[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Reply to Tolerance towards other Religious Viewpoints
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Reply to Tolerance towards other Religious Viewpoints
-
From: "Muthuram M. Sujana Kumar" <skumar@eagle.wbm.ca>
-
Date: 16 Jul 1995 01:48:31 -0300
-
From news@Owl.nstn.ca Sun Jul 16 00: 36:46 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network
-
References: <3tujk0$7kd@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@nstn.ns.ca
Hari Krishna Susarla <susarla@owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > In Hinduism, God is not an object. Objects (images) are used to
> > help Hindus to visualize God. The names and forms are vehicles and
> > not the destination. Lord Krishna is not an object but he
> > represents the "ABSOLUTE." Vishnushasranamam contains 1008 names
> > of Lord Krishna (Vishnu). All these names and forms mean the same
> > abstract God "Brahman."
Although, in my view, parts of this statement are correct, I would not
agree with the last sentence, regarding "abstract God Brahman".
However, the reply by Hari Krishna Susarla, makes it impossible to
refrain from commenting.
> What you write above is not correct, at least not according to the
> Bhagavad-Gita.
> In Chapter 11, after showing Arjuna His universal form, and then His
> four-handed four, Krishna shows His two-handed form (as Krishna) and then
> speaks the following:
>
> nAham` vedair na tapasA
> na dAnena na cejyayA
> s'akya evam`-vidho draSTum`
> dRSTavAn asi mAm` yathA
>
> "The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be
> understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious
> penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that
> one can see Me as I am." (11.54)
This kind of a translation of the verse 11.53 is obviously incorrect.
This is typical of many mistranslations, inserting their own comments.
For example, this is a typical verse, and the comments made by Hari
Krishna Susarla are obviously even more far-fetched and unreasonable.
First of all, the verse refers to what Arjuna saw before, and not what
he is seeing at that particular time. For example,Dr.S.Radhakrishnan,
in his Geeta commentary on this verse, translates that as:
"In the form in which thou hast seen Me now, I cannot be seen either
by the Vedas or by austerities or by gifts or by sacrifices."
This is a repetition of verse 11.48. How Hari Krishna Susarla
concludes from this, that this refers to Krishna's two-hand form (his
ie.Hari Krishna Susarla's choice of words) is beyond me. In fact, the
whole chapter is based on Krishna revealing His cosmic form, which
Arjuna sees only because of Krishna's grace. His two-hand form (!)
was obviously perceived throughout the Mahabharata, and by Arjuna
himself, and incorrectly understood, for which he apologizes, and asks
for forgiveness.(verses 11.41 and 11.42) In fact, after seeing the
Lord's cosmic form, Arjuna realizes his previous misinterpretation of
the Lord's human form. In fact, Lord Krishna Himself, refers to
people misperceiving His human form, and attributing ordinary human
qualities to him, ie. verse 9.11. Hence, it is ridiculous to even
propose that His human form is *the ultimate form*. This negates the
purpose of the whole chapter, in fact. Also, refer to verse 11.39 and
40.
> In the next verse, Krishna then goes on to say that He can only be
> understood by pure devotional service. The point here, however, is that
> Krishna was in His divine two-handed form when He said this. If Krishna
> were ultimately impersonal, then He would have shown His impersonal form
> and said what He said above. But since He was in His form as Krsna, we
> have to conclude that this is Krishna "as I am."
>
> Furthermore, in chapter 14 of the Gita, it is stated:
>
> brahmaNo hi pratiSThAham
> amRtasyAvyayasya ca
> s'As'vatasya ca dharmasya
> sukhasyaikAntikasya ca
>
> "And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal,
> imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate
> happiness." (14.27)
> Note here that it is Krishna from which the impersonal Brahman emanates,
> and NOT vice-versa. Therefore, the theory that the personal form of God
> is subordinate to the impersonal form is contradicted herein.
This is another example of mistranslation. I wonder what people who
do not know any Sanskrit, and who depend purely on the English
translations, will understand of all of this. They will probably
naively think that this is an "interpretation" and not know that this
is a mistranslation. The verse actually, is translated, to quote Dr.
S.Radhakrishnan again, as:
"For I am the abode of Brahman, the Immortal and the Imperishable, of
eternal law and of absolute bliss."
Even if we do not refer to translations, with a working knowledge of
Sanskrit, it is possible, with contemplation to get at the meaning of
these verses. We can make use of the word-to-word meaning, and then
gather the meaning of the verses. If we blindly depend upon whole
verse translations, as above, then it can completely distort the
meaning. These are classical examples of how dangerous it is to
depend upon some of these so-called translations and interpretations.
