Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Om Gurave Namah Dear Narasimha, I have learnt a lot from your exemplary equanimity and patience, and so have, I am sure, many other list members. I write here to second what you said about our initiations and spiritual heritage of our families being insignificant to this discussion. Gauranga had also raised a similar question to me. In fact I was about to reply to him, and then I didn’t. After all, who is Gauranga to ask for my credentials to speak in a free and public forum? I suppose at a level we can excuse them, for they might not know that most Indians are initiated and that Diksha and Ishta are very private things, and we usually do not disclose them in public. I could have given a long family lineage, which includes a grandfather who was a practicing Vaishnav and had published a biography of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in Bengali, long before I was even conceived. (The funniest of course is that my father hails from Navadwip). I can also give a long history of how my grandmother was the direct disciple of one of the Holy Couple of the Ramakrishna Math order; of where my entire family is initiated, of our close linkages and associations with various Maths of both the vaishnava and the Ramakrishna parampara, of how I have learned of Krishnas’ leela from goswamis who visit us every janmashtami, of how I have learned scriptures form a very small age (sp. the Gita and the Upanishads) from these sannyasis/ins. But these details are too private and its not anybody’s business. There are many like us on the list who are similarly associated with various religious paramparas and have been steeped in scriptures right from their parents knees, and then by their preceptors. I am sure many of them are very knowledgeable but are not opening their mouth out of politeness and respect. I can also go forth and give scholastic credentials like you did. But Narasimha, do we really need to do so? So my Gita was not only learnt from our family guru’s parampara but also from a very seniour professor who was the head of the Sanskrit department of a University in Calcutta. Sanskrit was my chosen optional language in school too, apart from getting special training at home from the scholar. This was specially arranged by my parents. And later in my working life, as I ventured in the world of academics I met many more people who were scholars and had the opportunity to read and discuss many more theological work. And I learnt to distinguish between scholastic translations and parampara translations. (the scholastic tradition in fact consider Lord Jagannth to be a tribal deity, exactly as they think of Goddess Kali. This is a sacrilege to the bhakt, but to the non-believing scholar it is perfectly normal). We do not need to give our credentials in a public forum to speak freely on whatever we wish. Our Constitution guarantees us that in Article 19, which states that we all enjoy the freedom of thought and speech. So we are all free to state what we have read and thought about our scriptures since our childhood. If we feel that we prefer Shankara’s or the Ramakrishna order’s or the Chinmaya Mission’s or the Gita Press’s translation to be the correct one, then it is our personal choice and wish. And we have a right to do so and uphold our views. Prabhupada’s translation is one among many and his devotees may hold that to be sacrosanct. But it is not universally applicable. I am extremely grateful to G. W. Brennan for stating what is apparent to many, but one would not have done so as there are many disciples of Prabhupada present on the list. And usually we respect the others’ respect for their guru. This is a common practice in India. People are free to have their opinion of Shankara but they cannot stop us from voicing our opinion. This is not a dictatorship! I wonder how they will feel if we start speaking about Prabhupada in the same tone and language as they speak of Shankara/others. The finger that they turn towards us can be turned towards them as well and they have no right to thrust their opinion on us as the only Truth. In fact, I have noticed, that each time the discussion on the list veers towards religious/ spiritual topic, a section of people go hysterical and our right to discuss these issues is questioned. This is quite ludicrous. Gauranga has quoted verses from Chaitanya Charitamrita out of context and the translations too are not correct. What will I discuss with him? He does not even know the language, let alone the specialized dialectical Bengali of the genre of poetry that Chaitanya Charitamrita belongs to. This genre of poetry has a special niche in the history of Bengali literature, and there are many famous kavyas or poetry belonging to the same genre, like Bharatchandra Ray’s Annada Mangal (A treatise on the goddess Annapurna). This genre of poetry has a very special flavour and is written against the backdrop of a particular socio-cultural heritage. If you do not understand this heritage, and this highly specialized genre of literature, how can you understand the nuances of the language? yes"> What will I discuss with someone who has no clue, no background? Despite it we have always tried to entertain some sort of discussion with them. Now I am beginning to feel that it is totally pointless. Best regards, Garamond;color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> mso-color-alt:windowtext"> Sarbani mso-color-alt:windowtext"> Garamond"> 