shvu

Dear Gaurachandra, Yes, my tone towards these translators who write Bhashyas, and Purports to suit their views (Impersonal, Personal, whatever...) is inclined to be curt, because I dislike anybody distorting any meanings for their convenience. A fan means a devotee. Why does that bother you so ? Our man, means SP in this context. Again why does that bother you so ? I am not into sarcasm, if that is what you think I am doing here. I am pointing out my observations, my way. That is how I would addressany such tranlsator, not just SP. A secure person will not get riled about these things. Your Guru may be a big person to you, but remember that he is just another ordinary person to others. I have read somehwere that SP used to get offended if someone called him Acharya. He wanted to be called as the 'Founder Acharya'. Such a person is not really exceptional, is he ? There are several other people who have translated the Gita, the Bhagavatam, etc. Anybody who knows Sankrit, english and has the inclination can do it. It is no big deal. Coming to your translation about ego, if Ahankara means 'False ego' would you please give me the sankrit term for ego ? Thank you.

Hello ggohill, Here are my observations and comments. When reading SP's translation of the Gita, people would do good to also read the word to word translation that comes before that, in the 'Gita as it is'. When you do that, and if you have some basic knowledge of sanskrit you will find that he has interpreted sanskrit words in his own sweet way. He has given new meanings to sanskrit words to suit his message. ( No offense to his fans...) Examples : Ahankara is a sanskrit verse that means ego in english as any dictionary will say. However Prabhupada translates it as 'False ego'. Where did that false come from ? That would imply that there is something called 'True ego', which is not found anywhere in the Gita. Ask his devout fans and they will get angry for raising questions about their revered Guru. Bhagavan means God, Lord, etc. Our man translates it as 'Supreme personality of Godhead'. Whew ! That is something ! Where did all the extra words come from ? Let us take the verses mentioned above by you. -------------- SP's translation : Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My Original Form" BG 4.6 ------------------ shvu: If you check out the literal word to word thing, you will find that there are no sankrit words there to say 'Original form'. That was conveniently added by our man. --------------- SP's Translation : "Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality.........." BG 7.24 -------------------------- This verse completes with 'Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.' So it does not say that Krishna says his original form is Personal. What he says is he has a higher nature, which is above manifest and unmanifest. ------------- SP's translation: Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of Krsna..........." BG 8.7 ------------------- Distortion again. Krishna tells Arjuna to think of him, period. 'In the form of Krishna' was added by our man, SP. -- Krishna does not say anywhere that his personal Human form is his original form, nor that he has a transcendental form. He does say in several places tha he is unmanifest, which implies he is beyond forms. Translators have a way of twisting the meaning to repesent their view. The same goes for SP. Although most people here do not like to think so, they should remember that there is nothing extra-ordinary about anyone that whatever he says has got to be true. Of course, a lot of people who read "BG as it is" do not know Sanskrit and would not have read other translations. So they just lap up whatever they read. Nothing is lost anyway. I hope this answers your questions. Any outraged fans of SP, who can pick holes in my explanation are welcome to.

Hello ggohill, Krishna says, "Some people think that I was unmanifest before and am manifest now. They do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme." Krishna does not explicitly say that he is manifest. He is beyond the manifest and the umanifest or in Prabhupada's terms, beyond Personal and Impersonal. The folowing verses may clarify things. It is SP's translation. --------------- At the beginning of Brahma's day, all living entities become manifest from the unmanifest state, and thereafter, when the night falls, they are merged into the unmanifest again. - 8.18 Yet there is another unmanifest nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is. - 8.20 That which the Vedantists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns--that is My supreme abode. - 8.21 ----------------- The dualistic translations were targetting to oust Shankara's Monism where he primarily focused on the formless Brahman. So their translations will always insist on God having a form. Personally I would suggest that you avoid all the purports in any book and read only the original content. Otherwise we will end up reading the translator's views and interpretations (or misinterpretations? ). Also try reading translations of BG by other people.

This page has some info on Vedic Egypt. http://www.vnn.org/world/WD9912/WD09-5049.html Of ocurse, it has been written by people who favor Vedic Origin, so it leans more towards that. So I am very skeptic about such writings.

The Bible says that in the beginning, all the people on Earth spoke one language. Then God scattered them across and they started speaking different languages. I have heard of a book, which explains how Sanskrit gradaully dwindled down from being the language of the world. When we have as many as 4 distinctly spearate languages in South India itself, it is little suprise that we have so many languages around the world. There is also the story of the flood and the Arc, which is found in almost all religions.

Nitai : ...He confirms that one is connected to this knowledge only through guru parampara. Can you please explain that ? I could not find such a statement in the Gita.

Yes. Those verses seem to contradict each other. Verses 18.60 and 18.61, don't go with the rest of the Gita. Because if everthing is divine will, there was no need for Krishna to bother with explaining paths in detail. Most of the Gita indicates man has free will to choose and act. Perhaps some scholars know how to fit in the above 2 verses with the rest of the Gita. Would be interesting to know.

