[Jagannath] Mayavada versus Personalism

[Guest guest]

Jaya Jagannath

Dear Zavisa,

Please tell me WHY YOU HAD TO ENTER? Why could you not constrain

yourself? Why must we be discussing all this knowing well that what we write

is often what we don't mean. If you think you know more than Adi Sankara Who

gave us the Bhagavat Gita in its present form of 700 verses, then you are

sadly mistaken.

The discussion stops here. I hope you bear in mind that my Guru's also

worshipped My Kula devata Sri Somanath (Lord Shiva). The moment you belittle

Shiva then the day is not far when you shall fall in the eyes of your Guru.

How many times have I emphasised that if you worship Krishna, then learn to

SEE Him in everything. This is not the place for your spiritual debates.

This was never the atmosphere at Varahamihira Class and I am constrained to

have to remove you from this list for a period of 1 Month. I hope that you

shall practise patience and tolerance for others during this period.

Please write to me privately for anything you wish to state.

Om Tat Sat

Best Wishes

Sanjay Rath

-

Zavisa Nikac <zavisa.nikac

<varahamihira >

Friday, March 03, 2000 1:44 PM

[Jagannath] Re: Mayavada versus Personalism

 

 

> Sri Sri Guru Gauranga Jayatah

>

> I had to enter this discussion.

>

> Regarding interpretation. That is expected from a guru. To interpretate

> the scriptures to a disciple based on disciples stage. Without this he

> would hardly make progress. Its said desa, kala, patra and then no

> wonder that there are some modifications, or differences. But then those

> differences do not arise regarding the truth. Because it is received in

> parapara, so its the same. Same sat-cit-ananda Krishna that manifested

> to Brahma manifested to Narada, and to different disciples in parampara.

> So they might present him in particular way they see fit based on the

> time and place where they are preaching to but then that does not change

> the fundamentals, never. Otherwise they have deviated and then their

> philosophy is out of parampara and thus worthless and so parampara has

> to be established anew, and that's an avatara's doing.

> So you recieve particular explanation from your guru within parampara.

> For it to be bonafide he has to be established in the truth(tattva darsi

> - Krishna advises Arjuna to approach tattva-darsi, nobody lesser).

> Otherwise if we say that there cannot be any differences in explanation

> it is somewhat ortodox, because than you could say that Kapiladeva and

> e.g. Narada speak differently. Or for example that Srila Prabhupada

> deviated from his guru Bhaktisiddhanta because he let women come to

> temples which was not done by Bhaktisiddhanta, or that he changed the

> ways of deity worship that some accuse him of. But they do not see a

> larger picture, and this faultfinding is really highly ortodox and those

> that do it are not necessarily established in the truth themselves.

> Similarly in preaching(explanations). Surely there are some differences

> here and there but they do not change the fundamental message of an

> Acarya for which he is approached to. Vedanta Sutra is a commentary to

> an Upanishads, and you have commentary on Vedanta Sutra. Sri Chaitanya

> said it to be a Srimad Bhagavatam, Ramanuja wrote his Sri Bhasya and

> Baladeva Vidhyabushana Govinda Bhasya and like that. They might have

> some differences(as for example Ramanuja preached Vishnu bhakti, while

> Baladeva Krishna bhakti he being a disciple of Vishvanatha), but then

> they present only the different aspect(anga) of the same truth. And that

> truth can reveal itself as it chooses to to any bhakta of his. So based

> on tattva tattva darsi serves you get his commentary. And it is not to

> be questioned by his disciple as it is the mercy of guru that reveals

> the truth, and as Krishna said for a doubting soul there are no happines

> here of afterwards. Doubt serves to increase intelligence and is

> worthwhile only in thet direction, otherwise tattva is to be realised by

> direct experience, not intelligence.

