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

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



"H. Krishna Susarla" <susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote:

>> 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?

	Let me give you an example. Bhagirathi is the name of Ganga from 
Farakka to Sagar. Bhagirathi is definitely Ganga. Ganga is, however, not 
Bhagirathi. Ganga is a much larger river from Gomukh to Sagar. I will use
this as an analogy later in the text.


>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 Gita, or the
>Gaudiya-Vaishanava position.
>Or are you saying that Shiva is such a fool that he doesn't realize that he
>actually is God? 

I appreciate your defence of Gaudiya Vaishnava view. I find this 
interpretation to be too sectarian for my tastes. We must agree to disagree 
here. I want to make one point here. It is probably better not to use 
intemperate words like fool, when you know Shaivites consider Shiva as the 
Ultimate Reality.


>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)


	I accept these verses for what they say and have come to the conclusion
that they need interpretation. Your case would be considerably stronger if you
can point out a single SBG verse which gives a list of "anyadevata" ruling out
Shiva, Divine Mother and others. Sri Krishna does give a list in verse 9.25. 
He mentions that the votaries of the Devas, pitrus and bhutas will not get 
liberation. I am sure you know that Devas mean Indra and other divinities and
not other Personal Forms of God.


	I do not see fanaticism in your position. I do see, however, a very 
narrow sectarian point of view. Let me state here my position. I find it quite
logical to assume that the various deities are facets of the same Ultimate 
Reality as otherwise you will have more than one Infinity. The various 
Personal Forms mentioned in the Sruti are like different stretches of the 
Ganga. There is no question of superiority or inferiority about them. You will
be liberated if you worship any of them just as you will get wet whether you 
bathe in Haridwar or Sagar. I have already given the example of the 
Shvetasvatara Upanishad (you do not agree). Kena Upanishad tells of the 
experience of Indra, Vayu and Agni. Once a great Spirit (Brahman) asked Agni 
to burn a piece of straw. Agni failed. Vayu failed to move that straw. When 
Indra came the great Spirit vanished and the Divine Mother Uma appeared (Kena 
U 3.11-12). Thus the Divine Mother is a Personal Form. Chandogya Upanishad 
mentions Sri Krishna (3.17.6). The Upanishads do not state the superiority or 
inferiority of the different Personal Forms. Shiva, Krishna, Divine Mother may
all be thought of as the Ultimate Reality. However, the Ultimate Reality can 
not only be Shiva or Krishna or Divine Mother. That would be limiting the 
Ultimate Reality to one Name and Form. That does not mean, however, that Shiva
or Krishna are limited in any way. Bhagirathi is just as much Ganga as is the 
stretch from Gomukh to Haridwar. 

	Of course, the different sects have given their sectarian 
interpretation and claimed superiority for their deity. I have never liked 
this sectarian competition to name one'e own Deity or conception of the Divine
as superior compared to other sects. All the old line Vaishnava, Shaiva or 
Shakta sects have more or less taken such narrow positions. Even Sri Sankara 
is guilty of this failing. Sri Sankara, of course, accepts both the Absolute 
and the Personal God. However, I have always felt it illogical that he accepts
the Personal Forms only at the vyabharica level. If he believes that the 
Personal God is inferior to the Absolute then why did he use the SBG to argue 
his case? Surely the SBG is a lecture by a Personal God.

	 I feel that whether you are a Vaishnava or Shaiva or Shakta matters 
little, since all of us are worshipping the same Ultimate Reality (whatever be
the difference in name and form). I feel that Sri Krishna is saying the same
thing in SBG 4.11:
	Ye yatha mam prapadyante
	tams tathai va bhajamy aham
	mama vartma nuvartante
	manushya partha sarvasah

In whatever way men identify with me, in the same way do I carry out their
desires; men pursue My path, O Partha, in all ways.

	I realize that you will find my understanding of the scriptures 
hopelessly wrong. I just wanted to make it clear why I said Sri Krishna is
the Ultimate Reality but the Ultimate Reality is not Sri Krishna.

Regards


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