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

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



Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDxu5ov.5LD@netcom.com>...
> H. Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu) wrote:
> 
> : In that case, one can infer that you belief the "correct" belief to be
> : the opposite: that all the deities are different forms of God.
> : But how do you know that? Dhruba, what if it actually IS the case that
> : there is one Supreme Deity amongst many demigods? Why do you not
consider
> : that possibility when it is so clearly enunciated in the Giita? 
> 
> 
> Dear Hari Krishnaji:
> 
> Thank you for following up.  It seems that the main question is:  who are
> the anyadevatAs? The anyadevatAs are His partial manifestations, His

First of all, take a close look at what you just said. "The anyadevataas
are His *partial* manifestations..." So accepting them for the moment as
partial expansions of the Supreme Lord (most bedha-abedha philosophies
regard jiivas as expansions of the Lord's energies), that still proves my
point that they are demigods (partially God). 

> vibhutis.  Your view, as I understand is, KR^ishhNa/vishhNu is the big
> brother among the demigods, hence, He is to be called the Supreme
Godhead.

No, that is not correct. I would not regard Krishnas as a "big brother"
since that would imply that there is some "father" who is superior to both
Krishna and the demigods (i can't help but notice that you are now using
the term "demigods," when previously you stated that the use of that term
constituted exclusivity). 

What I would say regarding Krishna and the demigods is straight out of the
Giitaa itself:

pitaaham asya jagato maataa dhaataa pitaamaha.h/ vedya`m pavitram o`mkaara
.rk saama yajur eva ca// (9.17) "I am the father of this universe, the
mother, the support and the grandsire. I am the object of knowledge, the
purifier and the syllable om. I am also the Rig, the Saama and the Yajur
Vedas."

sarva-yoni.su kaunteya muurtaya.h sambhavanti yaa.h/ taasaa`m brahma mahad
yonir aha`m biija-prada.h pitaa// (14.4) "It should be understood that all
species of life, O son of Kuntii, are made possible by birth in this
material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father."

na me vidu.h sura-ga.naa.h prabhava`m na mahr.saya.h/ aham aadir hi
devaanaa`m mahr.sii.naa`m ca sarvas'a.h// (10.2) "Neither the hosts of
demigods nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for, in every
respect, I am the source of the demigods and sages."

> Arjuna also had similar notions.  He asked Him 'keshhU keshhU cha
> bhAveshhU chintyo.asi bhagavanmaya' (in which which manifestations,
should
> I think of you ?) (10.17). Let us see what Sri KR^ishhNa had to
> say about such questions.

Right, and then Krishna described a fragment of His opulences by describing
His represenation among the mountains, the oceans, the demigods, etc. They
are representations of His opulence because everything comes from Him.
Indra's power comes from Him. Arjuna's fighting ability comes from Him.
Brihaspati's austerities and knowledge also come from Him.

> 
> Sri KR^ishhNa said:
> 
> yad yad vibhutimat.h  sattvaM shrImadUrjitameva vA.
> tattadevAvagachha tvaM mama tejo.aMshasambhavaM.  10.41
> 
> In this verse, He says that every vibhuti is born with a part of His
> power.  That means, the differences in them is due to the different
> aspects of His power that they are born with.

So the term "demigod" is quite fitting, is it not? Demigod = partially God,
or, one who is invested with a portion of God's powers.

  He also said that there is
> endless scope of these differences 'nasti anta vistarasya me' (10.19),
and

What He is saying, is that there is endless scope of these opulences
(vibhuutis) which are partially displayed in this material world (and in
the demigods). 

> He recommended Arjuna to not look for Him in this variety individually,
> but look for Him as the One in all creation, because the all creation is
> but the mainfestation of one part of Him (10.42). 

He does not recommend Arjuna to look for Him "as the One in all creation."
10.42 simply says that vi.s.tabhyaaham ida`m k.rtsnam ekaa`ms'ena sthito
jagat: "With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire
universe." 

> Herein lies the key to His objection to the worship of anyadevatAs.
> Even if one whorships the entire collection of anyadevatAs, one can
> effectively worship only some aspects of His manifested power that the
> worshipper has identified.  But God is much greater than the sum 
> of the His manifested powers that the anyadevatAs represent at any point
> of time.

Very good! That is Vaishnavism in a nutshell!

Hence, the obvious conclusion is that if one wants to worship God, one
should become a devotee of Krishna. You have already admitted that the
demigods are not on the same level as Him by saying "But God is much
greater than the sum..." as well as in other statements.

  The continued evolution of the world is made possible by the
> manifestation of more and more of His powers.
> 
> Therefore, I will refer you to His these answers to Arjuna, which
> indicates that He is not the big brother among demigods.  I find two

I already said that He is the father of the demigods, and the origin of the
demigods. That is what Krishna Himself said, please see the verses above.

