[Jagannath] Why are you all sleeping?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Narasimha,

 

> If you think that my conduct is anti-SJVC, you should> talk to Sanjay first.

I never said that it is anti-SJVC, but is some things that you wrote are quite illogical.

> The list may need to know about any final conclusions> drawn between the three of us, but the whole> discussion need not happen here.

My opinion is that this thing is very much connected to SJVC and all those who are in SJVC should know in which parampara they are coming from and all arguments for and against it what we are writing. If you remember you were writing that we should be open minded, so now is your chance to put your words into practice.

 

> You are giving only half of the context and ignoring> the crucial part. Even after I and Sanjay suggested> that Chanakya's Kutila neeti is not representative of> Vedic thought (this relates to your sweeping comment> on ladies), you kept quoting from Puranas about> Chanakya. It was exactly under that paragraph that I> mentioned the ambiguities in Puranas and different> interpretations.

First of all Chanakya Pandit was a brahmin and brahmins exist only in Vedic culture in the true sense of the meaning of the word brahmin. Brahmins are also representatives of the Vedic culture and they are considered to be a head of varna-ashrama Vedic society. Canakya Niti Shastra was also applicable to the common man and previous acaryas like Srila Prabhuapada were referring to it that context, and not only for kings or politicians (I've already send relevant quotes by Srila Prabhupada from Bhagavad Gita about that).

The point that you are trying to make is that I am ignoring crucial part of our exchange and giving half of the context is misleading. Those who have studies Vedas know that statement of Chanakya Pandit regarding women is true and is applicable to common man not only politicians or kings.

I will refer to the message of Robert Koch from 22nd February 2000 to Varahamihira list:

 

"Namaskara Sanjay and Dina-natha dasa,

Sri Krsna, in the Bhagavad-gita, underscores what Dina-natha has beensaying and quoting from Srila Prabhupada's Srimad Bhagavatam purports. Bhagavan Sri Krsna, being transcendental to any gunas (materialqualities), is neither political, nor Vedic, but stands as the undisputedauthority on all subjects. This is because He is the source of theVedas, as well as the three qualities of nature, indeed the entirecreation itself. (Aham sarvasya prabhavah).

In Chapter nine, verse 32 of the Gita, Krsna teaches Arjuna about theunqualified and complete protection given to His devotees, regardless ofwhat classification of society they may come in:

 

Mam hi partha vyapasritya

Ye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah

Striyo vaisyas tatha sudras

Te 'pi yanti param gatim

"O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lowerbirth -- women, merchants, and workers -- can attain the supremedestination".

 

The word "papa-yonayah" is significant here, as it means ineffect "those born of a lower family". Now, if there were no distinctionin Krsna's mind between the status of man and woman, why would He includewomen, as a class, in the same category as vaisyas(mercantile class), or Sudras laborer class)? In fact, "Papa" refers to those impious activities they may direct one toa lower birth in future lifetimes. The point Krsna makes, however, isthat one may be of any classification in society, but if he/she issurrendered to the Supreme Absolute, then there really are nodistinctions. Materially there are, but spiritually there are not...."

 

So if you don't want to accept the statements and authority of Srila Prabhupada and Chanakya Pandit (both predicted in the scriptures) will you accept statement of Lord Krishna and authority of Bhagavad Gita about position of women? Lord Krishna here in Bhagavad Gita 9.32. only confirms statements of Chanakya Pandit and Srila Prabhupada (actually both of them were following Bhagavad Gita when formulating their statements).

 

You also wrote in the previous message: " Even after I and Sanjay suggested that Chanakya's Kutila neeti is not representative of Vedic thought (this relates to your sweeping comment on ladies), you kept quoting from Puranas about Chanakya. It was exactly under that paragraph that I mentioned the ambiguities in Puranas and different interpretations.It was exactly under that paragraph that I mentioned the ambiguities in Puranas and different interpretations".

 

I don't know if this is just your bad memory or something else but you never wrote anything in connection with quoting from Puranas while we had discussion regarding Chanakya Pandit. You only wrote: "In any case, Chanakya is relatively new and not really a representative of Vedic thought. Vedic thought never belittledwomen and Sanjay put it well below." At this point in time (this message of yours was received on 19th February 2000 and it is number 1339 on Varahamihira archives which can be accessed at:varahamihira/ so anyone who wants can verify my words) you didn't wrote anything in connection with quoting from Puranas. As far as discussion about Chanakya Pandit was concerned Sanjayji and Robert Koch have gave the final words (last message on this topic was received to Varahamihira list on 22nd February from Robert Koch) and I considered this discussion to be finished and I never wrote anything about this topic again.