10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:black"> Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net] Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:07 PM vedic astrology [vedic astrology] Re: Mayavada Fallacy - Narasimha (to Robert) 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Namaste Robert, 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> >Namaste Robert, > > > > > So, my dear Narasimha, please stop these rambling and argumentative > > > debates, > > > >With all due respect, my dear Robert, you should behave yourself in a > >debate. I can also accuse you of "rambling". But such demeanor is hardly > >worthy of us. We both are Jyotish gurus and have some responsibility. Let > >us not use words like "rambling" to describe arguments that we don't > >particularly like. > > With due respect to you, instructing me "to behave myself" is a bit beyond > what I would call the protocol of "scholarly argument". You tend to get > personal when the argument heats up, and that makes you look bad. Anyway, > I will side-step the Kindergarten instructions, and address the points at > hand. windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">I am also the administrator of this list and have the right to tell you to behave when you call somebody's arguments as "ramblings". While you accuse me of getting personal, it is you who called my arguments "ramblings". 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> > The point is, that dry argument, and Sanskrit scholarship, is not the true > means of understanding the Vedic texts. By offering different opinions > from those given by great acharyas in the guru parampara system, as > recommended in the Bhagavad gita and many Vedic texts, does not yield the > true understanding. This is stated everywhere in the Vedic writings, and 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">You have to realize that those "great acharyas in the guru sampradaya system" are not only violating another great teacher Adi Sankara, but simply dismissing him through misquotes. I am speaking against them only to support another "great acharya in a guru sampradaya system" (namely, Adi Sankara, who established many great centers of Vedic learning, which are thriving to this day). 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> > list goes on. The opinions of Mahajanas, as mentioned above, are taken to > relay the true import of Vedic shastras. So now we have a young man named > Narasimha Rao, who thinks that his understanding is superior to all these > great Acharyas (?) This is why I say, dry speculation, without a link to a > specific Parampara through Diksha and the authorized initiatory process, is 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">FYI, diksha and authorized initiatory process does not only mean joining a specific spiritual organization. I had my initiatory process. You are only jumping to conclusions about me. Why can't we discuss the matter without discussing our dikshas etc? After all, if we don't agree, we can agree to disagree. 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">You said about me "You tend to get personal when the argument heats up, and that makes you look bad". I don't know exactly where I got personal, but it looks to me like you are getting "personal" in the above paragraph by talking about my age and referring to my diksha etc. I don't know if it "makes you look bad" though. mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> > like beating the empty corn husk - you may exhibit great effort, but the > result is a waste of time, in the final analysis. windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> You are quick to take offense, and that is also not becoming of a > scholar. If you read the translations of these verses that were given, > you will not find "insinuations" re: Sripad Sankaracharya. The verses I > quoted simply report, that Lord Shiva was ordered by the Supreme 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> Personality of Godhead Narayana/Vishnu, to appear in the form of a Brahmana > in Kali-yuga to teach "asat-shastra', or false interpretations of the > scriptures. You said that, "pracchanam baudham ucyate" meant that it was 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">But, when I see that the sloka actually suggests that Sankara would fight against false knowledge rather than creating false knowledge as the translation says, I am justified in branding the translation as an "insinuation". From the point of view of my interpretation, what else can it be? mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> > the Buddhist philosophy that was Mayavada, and not what Sankara was > teaching. Well, if what he was teaching was akin to Buddhist philosophy, > then that makes it the same thing, i.e. Mayavada, does it not? Further, 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">No. The sloka never said his teaching was similar to Buddhism. 