[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
Pradip Gangopadhyay wrote:
>
> "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.
I figured you might say something like this.
For starters, this analogy is not related to the original statement
you made, which is that Krishna is the Ultimate Reality does not equal
Ultimate Reality is Krishna. The "is" or = indicates absolute identity
between the two things compared.
What you are now saying is that "if A is a part of B, that does not
guarantee that B = A." That's fine, but look at the original statement
you made and think about it.
Krishna is the *Ultimate* Reality. Okay, but the *Ultimate* reality is
not necessarily Krishna? If Krishna is the *Ultimate* reality, then
how can you say that the Ultimate Reality is not Krishna? How Ultimate
can He be if the reverse is not true? If Krishna is the *Ultimate*
reality, then there is nothing else that is beyond Him; He is
Ultimate. Therefore, your claim is not logical.
What you seem to be saying is that "Krishna is a part of the Ultimate
Reality." You can say that if you want, but that is not what is stated
in the Bhagavad-Giitaa: param brahma param dhaama pavitram paramam
bhavaan (10.13). He is the Supreme Truth. Otherwise, how do you
explain the Bhaagavatam describing Him as param satyam, or purnam
purusham? What about ete caamsha kalaaaha pumsah krishnas tu bhagavaan
svayam? This is from the 1st canto of the Bhaagavatam. I apologize for
not providing exact verse numbers and transliteration; it's only
because I am at school and quoting from memory. I can provide exact
details later if you wish. What this verse states is that all others
are portions or plenary portions, but Krishna is the Original Supreme
Lord, not a part of anything.
> >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.
It's hardly an interpretation. The meaning is clear. That is why
Krishna states vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedya.h (15.15). Did you
think He was referring to only some portion of the Vedas that excludes
the SU?
It is your understanding which is an interpretation, and a very poor
one at that. Consider the following weaknesses in your interpretation:
1) you have to ignore all statements in the SU which state that the
Lord is the origin and the guru of Brahmaa (this is clearly Vishnu)
2) You ignore the fact that Lord Hari is invoked in the very beginning
3) You take the scripture out of context, neglecting what Krishna has
said in Giitaa 15.15.
4) You ignore the fact that Vishnu is sometimes known as Shiva (as
stated in VSN), and thus the references to God as Shiva in the SU must
be considered to be referring to Vishnu. In fact, considering the
other three points, they have to be understood in this way.
And you say my "interpretation" is too sectarian for your tastes? Who
are you kidding? Yours is the interpretation, and it is based on bad
scholarship to say the least.
I should add that I checked the "interpretations" given by one of your
own Ramakrishna mission swamis. I think it was Swami Nikhilananda's
translation. In any case, it was pretty clear from the text that he
did not interpret the SU as a Shaivite Upanishad.
We must agree to disagree
> here.
You can disagree all you want. But don't claim the other guy is just
interpreting simply because your own position is so indefensible.
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.
Don't take my words out of context. You know I am not trying to insult
him. Rather, I was pointing out that it is *your* logic which is
insulting. We see in the Bhaagavatam that Shiva is described as the
greatest Vaishnava: vaishnavaanam yatha shambuh. So why does he
worship Vishnu if he is already God? Are you suggesting he does not
know he is God? You seem to be implying that Shiva is ignorant. I
wonder what the Shaivites would say about that.
> I accept these verses for what they say and have come to the conclusion
> that they need interpretation.
This is a contradiction. If you accept them for what they are, then
you know the meaning and hence they require no interpretation.
Otherwise, what is your understanding when Krishna says that worship
of anyadevata is avidhi-puurvakam? The Sanskrit is clear. No
interpretation is necessary. Please show me an example of ambiguity in
these statements.
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.
That's absurd. There are 330 million anyadevatas. When Krishna says
that worship of other gods is improper, then there is no reason to
assume that this is true for all except a select few whom you happen
to like. We know that worship of Vishnu is okay only because there are
explicit statements equating Vishnu and Krishna throughout the Vedic
literatures. Do you see any statements explicitly saying that Vishnu,
the consort of Lakshmi, and SHiva, the consort of Parvathi, are one
and the same? I have yet to find such a verse. The only scripture I
know of which even admits of some degree of oneness is the 5th chapter
of the Brahmaa-samhitaa, which is only accepted by Gaudiiya
Vaishnavas. Even that scripture implicitly states that Shiva is
subordinate to Vishnu, by virtue of the use of the word transformation
and the qualifiers which state that Shiva is merely there for the
purposes of universal destruction.
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.
Right, but there is no reliable evidence that Shiva is another
"personal form of God." What is your evidence for that? Why would one
"personal form of God" worship another? Your assumption is without
basis.
