[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta Discussions (Re:Superstitions)
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: Vedanta Discussions (Re:Superstitions)
-
From: susarla@great-gray.owlnet.rice.edu (H. Krishna Susarla)
-
Date: 20 Nov 1994 01:35:06 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Sat Nov 19 20: 23:44 1994
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
-
References: <3aed3c$7b9@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
K. Sadananda (sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil) wrote:
: Just to say that Prabhupada's or any one else's is "As it is" and the rest
: are all interpretations or misinterpretations only borders to fanaticism
: and does not establish a fact. Everyone can make the same statement about
: their interpretation. That obviously cannot be a basis for argument. I
: will come back to this topic of what then is the pramana or basis for
: discussion.
No. The REAL fanatacism is to say that the translations and explanations
of scriptures provided by a spiritual master in an authentic line of
disciplic succession are incorrect. Swami Prabhupada's guru-cishya sampradaya
can be traced all the way back to Lord Krishna. Therefore, we should
accept his explanations as most accurate over other commentators like
Sankracarya, CHinmayananda, Vivekananda who cannot provide a complete listing
of how they received their knowledge.
This is actually the system of presenting Vedic knowledge which is prescribed
in the scriptures. Since people have all sorts of opinions on all kind of
matters, we should turn to a higher wisdom -- the Vedic literature, to
resolve all disputes. None of us can claim to be as wise as the sages who
compiled the Vedic literature. This literature is about reaching the one,
Supreme Absolute Truth, so there is no possibility of multiple meanings if
everything is examined within context. And because Sanskrit is a difficult
language to interpret correctly, we should trust the interpretations of the
spiritual masters who received their spiritual knowledge properly -- in
disciplic succession beginning with God Himself, who is the author and the
purpose of studying the Vedas. It is a first step in demonstrating humility
when you abandon personal speculations and instead accept the explanations
of scriptures that are provided by the people whose job it is to get involved
in spiritual matters.
I think that this is basically the central problem with the recent
discussion/flame war between the devotees and the mayavadis. The devotees
speak with conviction because they have accepted knowledge only from bona
fide representatives of VedaVyasa (people like Swami Prabhupada, Ramanujacarya,
and Madhvacarya) and have therefore abandoned unauthorized interpretations.
However, the mayavadis generally don't believe in the existence of Lord Krishna
or his expansion as VedaVyasa. Thus, for them, the authenticity of scripture
is a matter of personal opinion, and one interpretation is as good as another.
So, as long as there are those who believe in those sort of moral relativism,
it isn't likely that anything constructive will result from the kind of
discussion we just had. The bottom line is what do you believe in? Do you
accept the existence of God, and in His ability to perfectly educate His
pure devotees (and their ability to perfectly pass this information on)? Or
are you still suffering from the post-colonialist Western Indologists' "This
is all mythology" mindset, and therefore take shelter in Advaita to salvage
any remaining cultural pride you might have left?
I rarely meet a Muslim who doesn't believe in Allah, or a Christian who doesn't
believe in Jesus. It's only the Hindus who often do not fully believe in
Krishna. What a shame this is for the most civilized religious culture on
Earth. Perhaps this is one of the many results of the degenerating effects
of Kali Yuga.
-- Krishna Susarla