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> > the following is said also: "nirgunam vaksyate maya, sarva-svam jagato > 'py asya, mohanartham kalau yuge", indicating that the philosophy of > Nirguna, or formlessness, is meant to bewilder people in the > Kali-yuga. The imports are clear to me. color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">But where is it clear that Shiva is saying that he will teach false interpretations? color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> > >Well, what can I say? This is a liberal, loose and motivated translation > >aimed at undermining the great Adi Sankara. > > No. The verse says, "mayavadam asacc-astram, pracchanam baudham ucyate", > Mayavadi philosophy, akin to Buddhism, was the purpose of the incarnation > of Lord Shiva. I've given a direct quotation from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">"Bauddham uchyate" means "is called Buddhism". The word "uchyate" does not fit with the rest of your break up. If the verse wanted to say that a wrong science akin to Buddhism was called mayavadam", then "uchyate" would be after "mayavadam". With this word arrangement, all the words upto bauddham can only be its adjectives qualifying it further. Whatever you describe, it basically ends with "is called Buddhism". Thus it means "an illusionist knowledge based on falsehood and hiding is called Buddhism". (Jesse Abbot, I am sorry if this offends you. Let us not sidetrack when discussing one topic.) mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> > many times on this list, but so far nobody has responded to it: > "mayavadi bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa", color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">That's because I don't know the language in which this is written and also don't know the entire context. Moreover, does "mayavada" refer to Sankara's theory for sure or does it refer to the theory that Sankara was countering? mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">So I do not want to comment on anything from Chaitanya Charitamritam. The quote you gave from Padma Purana is very clear anyway. 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> > So, if the above is not convincing enough, then I rest my case. The fact > is that you accept a version of the truth according to what is comfortable > for you, and according to what fits an acceptable paradigm to your way of > thinking. 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">The same would apply to you, Sir. I am atleast not branding your arguments as ramblings. color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> When you wish to get really serious about understanding Vedic > philosophy, then you will have to come to a parampara and accept Diksha > therein. Otherwise, whatever you have studied and learned, according to > Srimad Bhagavatam, is "Srama eva hi kevalam", i.e. a useless waste of time. 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Thank you for your kind advice. color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">> OM TAT SAT > Best wishes, > Robert color:black"> mso-color-alt:windowtext"> 12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:red">I think I have made most of the important points I wanted to make. Moreover, the tone of this discussion has changed now. So I will end this discussion with you and will not reply to you. If Nomadeva replies to other emails, I may give brief replies to him, as that particular debate is still maintaining an excellent tone and level of scholarship. 12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:red"> 12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:red">Hopefully, all the viewpoints expressed by various learned people provided interested readers with enough food for thought. windowtext"> 12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"> 12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">May Jupiter's light shine on us, 12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">Narasimha windowtext"> color:black"> "Courier New";mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New";color:black"> || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu || Your use of is subject to the Terms of Service. mso-color-alt:windowtext"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Dear Sarabani, I concur with you. Chandrashekhar. - Sarbani Sarkar vedic astrology Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:24 PM RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Mayavada Fallacy- Narasimha Om Gurave Namah Dear Narasimha, I have learnt a lot from your exemplary equanimity and patience, and so have, I am sure, many other list members. I write here to second what you said about our initiations and spiritual heritage of our families being insignificant to this discussion. Gauranga had also raised a similar question to me. In fact I was about to reply to him, and then I didn’t. After all, who is Gauranga to ask for my credentials to speak in a free and public forum? I suppose at a level we can excuse them, for they might not know that most Indians are initiated and that Diksha and Ishta are very private things, and we usually do not disclose them in public. I could have given a long family lineage, which includes a grandfather who was a practicing Vaishnav and had published a biography of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in Bengali, long before I was even conceived. (The funniest of course is that my father hails from Navadwip). I can also give a long history of how my grandmother was the direct disciple of one of the Holy Couple of the Ramakrishna Math order; of where my entire family is initiated, of our close linkages and associations with various Maths of both the vaishnava and the Ramakrishna parampara, of how I have learned of Krishnas’ leela from goswamis who visit us every janmashtami, of how I have learned scriptures form a very small age (sp. the Gita and the Upanishads) from these sannyasis/ins. But these