[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ISKCON : help define these terms
In article <4iaas8$muc@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>> It was certainly not a personal attack. I consider many of Prabhupada's
> >Please list your credentials as a Sanskrit scholar, and
> >while you're at it, tell who your guru is, and what
> >tradition you represent. I will take you seriously if
> >you can do these simple things.
>
>I never said I was a sanskrit scholar. However I criticized Prabhupada's
>translations and you can criticize me based on that if you want. As far as
>this paramparaa thing goes see my response below.
If you aren't a Sanskrit scholar, then you have no qualification to criticize
Prabhupada's translations. Why should I trust that you know what you are
talking about?
>In this country anyone can whip up a few followers. The same way
Radhakrishnan
>has received lots of kudos for his translations. I don't see you supporting
>him.
Well, I'd hardly call the leading authorities in Indology to be "a few
followers," since they were not even that. What they are, however, are
scholars in Sanskrit and Vedic religion. And they do praise Prabhupada's
translations and commentary (they were not his disciples). You are neither a
Sanskrit scholar, nor a well respected authority in Vedanta. And you don't
like Prabhupada's translations.
Call me a fanatic, if you must. But looking at this dichotomy of opinions, I
know who I'm going to trust.
>>> This is being sanctimonious, at best.
> >I think Padma Purana has such authority.
>
>Please, please Not this Padma puraNa thing again. Please refer to various
Interesting. Of course, you are ready to use Padma Purana to support your
ideas, but when someone does the same to show the fallacy in your ideas, then
and then only do you decry the validity of this purana. Fascinating.
>posts by me on the thread 'Siva as Yogi?' and see the detailed explanations.
>It was pointed out by HKS that the Padma puraaNa 'sanctions' some
paramparaas.
And I provided the verse to support it. I will do so again.
sampradayavihina ye mantras te viphala matah
atah kalu bhavishyanti chatvarah sampradayinah
shri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaishnava kshitipavanah
chatvaras te kalau bhavya hy utkale purushottamah
ramanujam shrihi svichakre madhvacharyam chaturmuhash
srivishnuswaminam rudro nimbadityam chatuksanaha
>
>1. I quoted a few verses where Krishna worships Lord Shiva and calls him the
>supreme truth from the same Padma puraaNa
>2. I got the reply that it was probably spurious
>3. Why? No answer.
I did answer, but as usual, you gloss over details that happen to be
inconvenient to you. Padma Purana must be received and understood through
paramparaa, and this is what the Purana itself states.
Frankly, I don't put much weight on your interpretation of what that Purana
states because my experience with you pseudo-advaitins is that you generally
take verses out of context in order to support your opinions. If I ever do get
a bona fide translation of that Purana, I'm sure it will become clear that
your quotes from it have been misunderstood. This has been my experience with
your misinterpretations of Svetaasvatara Upanishad, which I will write about
in a separate article.
Just for kicks, I asked you to tell me who did the translation of the Padma
Purana which you quoted. I asked you from what tradition he comes from, and
what parampara. Your answer? There was none. If you were so confident of the
integrity of your version of the PP, you should have no reason to hide the
credentials of the people who passed it down to you. The fact that you are
reluctant to give your credentials and that of the translators from whom you
quote puts your ideas in a very dubious position at best, at least among those
who are discriminating.
>
>Also the Shiva puraaNa sanctions only Shaivite paramparaas. Why should we
The Shiva Puraana is inconsistent with itself. Assuming that it does only
sanction Shaivite paramparaas (hint: show me where), the reason for it will be
explained below.
>trust the Padma puraaNa instead? The vaishnava aacharyaas say so. Why should
>we trust the vaishnava aacharyas? The Padma puraaNa says so.
[sigh] I don't know how many times one has to repeat the same point in order
to get it through. I have already explained why one should give more weight to
the sattvika puranas. However, I will repeat myself nonetheless:
Matsya Purana, which is in the taamasic class, states:
Agnehe s'ivasya maahaatmyam taamaseshu prakiirtyate
Raajaseshu ca maahaatmyam adhikam brahmano viduhu
saattvikeshvatha kalpeshu maahaatmyam adhikam harehe
teshveva yogasamsiddhaaha gamishyanti paraam gatim
Yasmin kalpe tu yat proktam puraanam Brahmanaa puraa
Tasya tasya tu maahaatmyam Tat svaruupena varnyate
"In the Taamasa kalpas (or days of Brahmaa), the greatness of Agni or S'iva is
narrated, in the Raajasa kalpas, the greatness of Brahmaa is delineated as
high. But in the Saattvika kalpas, the greatness of Hari is portrayed as being
very high. It is only in those Kalpas that people acquire perfection in Yoga
and attain the Supreme Goal (of Salvation). Thus according to the nature of
the Kalpa in which a particular Puraana was expounded by Brahmaa, the
greatness of that particular deity (having as predominant one or other of the
three qualities of Sattva, Rajas, or Tamas) is described."
