[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On

Dear Dhruba,

Thanks for finally bringing this to the level of a scriptural debate. My
reply is as follows.

Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDxL7L2.LE9@netcom.com>...
> H. Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu) wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Hari Krishnaji and others who have kindly expressed views:
> 
> Thank you very much for the reassurance.  I am presently preoccupied with
> my work, therefore I will refrain from answering individually.  Hari
> Krishnaji, with all due respect to the commentators you have cited, I
> insist that the 'avidhi' in verse 9.23 is not 'aberrant rites' or
> 'according to vedic instructions', but is closer to the 'wrong method'.

That is fine with me. The "aberrant rites" translation was from an English
translation of Shankara's Giita Bhaashya by one A.G. Warrier. I like "wrong
method" better because that is how it appears in my Giita. 

The point I was trying to make is that, regardless of the translation, it
is clearly stated that worship of anyadevatah is looked at in a negative
sense. I think that point is now clear. Even according to you, worship of
anyadevatah is worship of the Lord, but by the wrong method.

> We also need to explore 'anyadevatA' carefully.

Yes, let us do that...

> Let us see what Sri KR^ishhNa said about that in the SBG.
> 
> That He did not mention 'vedic rites' is clear from the overall way He
has
> viewed 'shAstra-vidhi'.  He has said that for most people, shAstra pramAN
> is the guide (16.23-24).  However, when a person has the GYAna, he will
go
> beyond the shAstras (2.52), as the 'over-abundance of rites' are
> 'desire-laden' (2.43).  

Just to clarify, my Giita (that of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami) has
avidhi-puurvakam translated as "wrong way," not "aberrant rites." So if you
want to say wrong way or wrong method, that is fine with me. This is not a
point of contention. 

Other than that, it should be understood that shaastric regulations are
there for spiritual neophytes (like us) to learn regulation. What Lord
Krishna criticizes is that there are people who follow the regulations and
perform the sacrifices without any understanding of the higher, spiritual
purpose behind. I think we agree on that, too. 

Now, we both agree that when one gets jnaana, he transcends the
jurisdiction of regulative principles (such as the need to worship the
sages, the ancestors, etc.). In fact, this is the purport of sarva-dharmaan
parityajya maam ekam sharanam vrajaa.... So, we must ask ourselves, what is
this jnaana which, when one gets, liberates him from the need for following
regulations and rules? It is clearly the knowledge about ourselves in
relation to the Supreme Brahman. I think we agree on this. What we don't
agree on is what is the nature of the Supreme Brahman and our relation to
Him.
 
> Let us now look at what IS vidhi, or sacrament given to us by Him.  It is
> described in the verse 9.27, in which He asks of the devotee to offer
> everything to Him in total surrender.

Which supports the idea that He is a person who can enjoy such results.
After all, what is the meaning behind offering the fruits of your activity
to that which is ultimately impersonal and without love?

  In verses 9.23-25, He says that
> even when done with avidhi, He accepts the worship, however, the

No He does not. What are you translating there as "accept?"  What He says
in 9.23 is that those who worship other deities worship Him only (but in a
wrong way). Why is worship of other deities worship of Lord Krishna? That
is stated in 7.22:

sa tayaa s'raddhayaa yuktas
 tasyaaraadhanam iihate
labhate ca tata.h kaamaan
 mayaiva vihitaan hi taan

"Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular demigod
and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me
alone." 

In fact, in 7.21, the Lord states that even the faith to worship another
deity comes from Him. If both the faith and the results in worship of other
deities comes from Krishna, then one can only conclude that the other
deities are subordinate to Him, as they are unable to give these things on
their own. Consequently, when one worships another deity, he is indirectly
worshiping the Lord. The Lord never stated that He *accepts* that kind of
worship.

> worshipper of anyadevatA goes to the abode of anyadevatAs, that are:
> devaloka, pitR^iloka or bhutaloka.

Allow me to point out that by admitting this, you are admitting that the
same result is not had by worship of anyadevatah and worship of Shrii
Krishna. 

  Is Sri KR^ishhNa being unreasonably
> fasitdious here ?  Absolutely not.  The answer is given in the verse that
> describes avidhi (SBG 7.20).
> 
> kamaiH taiH taiH hR^itaGYAnaH prapadyante anyadevataH
> taM taM niyamaM AsthAya prakR^ityA niyataH svayA.  7.20
> 
> 
> (They, denuded of GYAna by those those desires, using those those niyamas
> worship the anyadevatAs according to their prakR^itis).

Keep in mind here that the word kamais indicates material desires. So
Krishna states that it is because of these material desires that devotees
of other gods are denuded of jnaana. 

> Denuded of GYAna... what GYAna?  It is the same GYAna that He praised in
> verse 7.18 and explained to Arjuna in chapter 10 and expected of him in
> verse 10.42. It is the GYAna that partial manifestations of God
(vibhutis)
> are not Him in totality. They are the anyadevatA.  

7.18 states that the devotee who worships Him while seeking knowledge of
the Absolute is very dear to Him and vice-versa. 10.42 states that all
glories of the Lord are the result of but a spark of His potencies. 

I can't help but notice that you seemed to have defeated yourself. "It is
the GYAna that partial manifestations of God (vibhutis) are not Him in
totality. They are the anyadevatA." If the other deities are not Krishna in
totality, then they are not Him. There is no question of calling someone
God if he is not God in totality. Indeed, to call someone who is incomplete
as God would be contradictory.
 