details are too private and its not anybody’s business. There are many like us on the list who are similarly associated with various religious paramparas and have been steeped in scriptures right from their parents knees, and then by their preceptors. I am sure many of them are very knowledgeable but are not opening their mouth out of politeness and respect. I can also go forth and give scholastic credentials like you did. But Narasimha, do we really need to do so? So my Gita was not only learnt from our family guru’s parampara but also from a very seniour professor who was the head of the Sanskrit department of a University in Calcutta. Sanskrit was my chosen optional language in school too, apart from getting special training at home from the scholar. This was specially arranged by my parents. And later in my working life, as I ventured in the world of academics I met many more people who were scholars and had the opportunity to read and discuss many more theological work. And I learnt to distinguish between scholastic translations and parampara translations. (the scholastic tradition in fact consider Lord Jagannth to be a tribal deity, exactly as they think of Goddess Kali. This is a sacrilege to the bhakt, but to the non-believing scholar it is perfectly normal). We do not need to give our credentials in a public forum to speak freely on whatever we wish. Our Constitution guarantees us that in Article 19, which states that we all enjoy the freedom of thought and speech. So we are all free to state what we have read and thought about our scriptures since our childhood. If we feel that we prefer Shankara’s or the Ramakrishna order’s or the Chinmaya Mission’s or the Gita Press’s translation to be the correct one, then it is our personal choice and wish. And we have a right to do so and uphold our views. Prabhupada’s translation is one among many and his devotees may hold that to be sacrosanct. But it is not universally applicable. I am extremely grateful to G. W. Brennan for stating what is apparent to many, but one would not have done so as there are many disciples of Prabhupada present on the list. And usually we respect the others’ respect for their guru. This is a common practice in India. People are free to have their opinion of Shankara but they cannot stop us from voicing our opinion. This is not a dictatorship! I wonder how they will feel if we start speaking about Prabhupada in the same tone and language as they speak of Shankara/others. The finger that they turn towards us can be turned towards them as well and they have no right to thrust their opinion on us as the only Truth. In fact, I have noticed, that each time the discussion on the list veers towards religious/ spiritual topic, a section of people go hysterical and our right to discuss these issues is questioned. This is quite ludicrous. Gauranga has quoted verses from Chaitanya Charitamrita out of context and the translations too are not correct. What will I discuss with him? He does not even know the language, let alone the specialized dialectical Bengali of the genre of poetry that Chaitanya Charitamrita belongs to. This genre of poetry has a special niche in the history of Bengali literature, and there are many famous kavyas or poetry belonging to the same genre, like Bharatchandra Ray’s Annada Mangal (A treatise on the goddess Annapurna). This genre of poetry has a very special flavour and is written against the backdrop of a particular socio-cultural heritage. If you do not understand this heritage, and this highly specialized genre of literature, how can you understand the nuances of the language? What will I discuss with someone who has no clue, no background? Despite it we have always tried to entertain some sort of discussion with them. Now I am beginning to feel that it is totally pointless. Best regards, Sarbani Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net]Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:07 PMTo: vedic astrologySubject: [vedic astrology] Re: Mayavada Fallacy - Narasimha (to Robert) Namaste Robert, > >Namaste Robert,> >> > > So, my dear Narasimha, please stop these rambling and argumentative> > > debates,> >> >With all due respect, my dear Robert, you should behave yourself in a > >debate. I can also accuse you of "rambling". But such demeanor is hardly > >worthy of us. We both are Jyotish gurus and have some responsibility. Let > >us not use words like "rambling" to describe arguments that we don't > >particularly like.> > With due respect to you, instructing me "to behave myself" is a bit beyond > what I would call the protocol of "scholarly argument". You tend to get > personal when the argument heats up, and that makes you look bad. Anyway, > I will side-step the Kindergarten instructions, and address the points at > hand. I am also the administrator of this list and have the right to tell you to behave when you call somebody's arguments as "ramblings". While you accuse me of getting personal, it is you who called my arguments "ramblings". > The point is, that dry argument, and Sanskrit scholarship, is not the true > means of understanding the Vedic texts. By offering different opinions > from those given by great acharyas in the guru parampara system, as > recommended in the Bhagavad gita and many Vedic texts, does not yield the > true understanding. This is stated everywhere in the Vedic writings, and You have to realize that those "great acharyas in the guru sampradaya system" are not only violating