Nitai : How can it be discouraging ? shvu : It can be discouraging because there are systems and Gurus , who claim that no Sadhana is possible without dhiksha from a Guru. So if anyone was to believe in them and do not have access to a Guru who can give them Dhiksha, they would certianly be discouraged. Nitai: How do you know these things ? shvu: What things do you mean ? Nitai : You read the Bhagavad Gita? Yes, did you manufacture it yourself how to attain Krishna abode? No....you got this transcendental knowledge from someone. So there is always a need of a spiritual master, this is logic. shvu : Sure, I said earlier that a Guru can be in the form of a book or person. So all this knowledge that I have are from books.

I would also like to add that, Devotion and worship will in no way reduce material pains. It will not avoid Heart attacks or Cancer. The person's perspective of pain and suffering may change, and may help him face his problems better. Or may not.

If a person feels that he or she should have a Physical Guru, then they should. It will be easier and helpful for them. It is also said that it is the Guru, who seeks the Disciple out and not the other way around. It is divine will, that brings a Guru and disciple together, to aid in the disciple's Sadhana. In my personal opinion, worship requires no knowledge and there is no specific way of doing it. All that is required is devotion, which cannot be given by others. It has to happen by itself. One cannot consciously make a decision to love God. That would be born out of selfish ideas and will not be love. Love has to happen on it's own. That is when it is unconditional love, where there is no goal in mind. But one can surrender one's will and desires to God. That should be possible anytime. That is what any person is capable of doing. ---------------- Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are very dear to me. - The Gita 18.65 ------------------- So the point is, not having a physical Guru and Dhiksha should not discourage anyone. It is not a necessity.

More things of interest. 1. The American native Indians had a Myth, where a lady once came down from the sky and told them about the 4 Ages, comparing them to a Cow with 4,3, 2 and 1 legs, similar to the Hindu way of describing Virtue in the different Yugas. 2. Mesopatamia or Babylon, I am not sure which, also has the concept of Yugas and the same figures of 432,000 years. Perhaps there is some forgotten link somewhere.

Interesting... The Egyptians worshipped the Sun with the name of Ra, which is close to Ravi, one of the Indian names for the Sun. They apparently believed in Life after death. Some Theories say that their civilisation started with the last few people of Atlantis after it was destroyed. There are theories according to which Atlantis is the Atala and Patala Loka described in Hinduism, because it was on the other half of the earth. Lots of theories...

Good questions. ----------------- What you do not wish to do, you shall do inspite of yourself, fettered by the duties born of your nature. - The Gita 18.60 In the hearts of all, resides the lord making them act as if they were mounted on a machine. - The Gita 18.61 -------------------------------- Going by this, Man has no free-will at all. If a person kills or performs charity it is all due to divine will. So whether one kills a snake, or is killed by a snake, or just walks away, they are all the same. If someone is drawn towards the lord, that would be out of divine will too. Also reacting to danger is natural and is found in all animals. The reaction that comes out will be instinctive, whatever it be.

Hello All, To clarify : I am not against Chaitanya or anyone, it is just to clarify that Krishna never said that a Guru was a necessity. That is my stand.

Posted by jayaShriRadheyji, ---- O Teacher of the world! May calamities befall us at every step through eternity! It is in adversity alone that we are blessed with your sight, which eliminates the possiblity of our seeing another birth. --------- Very nice.

Dear Nitai, Please provide me with any scriptural Quotes that state that it is impossible to reach Krishna's abode without a Guru. By Scriptural refernces, I mean anything that is from before Chaitanya's time. Also any information about Krishna starting Sampradayas as you stated earlier, would be of interest to me. A person who has given up all desires for sense gratification, who lives free from desires, who has given up all sense of proprietorship and is devoid of false ego--he alone can attain real peace. - Gita 2.71 That is the way of the spiritual and godly life, after attaining which a man is not bewildered. If one is thus situated even at the hour of death, one can enter into the kingdom of God. - Gita 2.72 ------------------------------ The Gita has about 700 verses, where there is no talk about the necessity of a Guru. The above two verses are an example. Thank you.

Dear Viji, I never said that having a Guru is wrong. I am saying that having a Guru is not mandatory as it is stated, in some Systems. Perhaps I should make myself more clear. A Guru is a guide in any form. It could be a person or it could just be a book. It is just the information that matters, and not the medium. Where is the necessity of initiation ? Who initiated Ramana, Ramakrishna, etc ? In all the 700 Verses of the Gita, there is no talk of any such thing. In the early Vedic days, Spiritual knowledge was exclusive to Brahmins only. So there was this concept of Dhiksha where a person would be authorized by a Guru to start Sadhana (after verifying his Gotra, and all the stuff...). Apparently they also had no books then and everything was orally taught, which meant that a Guru was necessary. But Krishna has said clearly that he is not exclusive to one set of people. He is accessible to one and all. And now we have books. So no initiation is required in any form by any Guru.

