[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dueling Translations (Was Re: Siva as yogi?)
God, in the form of Ken Stuart writes:
>>This is the chief difference between our respective positions. Ken and
>>Ramakrishna have found a philosophy that they happen to like, and then they
>>proceed to reinterpret everything in terms of that philosophy.
>
>You keep lumping the two of us together, as if you are afraid of
>dealing with my interpretations on their own merit, instead you feel
>better if you can tar them with the obvious flaws of Mr. R's more
>advaitic and impersonalist presentation. :-)
Frankly, Ken, I see very little difference between your position and that of
Mr. R. The only difference appears to be that he admits to being an
advaitist and you do not.
However, if you would like for me to appreciate differences between your
philosophy and the "obvious flaws of Mr. R's more advaitic and impersonalist
presentation" then you could elaborate on them. Otherwise, I must frankly
admit that all I see is more impersonalism from you. Since you say that it
all becomes one in the end, you deny the idea of having a personal
relationship with the Lord.
>Okay, now you've simply shifted from "dueling translations" to
>"dueling paramparas".
It is not at all clear that you represent any parampara at all. You have
argued that the parampara you believe is also genuine. Okay, but what is
that parampara? Can you trace it back to the Lord? Until you can tell me
what parampara you represent, you can't expect me to conclude that you do
represent a genuine spiritual tradition.
>All single verses, quoted by both sides of this discussion, are
>automatically out of context since they are single verses. This is a
>limitation of newsgroup discussion.
In this case, "out of context" means ascribing one meaning to a verse which
would clearly be wrong if you had read the previous and following verses.
You could read the Gita before quoting, rather than simply scanning for a
verse that seems to support what you are saying.
>> Since neither of these persons can justify their
>>selective quoting through the discriminative lens of an authentic spiritual
>>master, one has to wonder what authority deems it appropriate that they
>>should ignore certain portions of scripture. Actually, Ken and R. are very
>>generous; they say that all interpretations of scripture are okay.
>
>You keep making this sort of incredible leap of logic
>
>OVER
>
>and
>
>OVER
>
>and
>
>OVER
>
>again.
>
>What I (and, in this case, Mr. R) have said is that there is MORE than
>one authentic parampara, and thus (even by your standards) there is
>more than one authentic interpretation of scripture.
And I have accepted that, Ken. If you had read my earlier messages more
carefully, you would realize that. However, I do not accept that because
there is more than one authentic parampara, that it therefore means that you
are necessarily representing an authentic parampara. You have never bothered
to indicate what parampara it is that you represent. Yet you keep presuming
that I must accept it as authentic.
>I don't know ANYONE ANYWHERE IN HISTORY who has said:
>
>"All interpretations of scripture are okay."
>
>You are *really* enamored of this "making a straw man and then
>knocking it down" method of discussion.
Well, Ken, you were the one who stated that "all religions bring one closer
to God," or something to that effect. Perhaps you should qualify that
statement, eh? What do you define as religion? Are religions which deny the
existence of God (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that atheism is to be
considered a religion) also capable of bringing one closer to God?
>
>>How
>>convenient for them, since that is the only way they can insist that we take
>>their opinions as seriously as the opinions given by the acaryas. I find it
>>ever so amusing that the people who insist that all interpretations be
>>considered valid are the same ones who do not come in any of the authentic
>>disciplic successions mentioned in the Padma Purana.
>
>Here we go with more circular authentication.
>
>There are many different paramparas, each has a somewhat different
>interpretation of scripture.
And what parampara do you represent? Provide the disciplic succession here
on SRH, if you want me to accept it as authentic.
>
>Now, 30 years ago, a very devoted and pious Vaishnava arrived in New
>York.
>
>Why did anyone become his disciple?
>
>It wasn't because he was from a bonafide parampara of acharyas,
>because none of those people knew what either a parampara or an
>acharya was! And even if they did, they would have no way of
>verfying it! What would they do, call India for a few thousand hours
>until they got a Sri Sridhara Maharaj on the phone to say "Yes, he is
>my guru-brother" ? How would they know that he was really Sridhara,
>and even if they could verify that, how could they be sure that both
>of them weren't part of some ruse? [ Note I am NOT suggesting that,
>just saying 'how would they know' . ]
>
Srila Prabhupada said that a genuine guru is one who teaches people how to
get pure love of Godhead, which, as Lord Caitanya has stated, is untainted
by desires for material things, liberation, and becoming one with God.
Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada stated that guru, sadhu, and sastra are the
3-fold checks for determing if a guru and his philosophy are genuine.
Finally, Srila Prabhupada said that if one is sincere in his effort at
God-realization, then the Lord will send His bona fide representative to
guide the disciple.
Now, I must note the following:
1) You say that there is one, all-pervasive soul in all of us, as opposed to
plurality of souls. The Gita rejects this. The acharyas reject this. So I
must also reject it.
2) You say that Shiva and Vishnu are the same, and that either can be
worshipped for liberation. However, this is rejected by the Gita. And it is
also rejected by the acharyas.
3) You say that there are many paramparas outside of those mentioned in the
Puranas. However, the acharyas such as those who follow Madhva, Ramanuja,
Caitanya, Nimbarka reject many of those paramparas. On the other hand, they
do accept each other as genuine, even though there are differences in their
respective philosophies.
4) You say that devotion to God is for realizing oneness with Him. Or, at
the very least, you don't say that devotion to God is meant for gaining pure
devotional service to Him, like the Gita says. That kind of devotion is
mundane, because it is tainted with the desire for oneness. Therefore, I
must reject it.
Do you see what I am getting at? If I am to accept Gita as scripture, and
accept the Vaishnava acharyas as genuine, then that necessitates that I
reject your philosophy. You would say it's circular logic. Well, so be it.
But the fact remains that I cannot accept your philosophy. Accepting one
philosophy necessarily means rejecting another, contradictory philosophy.
>None of that was why they became his disciples !
>
>Ultimately, all of these pieces of paper that say "Scripture" or
>"Parampara of Acharyas" cannot verify each other.
In that case, nothing is ultimately verifiable. And since we now know that
you consider the Scriptures to be mere "pieces of paper" then I think we can
safely say we have gauged your level of seriousness in these spiritual matters.
>
>The final verification is a human being and the positive effect that
>he has upon you.
Ahh, yes. Back to the familiar Hindu definition of utilitarian value. If the
religion teaches you to be a very good person, then it must be genuine.
That may be nice from a very materialistic point of view, but it totally
ignores the idea of a Supreme Absolute Truth. Religion is not meant simply
for bringing people to the mode of goodness; it is supposed to take you
further to transcendental realization.
The reason you accept religions with mutually contradictory views of the
Supreme Absolute Truth is because you, like most people, are less interested
in the Absolute Truth and more interested in the utilitarian value of a
religion.
When I speak of a genuine parampara, I am referring to a disciplic
succession that can give the knowledge by which one can realize God. Your
definition of genuine seems to be whether or not the religion teaches
everyone to be nice, pious people. Whether or not it teaches about God seems
irrelevant to you.
>
>Such a human being, a self-realized human being is called a Guru.
>
>The positive effect that a Guru has upon one's life, is the
>verification of what he says.
In that case, a Guru who can take the most fallen people off the streets and
convert them (at least some of them) to devotees of God who don't eat meat,
don't take intoxicants, don't indulge in illicit sex, and don't gamble has
verified that he is genuine.
On the other hand, a guru who gives some philosophy, and still has students
at the end who don't realize that meat-eating and pre-marital sex is
immoral, is not authentic.
Is this agreeable to you? I just want to make sure.
>
>The only problem is that
>
>MY GITA TRANSLATION HAS SANSKRIT AND WORD-FOR-WORD.
In that case, you could at least say who the translator is, and what his
parampara is.
>By the way, the translator of the Gita that I quote, utilizes
>Ramanuja's commentary on the Gita as an authority whenever there is
>any question how something should be translated.
OK, but who is that translator? And what is his philosophy? Considering the
way you reinterpret Srila Prabhupada's statements to suit you, I think it
possible that you might be reinterpreting your own Gita in the same way. On
the other hand, I still need to find out whose Gita you are quoting from. If
he is not a follower of Ramanuja (that is, a Vaishnava), then he is probably
only using Ramanuja's commentary as a stepping stone for his own opinions.
Certainly Ramanuja does not agree that there is one, all-pervasive soul in
everyone to the exclusion of a plurality of jivas. Ramanuja's followers
don't agree with your philosophy. If you don't believe me, I think you
should contact Narender Reddy, an SRH netter who is an initiated disciple in
that sampradaya.
-- HKS