> I do not see fanaticism in your position. I do see, however, a very
> narrow sectarian point of view.
It's only as sectarian as the Vedas. Do you regard the Vedas as
sectarian? If so, then I submit that you really don't understand what
religion means, what to speak of Vedanta. The Vedas are not the
property of any one sect, as its teachings (the teachings of
Vaishnavism) are universally true. If a scripture did not teach a
universal Truth, then it would hardly be worth basing an entire
world-view on.
On the other hand, you are expressing opinions that have no basis in
the Vedas. It is your opinion which is sectarian. It is contradicted
by many of the great schools of Vedanta, and it is contradicted by the
Giitaa and the Bhaagavatam. Do you think your opinion is correct, and
all the great aachaaryas are wrong?
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.
This is not logical. It is based on the assumption that the "various
deities" of whom you speak are also infinities in and of themselves.
That is refuted by the Bhagavad-Giitaa. The devas are not infinite.
They are subordinate beings with elevated powers and consciousness.
Your thinking is based on the Judeo-Christian world-view that only God
is worshiped. In Vedic culture, it is very common to offer worship to
the ancestors, to the guru, to a guest, to the parents, etc. Thus,
there is no reason to assume that the devas are omnipotent,
omnisicient, omnipresent Gods simply because some sacrifices are
arranged for their pleasure.
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.
The devas are not divinities, and they are not the same as God. Where
in the Bhagavad-Giitaa does it say that one can worship any deva and
get liberation?
I have already given the example of the
> Shvetasvatara Upanishad (you do not agree).
I do not agree with any interpretation which arbitrarily ignores
evidence as you have done. An understanding which is based on half of
a scripture is a misunderstanding.
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.
I don't have the Kena Upanishad. However, I doubt what you say very
strongly because a) many great Vaishnava aachaaryas have written
commentaries on this Upanishad and none have recognized Lord Shiva's
wife as a "Personal Form of God." b) Uma herself is a devotee of Lord
Krishna; she received instruction from her husband on devotional
service and this is recorded in the Bhaagavatam and most importantly,
c) based on what you have provided here, there is no correlation
between Brahman and Uma. All that you have stated is that Brahman
disappeared and that Uma appeared. Does the Kena U. state that Uma =
param Brahman?
Chandogya Upanishad
> mentions Sri Krishna (3.17.6). The Upanishads do not state the superiority or
> inferiority of the different Personal Forms.
You seem to be a little confused here. No one is arguing that there is
superiority or inferiority among different forms of God. What is being
argued is whether or not the other devas are forms of God. Please get
this straight.
Shiva, Krishna, Divine Mother may
> all be thought of as the Ultimate Reality.
Where is that Giitaa shloka which explicitly states that Shiva and Uma
are forms of the Ultimate Reality?
However, the Ultimate Reality can
> not only be Shiva or Krishna or Divine Mother.
I already pointed out the fallacy in this "part of the whole = whole
but does not equal the whole" logic.
That would be limiting the
> Ultimate Reality to one Name and Form.
God can have many Names and Forms, but not every name and form is a
name and form of God. I ask again for evidence to suggest that Shiva,
the devotee of Vishnu, is also Vishnu.
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.
Bhagirathi is a *part* of the Ganga. But Krishna IS the Supreme
Brahman. The analogy is inappropriate.
> 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.
Please. Try and be a little more original.
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.
Even Sri Sankara is guilty of this failing... but you are not?
This is arrogance. Who are you to point out the flaws in the
aachaarya's and their teachings? You keep saying that the great
spiritual leaders have had various failings based on what *you* think
is right. That's all. It's your personal opinion against the
philosophies put forward by some of the great Vedantists who happen to
be much more learned than you. There is absolutely no scriptural basis
for what you are saying. Instead you are poking at hidden, indirect
meanings and saying that they should be taken more seriously than the
literal meanings.
> 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.
This verse merely states that there many ways in which men identify
Krishna. Where is it stated that any worship is identification of
Krishna?
What did you translate in that verse as "all of us are worshipping the
same Ultimate Reality?" That's not what Krishna said when He said ye
p'yanya devata bhakta yajante sharaddayaanvitaah/ te pi maam eve
kaunteya yajantyaavidhi puurvakam.
I'm sure you would agree that in order to understand the
Bhagavad-Giitaa, we have to consider *all* of the Giitaa. Surely you
realize it is dishonest to take one verse out of context and claim
some meaning for it that isn't there.
> 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.
It is by no means clear. It is frankly not a logical statement. You
can say it if you want, but don't think that mere belief in something
justifies it as Truth.
regards,
-- Krishna