 

Then looking through unread message on my computer I noticed that Yasomatinandan was asking about references from scriptures about prediction of appearance of Lord Caitanya, so I posted the references and gave my comments about it.

Then on 1st of March (text 1432 on Varahamihira list) after a few messages on this topic you wrote about quoting from Puranas: "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. ...........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."

 

Although you could read reffernce from Bhagavad Gita posted by Robert Koch that statement of Chanakya Pandit that I posted is correct, you went ahead saying "people read English translations and think that they understood everything" and in this context obviously referring to my previous posts. As I wrote several times before, I was only referring to statements of Srila Prabhupada (for which I posted relevant quotes) and I what I wrote was only on that basis with relevant references. I was not giving my opinion, so again your statement that "people read English translations and think that they understood everything" was very offending towards me but I just tolerated it without even mentioning it. It was actually more offensive towards Srila Prabhupada because I was not giving my own opinion, but only I was referring to his writing from Bhagavad Gita and his books which are source of my knowledge and in any case Lord Krishna confirmed it in Bhagavad Gita, but with your comment it seems like that Srila Prabhupada's translations are not correct.

For all your arguments you haven't provided a single reference to any shastra or to any authoritative acarya but as it seems like you were only giving your own opinion. What weight has your opinion in comparison to the words Lord Krishna and Srila Prahbhupada?

 

> As for Chaitanya Prabhu, I did not specifically give> my personal opinion and belief in any mail. My personal> opinion is irrelevant and I need to give it only to my> Guru Sanjay (I did - as soon as I asked YND for some> quotes about Chaitanya Prabhu).

Yes, you didn't give your personal opinion about Lord Caitanya and I never said that you did. In connection with Lord Caitanya I've given references about predictions of His appearance and also quotation about it from Srimad Bhagavatam. Then you gave your comments relativising position of Lord Caitanya in whose parampara you are also coming.

> Whether a saint only has Vishnu's amsa or whether he> is Vishnu's avatar is immaterial. Irrespective of all> that, we can always worship a saint as Vijay said. The> rest is a matter of personal belief.

Whether a saint only has Vishnu's amsa or whether he is Vishnu's avatar is immaterial, and that is correct statement, but there is difference between the two and than we worship them on different levels because they are not the same. None says that we cannot worship saint, but we don't worship him on the same level as God.

 

As far as your statement that the rest is matter of personal belief I can only wonder from where did you get that conclusion. Simple logic tells us that we are the part of reality and reality controls us and not that we have control over reality (otherwise there is no need for Jyotish, we could adjust all the grahas according to our personal belief and make them all exalted for example). If the rest is matter of personal belief the problem is that our personal belief doesn't have to necessarily fit in the reality that surrounds us and in such situations people sometimes start to believe that they are Napoleon or Lord Nelson or someone else and then they are taken into specialized institutions where they are taken care of (I've heard, but I am not sure if it is true that a person who killed John Lennon was thinking (that was his personal belief) that he is John Lennon and that's why he shot him because in reality two John Lennons cannot exist).

Could you please provide references from some Vedic literature commented on by some authoritative acaryas regarding this statement that everything else is the matter of belief. Maybe I am totally in illusion and I've been mislead.

 

> The Gita quote you gave to prove that I don't even> know the basics of Gita and philosophy specifically> pertains to Karma Yoga and Krishna talks about> paramparas of rajarshis (saintly kings) rather than> paramparas of all learned men.

 

Narasimha, this verse is from 4th chapter of Bhagavad Gita which is called "Transcendental knowledge". Anything that is transcendental is above laws of cause and effect or in simple words work (karma) or karma yoga and on the beginning of 4th chapter in first 2 versed Krishna explains to Arjuna how this supreme science (knowledge of Bhagavad Gita) was received through the chain of discplic succession (parampara) that consisted of saintly kings (raya rishis) at that time. From here we can understand that kings at that time were also representatives of parampara, and that's one of the reasons that Krishna spoke Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna who was a ksatrija not brahmin, and therefore Arjuna was also most learned because he heard Bhagavad Gita directly from Krishna. Kings of that time were Dharmarajas and they were ruling according to religious principles (dharma) and the best example of that is Maharaja Yudistira. In order to know how to rule according to Dharma they have to know what is Dharma and best scripture for that is Bhagavad Gita and that's why Krishna also says in 1st verse of 4th chapter: "I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku." Also from this verse you can see that Krishna gave the science to Bhagavad Gita to Sun dynasty from which also Lord Rama is coming. Now do you want to say that all these Ksatriyas were not also learned men just because they were not brahmins?