> Now as Srila Prabhupada and other Acaryas like Bhaktisiddhanta

> Sarasvati and others accept Krishna as Supreme Personality of Godhead

> based on theirs experience of it we accept it as truth, and then when

> they say

> that Krishna is actually superior stage of realisation to Paramatma or

> Brahman feature of Absolute we accept it as such because of fundamental

> laws of Parampara and those are you accept realisation of your guru and

> try to achieve it, otherwise not everything is in words. Words of this

> world are faulty and thus subject to mistakes yet those transcendental

> realisations are beyond mistakes, beyond imperfect senses, beyond

> cheating of this world, and beyond ilussions of this world. And we try

> to achieve such. Otherwise if we don't have them we might not preach. Or

> if we do our preaching is limited. We can speak to others based on our

> realisation. If we were like Sri Chaitanya established in truth(or like

> any other bonafide acarya) that we could transform somebody like

> Prakashananda and gave him an actual realisation of Krishna(which is the

> power of any bonafide guru) and then our preaching would not be just

> words going around. This is what christianity turned itself to.

> Formality. Without actual realisation our preaching might turn to

> fundamentalism or fanaticism. Srila Prabhupada encouraged his disciples

> to preach much. But then to whom would those converts surrender - to him

> a realised soul, similarly it was done by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. So

> if we can turn some soul to some persom we believe has some realisation

> of tattva(truth) and thus help our pilgrim fellows that we are preaching

> to then our preaching has some value. Otherwise we may repell others

> especially when they see mistakes in gurus they are brought to(that is

> not tattva-darsi gurus). Or theirs complete lack of realisations. Those

> are the fundamentals of a difference between living religion and dead

> religion. We must search for a living religion always, wherever we are.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Zavisa

>

>

>

>

> Narasimha Rao wrote:

> >

> > Dear Dina-natha,

> >

> > We are deviating from astrology. But I see this topic (or similar

> > topics) coming up again and again. So I will make a few points before

> > I withdraw.

> >

> > > Adi Shankara or Shankaracarya is if I am correct partial incarnation

> > > of Lord Shiva as mentioned in Shiva Purana and his mission was to

> > > bring people back to teachings of Vedas (through preaching of

> > > impersonal (mayavada) philosophy) from Budism that was widely spread

> > > in India at that time. Now you cannot say that any king, teacher or

> >

> > Believers in advaita philosophy will consider the teachings of Adi

> > Sankara as the final truth, while believers in dvaita philosophy will

> > downplay it, as you did above, saying that Adi Sankara served the

> > 'limited' purpose of bringing people back to Vedas from " Budhism " .

> > While people may agree on some parts, they interpret some other parts

> > differently.

> >

> > There are many interpretations and opinions. Naturally, you will be

> > biased towards the teachings of the school you were initiated into.

> > There is nothing wrong in that. But I just want you to know that there

> > are many schools of thought and great philosophers spent their lives

> > without knowing which is correct. So don't think you do.

> >

> > As for Puranas, they are full of ambiguities which are interpreted by

> > different schools in different ways. Today's people read English

> > translations and think that they understood everything. But no

> > translation or commentary (English or Hindi or Sanskrit) is

> > necessarily the final word. Different schools interpret differently.

> > There are many significant differences in interpretation.

> >

> > In short, my advice is: don't think that what you read so

> > unambiguously in an English translation was written equally clearly in

> > the Sanskrit original! That is not the case always. What you read in a

> > translation or commentary is only an " interpretation " . Remember that.

> >

> > May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> > Narasimha

> >

> > ----

> > HARE RAMA KRISHNA

> > ----

> > [Click Here for Move.com!]

> > eGroups.com Home: varahamihira

> > www. - Simplifying group communications

>

> ------

> HARE RAMA KRISHNA

>

>

> ------

> Planning a party? iParty.com is your complete source for party planning

and

> supplies, with everything you need to throw the perfect party!

> http://click./1/1635/3/_/2192/_/952071311/

>

> -- Talk to your group with your own voice!

> -- /VoiceChatPage?listName=varahamihira & m=1

>

>

>