[Jagannath] Why are you all sleeping?

[Guest guest]

Dear Dina-natha,

 

I no longer think the time I am spending on this thread is worth it. I

was hoping for a productive exchange with you, but it is not

happening. I will answer a couple of points and this will be my last

post in this thread. Hope somebody benefitted from this exchange and

may God bless everyone.

 

> Namaste Narasimha, Jaya Jagannatha! First I must notice that you

> just ignored most of my arguments from my last message in this

> thread for which probably you couldn't give any arguments against

> and as far as I can see you never provided a single reference to

> scriptures for what you wrote so far. I must say that is pointless

> and frustrating to debate with you when you cannot back up your

> words from any relevant shastra and what you write represents only

> the opinion of P.V.R. Narasimha Rao which you are taking as absolute

> truth but unfortunately it doesn't have much to do with truth and

> reality, especially because as I said you cannot back up any of your

> statements with shastric references.In your last message you even

> went further to the extent to suggest to others that they should

> just blindly listen to your conclusions without providing any

> argumentative statements with reference to relevant shastras and

> thus leading others towards darkness of ignorance. And this is

> coming from person who is repeatedly saying that we should be open

> minded.

 

You are misusing strong expressions like " leading others towards

darkness of ignorance " . I will be surprised if this belligerence makes

your gurus either proud or pleased....

 

Yes, you are right - what I wrote is the the opinion (or, rather,

understanding) of P.V.R. Narasimha Rao. I wish you also realized that

what you are writing is the understanding of yourself and not

necessarily what Krishna meant.

 

You should remember the above especially when writing things that can

offend others (e.g. statements on women). Being a little more prudent

and a little less belligerent will help. Don't assume that you exactly

understand what Krishna said, when quoting Him to support a

controversial statement that offends some fellow students.

 

As for the allegations that I am not backing up my statements with

Sastric references: I don't need to give a reference to support my

statement that Guru is one's Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara. It is only

too well-known. I don't have to give any reference to say that your

conclusions from a verse you quoted are questionable (the verse you

quoted itself is enough of a reference).

 

What good is it to quote sastras if one has a myopic view of them?

What matters is one's understanding. Depending on our Karma, Maha

Vishnu gives us the level of maturity we deserve. THAT will decide the

level of our understanding and not how many books we possess and quote

and how many gurus we read or listen to.

 

> > (1) Irrespective of how you read it and understood it,

> > 4.2 in Gita relates to karmaakarma vikarma vichakshana

> > yoga. It deals with the supreme science of distinction

> > between action, lack of action and unattached action.

> > This is a very important subject,

> > Otherwise, why did he specifically mention " raajarshis " ?

> Translation of the verse 4.2 of Bhagavad Gita by Srila Prabhupada

> is: " This supreme science was thus received through the chain of

> disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that

> way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore

> the science as it is appears to be lost. " What this verse has to do

> with distinction between action, lack of action and unattached

> action.? As I said many times before your logic is very strange so

> please explain how do you connect verse 4.2 of Bhagavad Gita with

> your above statement. Why Krishna specifically mentioned " rajarshis "

 

As I said, Srila may have mentioned a break in succession to simplify

matters. The verse only says the knowledge passed on by Him in a

succession was eroded in time. It can be because of the limited

intelligence of human beings.

 

Second, you said that my statement - that Krishna was talking about

karmaakarma vikarma vichakshana there - was strange.

 

Well, please do read the rest of chapter 4. After saying in 4.2 that

this knowledge was eroded in time, Krishna goes on to explain it

further. He clearly talks about the distinction between karma and

akarma there. He talks about who kartritva belongs to and how to

engage in karma and still be above it. So all your allegations are

pointless. Do read the rest of chapter of 4 and understand the

context, instead of fighting in a vacuum over 4.2. I will quote a

couple of sample verses. This will also partly answer your allegation

that I am not quoting sastras. ;-)

 

[i am using an intuitive transliteration below. All the

transliterations used by ISKCON etc are good for printing, where dots

and dashes go above and below letters. In this email world, many

Indians use intuitive schemes similar to this for Indian languages.

Small letters show usual ones and capital letters show special ones.

For example, " t " is the dental sound and " T " is the alveolar sound.

You can pretty much guess it as you go.]

 

karmaNo hyapi boddhavyam boddhavyam cha vikarmaNaH

akarmaNaScha boddhavyam gahanaa karmaNo gatiH || 4-17

 

karmaNyakarma yaH paSyedakarmaNi cha karma yaH

sa buddhimaanmanushyeshu sa yuktaH kRtsnakarmakRt || 4-18

 

yasya sarve samaarambhaaH kaama sankalpa varjitaaH

jnaanaagni dagdha karmaaNam tamaahuH panDitam budhaaH || 4-19

 

tyaktvaa karma phalaasangam nityatRpto niraaSrayaH

karmaNyabhipravRttopi naiva kinchitkaroti saH || 4-20

 

After saying " I passed this knowledge " , Krishna makes very clear in

the next verses what he means by " this knowledge " . You simply ignored

all this context and called my statements " starnge " . Strange.

 

* * *

 

You quote a verse that literally says " knowledge passed on by Me in a

succession was known to saintly kings, but this knowledge was eroded

in time " and get into some contrived notions that a parampara not

starting in God is " bogus " and claim that this conclusion comes from

the verse and, to top it all, allege others of " illogical " statements!

I just don't know what to say, Dina-natha.

 

I am very glad to know that you are going back to India. Have a nice

flight! May the blessings of your gurus and Lord Jagannatha be with

you always!!

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha