[Jagannath] Mayavada versus Personalism

[Guest guest]

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