Now, YOU may not like that, but it is from the Taamasic class of Puraanas, and
it clearly explains why there are inconsistencies in the descriptions of the
Absolute Truth. It very clearly implies that the descriptions of Vishnu as the
supreme must be taken as topmost, since it is in those kalpas when He is
described as supreme that people reach the Supreme Goal (paraam gatim).
As explained in the book by AS Raghavan, the excerpt of which I posted as
"Understanding the Puranas" earlier to SRH, the difference between the saatvik
puraanas and the raajasic and taamasic puraanas can also be seen in the way
they begin. The Puraanas of the lower 2 modes are spoken in response to an
inquiry about a particular deity. Thus, the information given is according to
what the person wants to hear about that deity and nothing more. On the other
hand, the saatvik puraanas begin not with an inquiry regarding a specific
deity, but with a general inquiry into the nature of the Absolute Truth, how
one can get free from samsaara, etc. The question is posed in a general way,
and the response is specifically that one should take to worshiping Vishnu.
This nonsectarian nature of the saatvik puraanas is what makes them saatvik.
It is completely futile to base a world view on the information given in the
taamasic puraanas, like Siva puraana. These puraanas contain information about
other demigods, but they also contain information on Lord Krishna as Supreme.
They are therefore inconsistent. Linga puraana, for example says in one place
that Siva is the source of Brahma and Vishnu. But that same puraana states
that Vishnu produced both Siva and Brahma. Simply accepting advaita does not
adequately explain this contradiction - that's the hand waving approach. The
only way to explain this contradiction is to understand that different things
are taught at different times and places, but the information proclaiming
Vishnu to be supreme is correct, because it is confirmed in the Vedas and the
Bhagavad-Gita, and it is only by such information that people get the supreme
goal.
>
>This is the kind of circular logic involved. If you have read many puraaNas
>and not excerpts from various puraaNas given by some other person, you would
>understand that all puraaNas are not consistent and insist that only what
they
>say is true. It's a typically Indian way of writing and I don't expect you to
>understand it.
I have already explained ad nauseum why there are apparent inconsistencies.
The trouble with people like you is that you take these so-called
inconsistencies as reason enough to give up all discriminative faculties, say
it's all one, and forgo spiritual life. And if that wasn't bad enough, you put
yourselves on a pedestal and criticize others who do see the consistency
(despite your lack of qualification to criticize).
>IF you read my posts on 'Siva as Yogi?' and my criticism of Prabhupada's
>articles and reasonings, I would be glad to discuss things with you. If not
>you may reply to this post and consider yourself as having the last word.
I read them all, and frankly I found nothing intelligible in your so-called
criticism of Prabhupada's articles. Never at any time have you actually met me
point-for-point and explained why your world view is preferable. Rather, the
inevitable pattern that you use when confronted with information you can't
explain is to label it as "absurd," "utter tripe," and then move on. Sometimes
you just ignore it outright. In fact, you will actually use the same tactic
when you respond to this message. You will likely ignore the reference to the
Matsya Purana, as well as the other info given on the Puranas, and instead
concentrate on making negative claims as if they were self-evident.
Just to get us back to the point, I will reiterate again that you stated that
you "consider many of Prabhupada's translations to be absurd." Now, Mr.
Sanskrit expert, I'm calling your bluff. Which translation of what text was
absurd? Are you going to indulge in these kinds of hit-and-run attacks
forever, or are you going to stand your ground once and give me a rundown on
why someone else's translations are preferable?
I realize that the neo-advaitin view is that opinions and hunches are taken as
self-evident, but real Vedantists use specific evidence and saastra to make
their points. If you can't back up your claims with evidence, you might as
well remain silent. I'm going to challenge every such claim you make, and if
you can't support them, then YOU are the one who is going to look like a blind
fanatic. I hold that Prabhupada's translation of the Gita is the best of its
kind, and I see no serious reason from you why I should not believe that.
-- Krishna
p.s. - there is no SRH archive for articles from this year, so no one can go
back and read your posts even if they wanted to.
Oh, and by the way. When you do respond to this article, you can be sure I
will laugh. You see, you have stated in no uncertain terms that you don't
believe in the reality of anything you see, owing to the advaitist theory of
illusion. You use this as an excuse to get out of practicing any sadhana. But
when someone tells you publicly you are wrong and your ego is thus on the
line, you seem to forget the theory of illusion then and launch into a serious
of offensive accusations. A REAL advaitist would not bother arguing with an
illusion. But then, you, like many pseudo-advaitins, take only as much advaita
as is necessary to get out of surrendering to the Lord, but ignore the rest
which states that you have to practice severe austerities. Fancy that.
