[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Sikh view of Hinduism
H. Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu) wrote on Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:13:08 GMT:
>First of all, Guru Gobind Singh has it wrong when he talks about Krishna
>being born from the womb of Devaki, etc. In fact, most of what was posted
>by Sankar (Singh's arguments) is a gross distortion of the historical
>facts.
Hari Krishna, I agree that it may not be in accordance with _some_
versions of Krishna's accounts. However, there are more than one
versions of Krishna's story as indeed Kartik's [Sankar's] post
reflects, and in case Guru Gobind Singh ji's words do not match
your version's description of Krishna, well, he isn't talking about
that particular version!
>Secondly, there is no reason why Krishna should not be considered
>unbounded, unlimited, and timeless. He makes these exact claims in the
>Bhagavad-Giitaa. The problem is that some people, using mundane logic (that
>which is based on experience of things in the material world) try to apply
>that logic to God and come to the conclusion that anything with name and
>form must be limited. There is no good reason for this.
This reasoning can be turned right around and used to say that there
is absolutely no use in describing God having some mundane features,
like birth from a human womb. To understand God the Timeless
Boundless and Limitless confined to a womb and born in a limited
human form is to apply mundane logic, if anything.
>> Indeed, and as per my understanding, Guru Gobind Singh says precisely the
>> same: it is futile to imagine God being born from a woman;s womb and
>other
>> such stories.
>Then Guru Gobind Singh has no idea what he is talking about. First of all,
>Krishna was not born from the womb. He appeared before Vasudeva and Devaki
>as Naaraayana, then changed Himself into a child.
That is one version, and as I said above, in this case it is futile
to assume the Guru is talking about this version. However, as you
know from other posts and perhaps otherwise too, there are alternative
versions the relative authenticity of which I would like to know.
One of the most widely known ones says that Krishna was born to
Devaki and Vasudev and was exchanged with the baby girl born to the
gwala household in Brij so as to save the newborn from the wrath of
Kans, the brother of Devaki who had previously killed the children
born to Vasudev and Devaki. ANd this version indeed matches what
Guru Gobind Singh writes about. I hope we are clear on this point.
>Secondly, the stories are not imaginative. They are fact. The orthodox
>schools of Vedanta consider them to be historical, and this is the same
>claim made by these scriptures themselves.
Actually there is a parallel with Sikh literature here. The Janam
Sakhis [stories about Guru Nanak sahib] report lots of facts, but
also have some imaginative extrapolations. What do you call them,
then? History or myth? It is neither exclusively.
>The criticism of Vaishnavism at least, is based on false premises and
>misapplied logic. To understand God fully, one must seek a higher authority
>-- the Vedic literatures (which were not authored by humans). Logic can
>only get you so far, and it is at best a supporting mode of evidence.
To assume the criticism of some other version as the criticism of
the Vaishnava version is erroneous. The higher authority acceptable
to you, the Vedas, are not at all an authority in any way to others,
say Sikhs, tribals, Muslims and so on. To me, personally, Gurbani is
an incomparably higher authority than Vedic literature, which, no
offence, _I_ find mundane in some respects. I think we need some
other way out of this deadlock.
regards
rs
