Prabhupada they can make up their own minds as to what is the quality of the work. They don't need you standing in their way pushing them in your own direction. >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. Yes dear readers, please see the book called Isopanisad. Make up your own mind. Why be blinded by the smokescreen of scholarly adolescence put up by foolish persons who themselves have never won any scholarly acclaim. An introductory sanskrit student has no right to comment on the mature works of an accomplished scholar. Let us discuss the 'errors' in the commentary of the Isopanisad and let the net people make up their own minds as to who is correct and who is not. Harikesa Swami
pgd@bbt.se (P.Garbha) (08/18/90)
In article <1885@idunno.Princeton.EDU> mtxinu!sybase!gumby!mani@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mani Varadarajan) writes: >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. The supreme truth is realized in three stages: 1) As the impersonal Brahman 2) As Paramatma, the super-soul situated in the hearts of all living entities. 3) As Bhagavan, the Supreme Person. Krishna is all of this, He is the supreme Brahman (param-brahman), He is the supersoul, and He himself is the person Bhagavan. This are just different ways of realizing Him. This is sometimes compared to realization of the sun. At the first stage you realize that the sun emits rays of light, and heat. That is compared to the Brahman realization of the absolute truth. You experience the energy, and emanations from the supreme truth. As a second stage, you can relaize that the rays of the sun, emanates from the planet sun. At this stage you see that the rays have an source. That is compared to the Paramatma-realization. Finally you can enter the sun-planet, and actually see the real source of both the globe and the energy. That is compared to the Bhagvan realization of the Supreme Lord. What I want to point out that the Brahman realization is an aspect of the supreme truth, but not the full final realization of Bhagavan. So, it is clear the Krishna is the supreme Brahman, still, realizing Him as Brahman is not the full realization of Him as Krishna the supreme Personality of Godhead. >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. That is allright. Krishna is acknowledging realization of Brahman, as realizing Him. That is liberation. >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. I could say the same about "religious mindsets". What I mean is that you are jumping to conclusions. You have no knowledge whatsoever of the computer setups here, and which persons are using them. It belongs to net etiquette to don't jump to conclusions of where the poster is posting from. Still I take it as a compliment to be compared to the Vatican. :-) If you consider Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Rupa Gosvami and Bhaktivinod Thakur as traditional "ISKCON" teachers (All three pre-dated ISKCON with between 500 and 100 years) i think that is also a compliment. But you are right, ISKCON is just a continuation of the ancient Krishna-bhakti-tradition. > >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. There are over 100 English translations of the Bhagavad Gita. Probably many of those translations claim to have the "real" version of the Gita. So which one is the real version? The meaning that Krishna meant, when He was speaking it, at the battle of Kurusketra? A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada comes in a direct, unbroken, guru-disciple chain, which emanates from Krishna himself. (The Brahma-Madhva-Gaudya-Vaisnava-Sampradaya) Thus, if you are looking for the true meaning of the Bhagavad-Gita, you might have hard to find a more qualified source than Srila Prabhupada. The Guru-Parampara (guru-disciple chain) is a very important concept in the Vedic philosophy. Actually, philosophers were not accepted unless they had a bona-fide Guru, in the disciplic succession. That was the safeguard that their words were bona-fide. Srila Prabhupada's translations are especially made to convey the true meaning of the Bhagavad Gita, as Krishna meant it. And this for westeners, who might have no prior knowledge at all, of Vedic philosophy. Thus some choices of words might not conform to what other sanskrit scholars might say. But sanskrit is also a very trick language, and the true meaning of the Vedic scriptures have been debated, by Indian scholars, for hundreds of years. Srila Prabhupadas translations are for giving out the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, and not sanskrit grammar. Sometimes he refers to the context of other verses in the translation of a verse, just to simplify for the reader. That is to his credit, not against. Many sanskrit scholars also praise his brilliant way of translating. Every translator, from one language to another, knows that there are numerous ways of translating a single sentence, and arguments of which way is "the way" are pointless. > >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. Because there is not the slightest hint that Godhead is beeing referred to, he points it out, just so that we should understand. As for the "lesser intelligence" of women, one has to ask "less intelligent than whom?". For your information I can tell you that men, of today, are also considered "less intelligent", and in fact to have the same level of intelligence as women. The intelligence referred to is about understanding of the Vedic scriptures. Do you remember every single word from a book, after having heard it once? If not, you are also considered "less intelligent". The vedic concept of "intelligence" is just far removed from today's standard. This is due to the progress in Kali yuga. Everyone is "less intelligent" in Kali yuga. > >books to read.'' Prabhupada's commentaries also show a severe >lack of knowledge of traditional commentaries; see, for .. This is not true. If you read Srila Prabhupada's books you can see that he very often quote previous commentors on the works. You can of course find persons, who has made comments on the Vedic scriptures, that he does not quote. In particular, he might not refer to persons in the mayavadi-sampradayas. > >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. I beg to differ about this point. Everyone knows that timing archeological artifacts is very unprecise, and tricky. About the origin of the Vedic scriptures, the researchers factually don't know very much. That is a known fact. But they have put forward different hypothesises, based on language and similarities between different scriptures. That does not make it a fact. Some choose to accept what the Vedas say about their own origin, in preferrence to unprecise speculations. Prishnigarbha das. Disclaimer: The opinions written here, are not neccessarily the opinion of the BBT, ISKCON, or any other owner of any computer this message is passing through.