> Now let's us take a close look at verse 7.20.  The worshippers are
> using methods (niyamas) according to their own prakR^itis to worship the
> anyadevatAs.  What are those niyamas ?  Obviously, those are not
according
> to the sacrament, for if they were according to the sacrament, they can
> not fill desires.

I'm assume that what you mean by sacrament is the Vedas themselves.

Well, the truth is, such worship is according to the Vedas. That is why
Lord Krishna states trai-gu.nya-vi.sayaa vedaa (2.45): the Vedas deal
mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature (the gunas).
This is for people who seek fruitive results as opposed to liberation.
Nevertheless, the actual purpose of the Vedas is to know Krishna: vedais'
ca sarvair aham eva vedyo (15.15). Clearly then, there are sacrifices in
the Veda that are presented for fruitive activity (karma-kanda) and other
sacrifices which are intended for the seeker of the Absolute Truth. One has
to know which to turn to. 

So, these sacrifices are found within the Vedas, but they are not the
ultimate purpose of the Vedas. That is why Lord Krishna says,  yaam imaa`m
pu.spitaa`m vaaca`m pravadanty avipas'cita.h... (2.42-43): the so-called
followers of the Veda who seek fruitive results are of small knowledge
because there is more to the Vedas than this. 

  Therefore, the desires are the primary reason for the
> worship,

Yes, I agree with that.

 and the design of the niyamas are done accordingly, by the use of
> the worshippers' prakR^itis.

No, that cannot be. The niyamas or regulations must be from shaastra.
Otherwise, how could there be veda-vaada-rataa.h (2.42) without such
regulations being in the Vedas? Also take note of 9.20-21: The Lord states
that the knowers of the Vedas (trai-vidyaa) who drink the soma juice
(soma-paa.h) are purified of sins (puuta-paapaa) and attain the heavenly
planet of Indra (sura-indra). Do you think they could have accomplished
such a thing on their own, without scriptural help? How else could they
have attained higher planets? They certainly did not have a  NASA space
program back then ;-)

  Sri KR^ishhNa has said that there are four
> kinds of worshippers; the sick, the curious, the desirous of money
> and the GYAni (7.16).

But these devotees are in a different category than the devotees of
anyadevatah. That's why Krishna says udaaraa.h sarva evaite (7.18): all
these devotees are magnanimous souls. The same claim is not made of
devotees of other gods. Why? Because it is far more intelligent to worship
the Lord Himself than other gods even if one seeks fruitive results. Why?
Because all the results bestowed by the other deities come from Him only,
as stated in 7.22. 

Of course, the seekers of the Absolute Truth (the jnaanis) are far more
dear, because they worship Him out of love, rather than out of necessity of
material gain. So naturally i agree that the following:

  The avidhi is the creation of people of the first
> three categories.  Although it is obvious what avidhi they use, let me
> give you a sample avidhi.
> 
> "O xyz (favourite vibhuti)!  I make this deal with you, I will make a
gold
> and diamond necklace for your icon in the temple (or I will offer a pair
> of goats as sacrifice), do me this favor in return".
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
demonstrates lack of knowledge.

> This is a classical avidhi, where the worshipper makes the rules
according
> to his own prakR^iti, the purpose of the worship is the fulfilment of
> his desire, in a style that suits his prakR^iti (that is the way he deals
> with other folks in the neighborhood, that is the he goes to deal with
> God).

But even given everything you have said (about design of niyamas and such),
you still have not shown that one worship other gods is the same as worship
of Krishna. It is not the same. You yourself admit that anyadevata.h are
not Him in totality. So they are not Him. It sounds to me that your
analysis is more bedha-abedha rather than advaita. In fact, your own
posting shows that "demigod" is the appropriate term for other deities, who
are not God in totality (demigod = partially God, or in other words, those
who are invested with godly powers but are still not God). 

Let me approach it this way: is there scope in the Giita for worship of
anya-devatah to gain liberation? The answer is clearly no. Everywere in the
Giita worship of the demigods is associated with material gains only. This
is true in chapter 3, where the Lord advises sacrifice for the sake of
getting rain, grains, etc. to chapters 7 and 9, where the attainment of the
absolute Truth is the topic and the Lord condemns demigod-worship as
materially-motivated. 

You said that the demigods are not God in totality. In that case, in what
sense are they God? They apparently cannot give liberation, as no such
claim is made in the Giita. Nor are they omniscient: ne me vidu.h
sura-ganaa.h (10.2): even the various demigods do not know the Lord. They
certainly are not omnipotent, as the results to be had in worshiping them
come from Lord Krishna Himself (7.22). So that leaves one more
characteristic of God: omnipresence. I don't think you can claim that the
demigods are omnipresent. 

If you say that the demigods should be respected, then I would agree
whole-heartedly. But there is no scope here for demigod worship = Krishna
worship. One is materially motivated and gains temporary results only. The
other can be materially-motivated, but it can also lead to mukti. Although
there is ultimately only one worshipable object (Lord Krishna Himself)
those who worship others do so without proper knowledge (avidhi-puurvakam).
 That is why the two forms of worship are different. Other than to
acknowledge that there is such a thing as demigod-worship, the Lord does
not say that this is even on the same level as worship of Him motivated by
material desires, what to speak of worship of Him motivated by the desire
for liberation.

Which goes to show that we cannot define Hinduism by what is said in the
Giita. Shaivites, Shaktiites, Ganesha devotees regard their respective
deities as the Absolute Truth, even though this is explicitly refuted in
the Giita. And since any definition of Hindu must include them and their
beliefs, one has to look for a more generalized definition of the term.

regards,

-- Krishna
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.