Because in the past the kings were representatives of parampara the title "Maharaja" is still used for sannyasis or one's guru (who are today representatives of parampara) and that we call our guru - Guru Maharaja. Sannyasis were suppose to have no material possessions, so why would they be called Maharaja?

> In the matters of Vedanta knowledge, blind faith was> never called for in Vedic culture. Inviolable respect> for guru and parampara and, at the same time, healthy> curiosity and the spirit of inquisitiveness CAN and> should coexist in a student of Veda, Vedanga and> Vedanta.

 

Yes, I agree with your statements in above paragraph, but there is also limit how much can we understand on our own. At one stage we have to accept the words of the Vedas and Guru with faith simply because some things cannot be understood by our material senses and material brain. Just like Brahma had to perform austerities and meditation in order to get knowledge and he received it only by mercy of Krishna. After getting enlightened he had a vision of spiritual world and he compose what is known as Brahma Samitha and in the first verse of the 5th chapter Brahma says:

 

isvarah paramah krsnahsac-cid-ananda-vigrahahanadir adir govindahsarva-karana-karanam"Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes."

 

>This ambivalence may be tough to understand> for some people who don't share Indian ethos, but> this is an integral part of Indian ethos. Great> Vedantis giving different answers to the same> question are respected equally in India. Scholars> were never meant to be like parrots repeating things.> Vedic culture never promoted jingoim of any degree.> Foreigners brought the spirit of jingoism to India in> the last couple of millennia.

Which foreigners are you talking about, Muslims or Britishers?

Among great Vedantists there is no difference in opinions and that's why I gave an example of Sankaracarya earlier. He was simply talking about one aspect of Absolute Truth and he didn't differ from Vaishnava explanations and how could he when he is the greatest Vaishnava and still today has great respect from both schools of thought in India, personalists and impersonalists.

I agree that scholars were never meant to be like a parrots repeating things but they were also not meant to change siddhanta of the parampara. Personally I would be very happy if I could repeat verbatim what is given in shastra with understanding of the subject matter and I have no aspiration of going beyond that and that's why whenever I can I refer to the shastra. If you think that you can maybe go beyond Parasara Muni and Jaimini than good luck, but you are risking to become part of the dark side of the force.

> I never tried to hide any of my views from Sanjay> and even explicitly wrote them to him privately> after taking part in any controversial discussion> on the list. When he thinks that I am unworthy of> being an SJVC guru (or even student), he can tell> that to me and take necessary action.

I never said that you were hiding anything from Sanjay. I have only made a point about Lord Caitanya and how you were making his position very relative and knowing that you are coming in His parampara doesn't makes much sense. You were also talking about "ambiguity" of the Puranas when I would quote from them, but afterwards you were liberally quoting from them and suddenly all "ambiguity" has disappeared.

b

When Sanjay asked me if we should accept Nenad (person who wrote Jyotish software for Palm Pilot) a brilliant astrologer and knower of Sanskrit and Vedas I said no, with what Sanjay agreed and my criteria as you know (because you were also receiver of all our correspondence) was that he doesn't have faith in the Lord Jagannatha and he wasn't interested in spiritual practices. As far as his knowledge goes he is above of most of the SJVC members but he doesn't have bhakti. If you ask me I consider bhakti much superior to jnana. As Narada Muni says in Narada Bhakti Sutra no.25 while discussing about bhakti:

 

sa tu karma-jnana-yogebhyo ’py adhikataraPure devotional service (bhakti), on the other hand, is far superior to fruitive work (karma), philosophical speculation (jnana), and mystic meditation (yoga).

 

OM TAT SAT

 

Dina-natha Das.

 

P.S. Seeing that some people consider me disturbance of the Varahamihira list could I please be removed from this list after this message reaches respected list members