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

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

First of all, let me please request that you keep your followups short by
deleting any portion of my article which you do not want to specifically
address. It is getting quite inconvenient to scroll through my own text
just to find your views.

Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDx7vqI.5MM@netcom.com>...
 
> Dear Hari Krishnaji:
> 
> Thank you for sharing your views (although I should say that I am not
> surprised by them).  I know why you say that and I do not accept
> that Sri KR^ishhNa taught an exclusive religion, but out of regard to
> Srila prabhupAda, I will not get into a pointless agrument over
> translation.

Check the translations against any Sanskrit-English dictionary. You will
find them to be quite accurate. Perhaps I did not make this clear, but I
have several translations of the Bhagavad-Giita by persons with views
diametrically opposed to my own. With regards to the particular verses I
just brought up, they are all in agreement with how Srila Prabhupada
translated it.

Therefore, this is not an issue of translation, but of how willing a
translator is to take Krishna at His word rather than inserting some kind
of hidden meanings. Bhagavad-Giita is accepted by all aachaaryas as the
essence of the Upanishads. It was spoken before an assembly of warriors (as
opposed to a gathering of great sages) in the span of perhaps 1-2 hours
(there was not much time left before the battle started). Now think about
it, Dhruba. Would Krishna use extremely cryptic language for such an
audience, or do you think He would try to speak as clearly as possible to
elucidate this high subject matter for His audience?

> However, I would like to ask you about your views about 'what constitues
> avidhi-purvakaM', who were 'the anya-devatA' the He mentioned here.

avidhi-puurvakam means without proper intelligence, in a wrong way, etc.
anya-devataa means other gods. This is clear-cut Sanskrit. What do *you*
think they mean?

Here are some other translations of this verse (9.23)

"When devote men sacrifice to other deities with faith, they sacrifice to
me, Arjuna, HOWEVER ABERRANT THE RITES"  -- by Dr. Barbara Stole Miller,
Ph.D Columbia University

"Even those devotees, who, endowed with faith worship other gods, worship
Me alone, O son of Kunti, (but) BY THE WRONG METHOD." - Swami Chinmayananda

"Those also who are the devotees of other divinities, who worship them with
faith, are worshipping Me only, Arjuna! BUT NOT ACCORDING TO VEDIC
INJUNCTIONS." - A.G. Warrier's translation of Bhagavad-Giitaa Bhaashya of
Shrii Shankaraachaarya

Naturally, the emphasis here is mine.

Now, before you misunderstand me, please note that I do not put much faith
in the interpretations of the above three translators. The point here is
that some verses are so clear-cut that no matter how you interpret them,
you still have to come to the same conclusion about its meaning. All these
translators agree that Krishna has stated that there is something wrong
with worship of other gods. Krishna Himself has said it, so who are we to
disagree? 

The trouble I think, is that you wish that Krishna had said something else
when the fact is that He has stated that transcendentalists should only
worship Him. I'm sorry Dhruba, but Lord Krishna's teachings are quite clear
on this matter. Nothing is wrong with the demigods or even their devotees.
The demigods should naturally be given all respects, but if one wants
liberation, one must worship some form of Krishna. Those who worship the
demigods go the the planets of the demigods, but all planets in the
material world up to the topmost planet of Brahma-loka are places of
misery. Therefore, liberation consists of going to the supreme abode -
Vaikuntha. None of this is based on some sectarian interpretation, but is
very clearly stated in the Giitaa.

Don't just to allude to some verse and claim that it supports your view.
Give me the word-by-word analysis and tell me how you think it means what
you want it to mean. As it is, I can't even fathom how you can draw an
all-accepting mentality out of those verses. 

I don't agree that the religion of Bhagavad-Giitaa is exclusive because I
don't think Vaishnavism is exclusive. Anyone can take to the worship of the
Supreme Lord, regardless of qualification. So there is no question of
exclusion. 

All this brings me back to my original point, which is that Hinduism cannot
be defined according to the message of the Bhagavad-Giitaa, unless Hindus
are prepared to accept that Hinduism = Vaishnavism which I know they will
not.

regards,

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