> evidences for that in the SBG; first, He lists His KR^ishhNa incarnation
> as a vibhuti (vR^ishhNInAM vAsudevoshmi 10.37) and also vishhNu as a
> vibhuti (AdityAnaM ahaM vishhNu 10.21).  The second evidence is in the 
> way He has described His true Self:

Neither of these are very compelling arguments. As I have already pointed
out, this whole chapter is one in which Lord Krishna lists His opulences
among various categories of things. The statements come in the form "among
some group X, I am the best which is to be found in X." Thus, merely
stating, "Among the Vrishni dynasty, I am Vaasudeva," or "Among Adityas, I
am Vishnu." cannot be taken to mean that Vaasudeva or Vishnu are somehow on
the same level as the demigods. Actually, that line of reasoning is absurd,
because it is the exact opposite of what Krishna is trying to say
throughout the Giitaa: that He is the Supreme, the ultimate object of
knowledge, the source of all, etc. When He says those things, are you
trying to tell me that He refers to something that is beyond Krishna? No.
He is referring to Himself, the person Krishna, as indicated by the use of
personal pronouns. 

Vibhuutis in this chapters simply refers to opulences, not necessarily to
to finite expansions. While some of the vibhuutis listed are certainly
jiivas (and thus finite, like Indra, etc.), others are His Vishnu
expansions. You have to take the verses in context; you can't ignore the
fact that He says, "among bowmen, I am Raama." Does that mean Raama is a
mere demigod, partially endowed with the powers of God? Absolutely not,
especially since such an understanding is contradicted by other scriptures
and by the Giitaa itself. It is nowhere stated that when Krishna comes down
as an avataara, that He is limited by virtue of the fact of being in the
material world. Exactly the opposite is implied when Krishna states that
fools deride Him when He appears in the material world, thinking Him to be
an ordinary man, not realizing His transcendental nature, etc.

> sarvendriya gunNAbhAsaM sarvendriyavivarjitaM.  13.14
> 
> (Subtly expressed as through all indriyas but bereft of all indriyas). 
> There are 10+1 indriyas (5 karmendriyas, 5 GYAnendriyas and the mind).
> The indriyas include the body parts. That means, He, the parama bhAva, 
> is not manifest as the body, which He describes more explicitly in this
> verse:

He speaks of *material* senses and a *material* body in this case.
Otherwise, how else could He say:

janma karma ca me divyam
 evam yo vetti tattvata.h
tyaktva deham punar janma
 naiti maam eti so 'rjuna

Note the use of the word "divyam" which indicates that His appearance,
activities, etc. are transcendental.

Also, don't forget the rest of 13.15 which states: nirgu.na`m gu.na-bhokt.r
ca: He is without gunas and yet is the master of the gunas. How can that
which is without qualities be said to be the master of qualities? It can
only be true if He has spiritual qualities, otherwise nothing else with
qualities can emanate from Him.

> avyaktaM vyaktimApannaM manyante mAmabuddhayaH.
> paraM bhAvaM ajAnanto mamAvyayaM anuttamaM.  7.24
> 
> He is thus the unexpressed in the incarnation, and He describes Himself
> as the imperishable parama bhAva.  At the same time, He also said that
> those who ignore His human body, are muDas, because they too do not know
> the (entire scope of His) parama bhAva.

This translation makes no sense.

For one thing, para`m bhaava`m ajaananto maamaavyaya`m anuttama`m is
obviously referring to the person Krishna (who has a body) as we can see by
the use of personal pronouns such as maam (my). What this verse is actually
saying is that those who see Him as being a manifestation of something that
is ultimately avyakta are without intelligence (abuddhaya.h) because they
don't understand that the form of Krishna actually has a higher nature than
would one is accustomed to thinking of a material body. 

The fact that this is so is confirmed by the next verse:

naaha`m prakaas'a.h sarvasya
 yoga-maayaa-samaav.rtta.h
muu.dho 'yaa`m naabhijaanaati
 loko maam ajam avyayam

"I am never manifest to the foolish and intelligent. For them I am covered
by My internal potency (yoga-maayaa), and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible." 

Dhruba, if Krishna states that the muudhas do not see Him as manifest, then
how can you conclude that there is some unmanifest, impersonal God who is
behind Krishna? If Krishna is never revealed (prakaas'a.h) to the muudhas,
then that implies that there is something which can be revealed. One never
speaks of revealing something that is formless.

> avajAnanti mAM muDA mAnushhIM tanumAshritaM.
> paraM bhAvaM ajananto mama bhuta maheshvaraM.  9. 11
> 
> In this verse, He reinforces the idea of vibhuti, that the material form,


The word vibhuuti is nowhere in that verse. On the other hand, He is
explicitly saying that "Fools (avarajaananti) deride Me (maa`m) when I
descend in the human form (maanu.siim)." In other words, they deride Him
because they think He is merely an ordinary person with a material body and
subject to the gunas. Or, they simply don't know that God can come down to
the material world and still maintain His position as mahes'vara and
nirguna. Hence, janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti tattvata.h....