There is no reference to what is referred to as "impersonal Brahman"
in the verse itself. Also, "constitutional position" and all that,
are extraneous, and quite unnecessary. Brahman is a person, but often
referred to as a formless person (as Nirguna Brahman) and referred to
as a person with forms (as Saguna Brahman). It is nonsense to say
that Brahman is not a person, just to promote a particular sectarian
view. There is nothing called impersonal Brahman. This is an
invention by some people. "Satyam jnanam anantham Brahma" (Taittriya
Upani.) How can an entity, which is concious, infinite, and existent,
be not referred to as a person? Unless the concept of a person, is
one with a form only, and reference is made to entities without a
form, as non-persons, which reference is basically meaningless,
because an infinite, concious entity should be a person as much as
any "human person" that we appreciate, if not more. The verse
clearly reveals the identity of Brahman, and the Lord, as well as the
identity of the Lord, and immortality, the Lord and imperishability,
the Lord and dharma, and the Lord and happiness, etc. There is no
sense in talking about Brahman being caused by Krishna, etc. Brahman
is uncaused, and is beyond the cause and effect phenomenon. Brahman
and Krishna, are one and the same, and so is Brahman and Shiva, etc.
Refer to Narayana Suktam, for example. "Sa Brahma sa Shiva sa Haris
sendra sokshara paramaswarat." (Taittriya-aaranyakam) However, also,
the concept that His ultimate form is two-handed is ridiculous, as
that is not in keeping with His all-pervasiveness (meaning of the term
Vishnu). Also, refer to the same Narayana Suktam, which says "Anthar
bhahischa tat sarvam vyapya Narayanas stithaha." In the same Geeta
chapter 11.40, which was referred to earlier, there is a clear
elucidation "Sarvam samaapnoshi thatho'si sarvaha" etc.
> Krishna is actually the basis of everything, including the impersonal
> Brahman. Verse 10.8 makes it clear that He is the source of all things
> spiritual and material.
>
> aham` sarvasya prabhavo
> mattaH sarvam` pravartate
> iti matvA bhajante mAm`
> budhA bhAva-samanvitAH
>
> "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything
> emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engaged in My
> devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."
>
> Not here the Sanskrit 1st person pronoun aham`. If the impersonal Brahman
> were the source of everything, then Krishna would have said so. But
> instead, He makes it quite clear that He is the ultimate source.
Where is the reference to spiritual and material in this verse? This
kind of an interpolation, is quite unnecessary, and is often
misleading. I can go on, giving numerous examples of such
mistranslations. One often wonders whether this is all just
accidental, and innocent.
> Finally, the point needs to be addressed about Krishna's form. The
> impersonalist school maintains that Krishna's form is something material,
> but this is not supported by the Bhagavad-Gita. If Krishna's form were
> material, then the whole point of bhakti would be lost. The Bhagavad-Gita
> says:
>
> nAnyam` guNebhyaH kartAram`
> yadA draSTAnupas'yati
> guNebhyas' ca param` vetti
> mad-bhAvam` so 'dhigacchati
>
> "When one properly sees that in all activities no other performer is at
> work than these modes of nature and he knows the Supreme Lord, *who is
> transcendental to all these modes, he attains My spiritual nature."
> (14.19)
>
> So Krishna makes it clear here that He is transcendental (param`) to the
> three modes of material nature. So, His body has nothing to do with
> material nature; it is a purely spiritual body, with spiritual qualities,
> and spiritual pastimes.
This verse actually means that the Lord is beyond satva, rajas,
and tamas, which are gunas, and cannot be simplistically referred to
just material, etc.
> If you examine your own statement very closely, I am sure you will
> realize that this idea is simply an extension of your own prejudice. This
> is not the first time that I have seen impersonalists blaming all
> personalists for religious fanaticism. It's a very romantic idea, really.
> The idea that people who believe in a personal God are less intelligent,
> so they have to imagine Him as a person. And they are the ones who cause
> all the trouble, therefore all we have to do is 'educate' them and make
> them realize that God is a universal, abstract, impersonal entity, right?
What exactly do you mean by an impersonal entity?
> I used to be involved with impersonalist groups, and this is exactly what
> they taught me. But then what I got involved with an authentic,
> devotional tradition, I quickly realized how wrong all that impersonalist
> propaganda was, and I at once became very upset with them for the way
> they tried to marginalize the bhakti tradition while saying at the same
> time that "every path is as good as every other."
>
Devotion is obviously extremely important, at the same time, it is
important to note that devotion, will ultimately be meaningful, only
when the ego is surrendered. It is simply not good enough to advocate
a philosophy or a sectarian view or vada, just because one is born in
a particular corner of the globe, and hail that as superior to that
of other people, because of an accident of birth, etc. I think we
have to dispassionately analyze things, and come to a conclusion, but
selfless love unconditionally will obviously have to be the means as
well as the end. True selfless love, is the only meaning of devotion.
Any other meaning, attached to devotion or devotional service,
including making sounds and movements without genuine love, would not
go very far.
Regards,
Sujan