another great teacher Adi Sankara, but simply dismissing him through misquotes. I am speaking against them only to support another "great acharya in a guru sampradaya system" (namely, Adi Sankara, who established many great centers of Vedic learning, which are thriving to this day). > list goes on. The opinions of Mahajanas, as mentioned above, are taken to > relay the true import of Vedic shastras. So now we have a young man named > Narasimha Rao, who thinks that his understanding is superior to all these > great Acharyas (?) This is why I say, dry speculation, without a link to a > specific Parampara through Diksha and the authorized initiatory process, is FYI, diksha and authorized initiatory process does not only mean joining a specific spiritual organization. I had my initiatory process. You are only jumping to conclusions about me. Why can't we discuss the matter without discussing our dikshas etc? After all, if we don't agree, we can agree to disagree. You said about me "You tend to get personal when the argument heats up, and that makes you look bad". I don't know exactly where I got personal, but it looks to me like you are getting "personal" in the above paragraph by talking about my age and referring to my diksha etc. I don't know if it "makes you look bad" though. > like beating the empty corn husk - you may exhibit great effort, but the > result is a waste of time, in the final analysis. > You are quick to take offense, and that is also not becoming of a > scholar. If you read the translations of these verses that were given, > you will not find "insinuations" re: Sripad Sankaracharya. The verses I > quoted simply report, that Lord Shiva was ordered by the Supreme > Personality of Godhead Narayana/Vishnu, to appear in the form of a Brahmana > in Kali-yuga to teach "asat-shastra', or false interpretations of the > scriptures. You said that, "pracchanam baudham ucyate" meant that it was But, when I see that the sloka actually suggests that Sankara would fight against false knowledge rather than creating false knowledge as the translation says, I am justified in branding the translation as an "insinuation". From the point of view of my interpretation, what else can it be? > the Buddhist philosophy that was Mayavada, and not what Sankara was > teaching. Well, if what he was teaching was akin to Buddhist philosophy, > then that makes it the same thing, i.e. Mayavada, does it not? Further, No. The sloka never said his teaching was similar to Buddhism. > the following is said also: "nirgunam vaksyate maya, sarva-svam jagato > 'py asya, mohanartham kalau yuge", indicating that the philosophy of > Nirguna, or formlessness, is meant to bewilder people in the > Kali-yuga. The imports are clear to me. But where is it clear that Shiva is saying that he will teach false interpretations? > >Well, what can I say? This is a liberal, loose and motivated translation > >aimed at undermining the great Adi Sankara.> > No. The verse says, "mayavadam asacc-astram, pracchanam baudham ucyate", > Mayavadi philosophy, akin to Buddhism, was the purpose of the incarnation > of Lord Shiva. I've given a direct quotation from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu "Bauddham uchyate" means "is called Buddhism". The word "uchyate" does not fit with the rest of your break up. If the verse wanted to say that a wrong science akin to Buddhism was called mayavadam", then "uchyate" would be after "mayavadam". With this word arrangement, all the words upto bauddham can only be its adjectives qualifying it further. Whatever you describe, it basically ends with "is called Buddhism". Thus it means "an illusionist knowledge based on falsehood and hiding is called Buddhism". (Jesse Abbot, I am sorry if this offends you. Let us not sidetrack when discussing one topic.) > many times on this list, but so far nobody has responded to it:> "mayavadi bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa", That's because I don't know the language in which this is written and also don't know the entire context. Moreover, does "mayavada" refer to Sankara's theory for sure or does it refer to the theory that Sankara was countering? So I do not want to comment on anything from Chaitanya Charitamritam. The quote you gave from Padma Purana is very clear anyway. > So, if the above is not convincing enough, then I rest my case. The fact > is that you accept a version of the truth according to what is comfortable > for you, and according to what fits an acceptable paradigm to your way of > thinking. The same would apply to you, Sir. I am atleast not branding your arguments as ramblings. > When you wish to get really serious about understanding Vedic > philosophy, then you will have to come to a parampara and accept Diksha > therein. Otherwise, whatever you have studied and learned, according to > Srimad Bhagavatam, is "Srama eva hi kevalam", i.e. a useless waste of time. Thank you for your kind advice. > OM TAT SAT> Best wishes,> Robert I think I have made most of the important points I wanted to make. Moreover, the tone of this discussion has changed now. So I will end this discussion with you and will not reply to you. If Nomadeva replies to other emails, I may give brief replies to him, as that particular debate is still maintaining an excellent tone and level of scholarship. Hopefully, all the viewpoints expressed by various learned people provided interested readers with enough food for thought. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.