> that is, the human body (mAnushhI tanu) is also the manifestation of His
> power, elsewhere He says that even thouugh He takes the human form, He
> remains not subject to aparA prakR^Iti (4.6).

Even given that point, this proves only that:

1) material bodies are a manifestation of His energies
2) when He appears, it is not in a material body. Othewise how else can He
not be subject to the inferior nature, or aparaa prak.riti?

Besides, He nowhere states that the maanu.shii`m tanum is a mere
manifestation of His power.  Where did you get that? If He is Absolute,
then there is no cause for distinguishing between His body and His Self.
That is why He is often described as non-dual, and why He repeatedly says
things like para`m bhaavam which indicates that He (the person Krishna with
a beautiful blue body, flute, and peacock feather) is of a superior nature
(spiritual). Hence, janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti tattvata.h...

That the person Krishna is referred to when being described as of a higher
nature is confirmed   by the statement brahmano hi pratishthaaham (14.27)
in which He states that He is source, or the basis (pratishtha) of the
impersonal brahman. Thus, it is the person Krishna who is param bhaavam,
and not something else that is the source of Krishna.
 
> : "That which in the beginning may be just like poison but at the end is
just
> : like nectar and which awakens one to self-realization is said to be
> : happiness in the mode of goodness." (Giita 18.37)
> 
> Hari Krishnaji, I think that this verse describes an altogether different

> issue; it is the issue of the sAttvika sukha, something that is 'proktaM
> Atma-buddhi prasAdajaM' (said to be the blessing of atma-buddhi).  I hope
> that you recognize it to be different from a feeling of smugness that
> could be had from following a particular theological line and expounding
> it as the necessary 'poison' that a true theology will initially seem
> like, and only later, will induce happiness. 

On the contrary, that verse must necessarily include smug following of
false doctrines, since Krishna also classifies religious activities in the
three modes. One has to have the correct knowledge as a prerequisite for
self-realization; there is no question of doing the wrong thing all the
time and then getting mukti. 

> : Finally, I think it worthwhile to point out that opponents of
exclusivism
> : (as you define the term) are all too quick to exclude themselves.
Consider
> : the logic: I am not exclusive because I accept all other
religions/faiths/
> : and beliefs. But I don't accept those religions or parts of religions
> : which are themselves exclusive. Is this very sensible to you?
> 
> 
> This is not 'very' sensible, but certainly is an excellent initial
> argument.  You are looking at only a part of the objection of the
> 'opponents of exclusivism'.  Your argument would be true if the
'opponents
> of exclusivism' did also want to throw the 'exclusivists' out of the big
> picture that sanAtana dharma provides.  I do not believe that they do
> that.

But that still does not address the issue of claiming to accept other
religions when in fact one does not do so. An intrinsic part of any
doctrine must be the rejection of other doctrines with contradictory views.
If I accept duality of the jiiva and paramaatma, I must necessarily reject
advaita. The two are not reconciable, despite the sentimental, half-hearted
attempts by contemporary Hindu thinkers who are neither dualists nor
advaitists. Conseqently, for anyone to say that they accept another
doctrine means rejecting that which that doctrine rejects. It is misleading
to claim to accept someone else's views when those views include rejecting
something. 

To put it another way, it is meaningless to accept 50% of a religion. 50%
acceptance is not acceptance at all.

Furthermore, there are obvious problems with the idea of throwing or not
throwing "exclusivists" out of the big picture of sanaatana dharma. For one
thing, if you were to say that within Hinduism there are traditions which
are "exclusive" and some which are not, then that would be one thing. But
to say that sanaatana dharma includes many different doctrines, some of
which are exclusive, is intrinsically false. If two mutually contradictory
views of the Absolute Truth are proposed, they both cannot be sanaatana
dharma. While both views might be correct, (as in the case that Krishna has
both personal and impersonal forms), the stated philosophy of each doctrine
is that their own view is *ultimately* correct, and this is where there is
contradiction. You would have me believe that the impersonal, formless
brahman is ultimately the Absolute Truth, and that there is nothing higher.
But I cannot accept that as sanaatana dharma. For one thing, it is hardly
sanaatana - living entities from time memorial are engaged in activity, and
in seeking happiness in relationships. For another thing, there is no good
evidence of that view in scripture.

Thus, what is and what is not sanaatana-dharma is best indicated by
scripture. sanaatana-dharma does not equal Hinduism, and merely claiming
that one is following sanaatana-dharma is not proof.

regards,

-- Krishna

p.s. I guess I should point out that the original reason for my reply was
to point out the hypocrisy in claiming someone to be exclusive because he
considers one Deity to be higher than the others, and the others to be
demigods. But now you yourself have called them demigods, and you have
argued very explicitly that they are not God by saying that they have only
some partial potency. Hence, you have defeated yourself.
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.