[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism"
Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote in article
<ghenDyFCnL.1uB@netcom.com>...
>
> Hari Krishna Susarla wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > 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?
>
> It means that worship of deities like Varuna and Indra as the rulers of
> only a portion of the cosmos is incorrect for achieving liberation.
There is no evidence given in the Bhagavad-Giitaa that one can worship
other devas as the Supreme Lord. This is a meaning which you have inserted,
and it makes little sense in light of the many statements Krishna makes
asserting His supremacy.
For example, after decreeing the worship of the devas, Krishna states:
aha`m hi sarva-yaj~naanaa`m
bhoktaa ca prabhur eva ca
na tu maam abhijaananti
tattvenaatas' cyavanti te
This is Giitaa 9.24, and in this verse Krishna states that He is the
enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Furthermore, He states that those who
do not recognize this fall down (tattvenaatas' cyavanti te). Considering
the context in which this statement occurs, the meaning is quite clear.
Those who don't recognize Krishna as the only master fall down. Consider
also the next verse. Krishna states yaanti deva-vrataa devaan (those who
worship the demigods will go to the demigods). Where in that verse do you
see Him saying, those who worship the demigods [with the idea that they are
only controllers of a small sphere of influence] go to the demigods? He
very clearly states that any kind of worship aimed at the demigods can only
result in elevation to the worlds of the demigods, as opposed to devotion
to Him which yaanti mad-yaajino 'pi maam : leads to Him, the Supreme Lord.
> But worshipping Shiva as the Supreme would be correct, since such worship
> is directed only to God under a different name and form.
>
> What about worshipping Indra as the supreme controller of the universe?
> That would be correct too, since again, God alone is worshipped under a
> different name and form.
It would not be correct. Either Indra and Shiva are God or they are not. We
know from many statements such as those in the Bhaagavatam that they are
subordinate to Krishna. So why do you assume that they are also forms of
God? It would be incorrect to elevate one to the status of being God when
in fact he does not have such a position.
> > Instead you are poking at hidden, indirect
> > meanings and saying that they should be taken more seriously than the
> > literal meanings.
> >
>
> So you then accept the literal meaning of Gita (7.18):
>
> Udarah noble; sarve all; eva surely; ete these; jnani wise; tu but;atma
self;
> eva very; me my;matam opinion; asthitah is established;sah he; hi verily;
> yuktatama steadfast minded;maam me;eva verily;anuttamam the supreme;
> gatim goal;
>
> " Noble indeed are all these; but the wise man, I deem to be My very
Self.
> For steadfast in mind,he is established in Me alone as the supreme
goal."
>
> Accepting the above verse without any interpretation, there is no way one
can
> escape from an advaitic understanding of the Gita.
Absolutely! Accepting the above verse and rejecting most or all of the rest
of the Giitaa which gives confliciting evidence could lead you to such an
understanding. Fortunately, the Vaishnavas need not take such a partial
approach.
For example, both 7.17 and 7.18 make use of the word yukta, which means to
connect. Tell me Karttik, how can you speak of connecting two things which
are already connected? Furthermore, Krishna speaks of this connection
between Himself and the devotee who is in knowledge, who is very dear to
Him, etc. He does not make that claim about other living entities. Hardly a
monistic statement, wouldn't you agree?
What do you make of other verses which clearly indicate duality? Such
brahma-bhuuta.h prasannaatmaa.... mad-bhakti`m labhate paraam. Therein the
Lord states that the result of attaining Brahman is devotional service to
Him. Devotion, as you know, requires two.
Even in English, we say things like, "He is my heart and soul, He is as
dear to me as my self, etc." So no, one need not accept the advaitic
understanding by accepting the literal understanding of 7.18, especially
since there are other literal understandings of this verse which make even
more sense when taken in context. Actually, yours is hardly a literal
interpretation, since you glossed over the word "yukta" and tried to argue
for an advaitic understanding of the verse.
Your interpretations suffer from the same flaws as Dhrubas. Namely, they
ignore context and assume that the Giitaa would be full of hidden meanings
when in fact the Giitaa was spoken on a battlefield to an audience of
warriors and not rishis.
regards,
-- Krishna