Dear Nitai, Nitai : Bhagavatam stresses so much on the acceptance of a spiritual master. Shvu : The Bhagavatam talks about the various paths to God, and describes everyone of them. I can quote several verses, which decriber paths that don't require a Guru. My earlier statement was " A Guru is not an absolute necessity" and it still stands. Nitai : There are 4 sampradayas which all come down from Krishna. It has always been like this. Shvu : That is interesting, because I was not aware that Krishna started "Sampradayas". Can you give me the exact reference to the book and location where Krishna talks about Sampradayas ? After we clear this doubt, I will answer your last question too.

tad viddhi prani patena, pari prasnena sevaya, upadeksyanti te jnanam, jnaninas tattva darsinah. Know that through Prostation, enquiry and service, the wise will instruct you in wisdom. - The Gita This does not say that a Guru is compulsory. The Gita or the Bhagavatam never said that a Guru is necessary or mandatory. All this stuff came after Chaitanya. He and his immediate followers turned it into a detailed hierarchical system, with various stages in between. Under the Vaishnava system, initiation from a Guru is compulsory.

Dear ggohil, As you asked for comments, here are mine. a. That unalloyed devotees of Krsna are very dear to him (Krsna). C - Nope, Krishna says in the Gita that no one is hateful or dear to him. Everyone is the same to him. b. That Krsna can not tolerate suffering of his close devotees. C - Nope, Krishna says in the Bhagavatam that the moment his grace falls on a person, he robs him of everything. The person is so distressed that, he has no choice but to turn to the Lord for relief. So if a person is suffering or in pain, it is to be understood as grace. c. That Krsna is partial to his devotees. We use this special relationship of Krsna and his devotees to our personal advantage. Like I said before, the causeless Supreme God cannot be partial to some and aloof to others. Being partial and to differentiate between different types of people is a human limitation. While having a Guru is fine, it is not always necessary, as in the case of Shri Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi. People like to think that a devotee is always safe and secure. But that is not true. A devotee is subject all the pain and miseries that a non-devotee is subject to. It is just a means of escape to think that devotion buys safety and security, which is born out of fear.

Material suffering is the only suffering there is. And it is not illusory. It may be illusory to some Gurus, but let us not look at exceptions. Look at the majority of mankind. And when we do that, there is no way we can call it an illusion. It is as real as can be. Try telling a starving person that his pain is an illusion.

The devotees of Krishna see Krishna as Narayana, the source of everything. That is the reason for this confusion.

The Supreme power is known as Narayana. Everything springs forth from him. He is said to take birth on Earth from time to time for restoring Dharma and stability. At the end of the Dwapara Yuga, he took birth as Krishna. This is considered as a special Avatara by many people. Narayana is said to have come down in his original form. Krishna Avatara is also called as Poorna Avatara (The complete Incarnation). The point of Krishna's Death is said to be the beginning of the Kali Yuga. (3102 BC)

The Avaduta Gita is an ancient Advaitic classic attributed to Lord Dattatreya. Krishna explains the Avaduta Gita to his friend Udhava in the Bhagavtam. ------- 1.24 Birthless, pure, bodiless, equable, imperishable Atman that know yourself to be. How then can you say: I know Atman, or I know not the Atman ? 1.34. Some there are that prize non-dualism, others hold to dualism. They know not the Truth, which is above both. 2.1 Hold not the immature, the credulous, the foolish, the slow, the layman and the fallen to have nothing good in them. They all teach something. Learn from them. Surely we do not give up a game although we have mastered it? 2.29. The teacher cannot teach Atman; the disciple cannot learn it. 3.11 Atman is not the Knower Nor is It the known. It is not accessible to inference. Words cannot describe. 3.17. The saying of the Shruti,not this, not this, does not apply to Atman. How can it be said when all is subtracted Atman alone remains? It is symbolical but not a symbol; Yet even this cannot be said of Atman. 4.18 I have told you, O disciple, the essence of Truth. There is no you nor I, no world, no Guru, or disciple. 4.21 Renounce, renounce the world, and also renounce renunciation, and even give up the absence of renunciation. 6.7 The statement that Atman is describable or indescribable cannot stand. Neither is It the knower nor the known. It cannot be imagined or defined. 6.33 The wise man strives not for anything, not even for Dharma or liberation. He is free from all actions and movements, and also from desire and renunciation. 7.17. All you lovers of wisdom, protect your minds from feelings of pleasure, and engage them in spiritual wisdom. 7.18. This is the song of the great Dattatreya Avadhut. Those who read it and hear it with respectful attention, they are not reborn on this earth.

Now I am confused. I thought Buddha was the 9th avatar of Vishnu as mentioned in the dasha avatara. Can you also please explain about how an amsa and an avatar differ from each other ? Thank you