[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
Pradip Gangopadhyay <pradip@lism.usc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDxu5oE.5Hq@netcom.com>...
> Hindus do not ignore the Gita verses 9.23 and 9.24. They disagree with
> the Gaudiya Vaishnava (GV) interpretation of these verses.
I fail to see how they could disagree with the GV interpretation of those
verses, since the verses are so straight-forward that no Vaishnava has to
interpret them. Interpretation is only necessary if the meaning is not
already clear, and even then it has to be done with due consideration of
context. On the other hand, to say that 9.23 and 9.24 require
interpretation is like saying that the statement 2+2=4 also requires
interpretation.
Some of them say,
> for example, that while it is true that Sri Krishna is the Ultimate
Reality,
> the Ultimate Reality is not Sri Krishna.
Interesting logic. So A = B does not necessarily mean that B = A? Isn't
that a violation of a major mathematical property?
That would be limiting the Infinite to
> just one name and form.
This is based on a false premise, namely that anything with name and form
is limited. While this is certainly true of the material world, there is no
basis for extending this logic to God.
When Krishna lived as a King in Dwaaraka, He had 16,108 different wives.
This of course is something that modern-day Hindus are often reluctant to
say, concerned as they are with Western standards of acceptance. Anyway,
the point is that according to the Bhaagavatam, He expanded Himself into
16,108 forms and simultaneously enjoyed each of His wives. Was He limited
when He did that?
The Bhaagavatam actually describes Krishna as the svayam bhagavaan, and as
the origin of all other Vishnu forms. But each of the forms of Vishnu is
omnipotent and omnisicient. Yet, the person Krishna is the origin of them
all. How can you say that Krishna is limited?
Even other Vaishnava schools do not agree with the
> GV position that Sri Krishna is the Supreme Person. The other Vaishnava
> schools consider Vishnu as the Supreme Person and Sri Krishna an
emanation of
> Vishnu.
No, all Vaishnavas accept Krishna as the Supreme Person. The difference is
that some consider Vishnu as svayam bhagavaan, while others consider
Krishna as svayam bhagavaan. The difference is an esoteric one, since both
schools of thought agree that mukti can be had by worship of the Lord in
either form.
The GV position clearly contradicts the Upanishadic passages clearly
> mentioning Siva and Uma (Divine Mother) as forms of Ishwar. The
Svetasvatara
> Upanishad states for example (3.11):
>
> sarvanana-siro-grivah sarva-bhuta-guhasayah
> sarva-vyapi sa bhagavan tasmat sarva gatas siva
>
> He who is in the faces, heads and necks of all, who dwells in the cave
> (of the heart) of all beings, who is all pervading, He is the Lord and
therfore
> the omnipresent Siva. (The Upanishads by Sw. Nikhilananda)
A long time ago Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian tried to claim that the
Svetaasvatara Upanishad was a Shaivite Upanishad, and he gave this and
other verses to substantiate this position. I then got a copy of that
Upanishad and wrote up a long rebuttal of that position on the basis of
that same Upanishad. I decided not to post it though, since I realized that
no matter how right I was, he would not care. However, just to summarize
some of the arguments I made that Svetaasvatara is a Vaishnava Upanishad,
let me point out that:
1) The SU begins by invoking Lord Hari's name.
2) The SU states that the Supreme Lord is He who gave birth to Brahma. This
is obviously Vishnu.
3) The SU states that the Supreme Lord gave instruction to Brahma at the
beginning of time. This is also Vishnu. Hardly anyone would say that Shiva
is the source of Brahma.
The idea that SU points to Shiva as being the Supreme Godhead is based on a
the fallacy that two things with the same name are necessarily the same.
For example, Draupadi is sometimes called Krishna because of her allegedly
blackish complexion. But wait, God is also known as Krishna. Is Draupadi
also God?
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian has the word "Krishna" in his name. But
Krishna is also my name. Are we both therefore the same person?
The Vishnu-Sahasranaama lists Shiva, Rudra, and Maheshvara as names of
Vishnu. This does not mean that Lord Shiva, the husband of Parvathi, is
Vishnu. The word shiva means "auspicious," so naturally Vishnu would have
that name. But Lord Shiva also has that name because unintelligent people
would not realize his exalted position since his appearance (covered in
ashes like an ascetic) would suggest otherwise.
SU is definitely referring to Vishnu, and this is the only way to look at
it if you want to see it in the context of the rest of the Vedic
literatures.
Thus, there is no contradiction between it and the Giitaa, or the
Gaudiya-Vaishanava position.
> These Hindus do not identify "anyadevata" with other Personal Forms
> of Ishvar like Siva. They say that Sri Krishna is saying that if you do
not
> worship Ishwar you will not be liberated.
anyadevata means other gods, not Personal Forms of Vishnu (of which Lord
Shiva is not one). The Bhaagavatam describes Shiva as the greatest of
Vaishnavas. If Shiva is to be seen as such, then the obvious lesson is that
one should follow in his footsteps.
Or are you saying that Shiva is such a fool that he doesn't realize that he
actually is God?
> This is the reason why I said that it is not a question of ignoring
> the verses 9.23 and 9.24. It is a question of different interpretation.
Hardly. It's a question of whether or not you accept those verses for what
they say. There is no scope for some other interpretation.
(i realize all sorts of Hindus will now take this as an opportunity to
scream "fanaticism" "Christian fundamenalist" etc. which only proves my
point that there is no logical reason to accept all the deities in the
Vedas as the same God; the inability to argue for such an idea without
recourse to hostility reveals the theory's inherently illogical nature)
regards,
-- Krishna
