Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!bbt.se From: pgd@bbt.se (P.Garbha) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Brahman and Bhagavad Gita [Was: Creator Rights] Message-ID: <1951@idunno.Princeton.EDU> Date: 17 Aug 90 19:27:11 GMT References: <1885@idunno.Princeton.EDU> Sender: mukund@idunno.Princeton.EDU Lines: 157 Approved: mukund@idunno.Princeton.EDU In article <1885@idunno.Princeton.EDU> mtxinu!sybase!gumby!mani@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mani Varadarajan) writes: >Why are you constantly assuming that Krishna and Brahman are >different? It is quite clear in the Gita that Krishna *is* the >Parabrahman, or Supreme Brahman. To make them out to be >different entities is putting a superstructure over the Gita >that doesn't exist in the first place. True, there are verses >referring to something as the ``womb'' of creation, but that >clearly refers only to matter existent in the universe. The supreme truth is realized in three stages: 1) As the impersonal Brahman 2) As Paramatma, the super-soul situated in the hearts of all living entities. 3) As Bhagavan, the Supreme Person. Krishna is all of this, He is the supreme Brahman (param-brahman), He is the supersoul, and He himself is the person Bhagavan. This are just different ways of realizing Him. This is sometimes compared to realization of the sun. At the first stage you realize that the sun emits rays of light, and heat. That is compared to the Brahman realization of the absolute truth. You experience the energy, and emanations from the supreme truth. As a second stage, you can relaize that the rays of the sun, emanates from the planet sun. At this stage you see that the rays have an source. That is compared to the Paramatma-realization. Finally you can enter the sun-planet, and actually see the real source of both the globe and the energy. That is compared to the Bhagvan realization of the Supreme Lord. What I want to point out that the Brahman realization is an aspect of the supreme truth, but not the full final realization of Bhagavan. So, it is clear the Krishna is the supreme Brahman, still, realizing Him as Brahman is not the full realization of Him as Krishna the supreme Personality of Godhead. >Maybe some don't want to reach the ``Lord as a person''! I >have a theistic conception of God as well, but to make the >claim that Buddhist liberation is inferior is uncalled for. To >each his own. That is allright. Krishna is acknowledging realization of Brahman, as realizing Him. That is liberation. >No. Neither Sybase nor U.C. Berkeley is a religious >institution. But, if I were posting from the Vatican, it's >clear what kind of religious mindsets I would have to start >with. Or, if I posted an article as to what I thought was the >best engineering University, my being from Berkeley certainly >would indicate bias. You've also referred to traditional ISKCON >teachers as ``experts''; therefore, I make the implication >above. I could say the same about "religious mindsets". What I mean is that you are jumping to conclusions. You have no knowledge whatsoever of the computer setups here, and which persons are using them. It belongs to net etiquette to don't jump to conclusions of where the poster is posting from. Still I take it as a compliment to be compared to the Vatican. :-) If you consider Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Rupa Gosvami and Bhaktivinod Thakur as traditional "ISKCON" teachers (All three pre-dated ISKCON with between 500 and 100 years) i think that is also a compliment. But you are right, ISKCON is just a continuation of the ancient Krishna-bhakti-tradition. > >I think I have enough knowledge of Sanskrit and Hindu religious >texts to know what's a distortion and what's not. All one has >to do is open up Prabhupada's commentary on the Gita and see >what he has done; disclaimer: Prabupada is a great devotee of >God, but I think that his devotion has blinded his >scholarship--no disrespect intended. There are over 100 English translations of the Bhagavad Gita. Probably many of those translations claim to have the "real" version of the Gita. So which one is the real version? The meaning that Krishna meant, when He was speaking it, at the battle of Kurusketra? A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada comes in a direct, unbroken, guru-disciple chain, which emanates from Krishna himself. (The Brahma-Madhva-Gaudya-Vaisnava-Sampradaya) Thus, if you are looking for the true meaning of the Bhagavad-Gita, you might have hard to find a more qualified source than Srila Prabhupada. The Guru-Parampara (guru-disciple chain) is a very important concept in the Vedic philosophy. Actually, philosophers were not accepted unless they had a bona-fide Guru, in the disciplic succession. That was the safeguard that their words were bona-fide. Srila Prabhupada's translations are especially made to convey the true meaning of the Bhagavad Gita, as Krishna meant it. And this for westeners, who might have no prior knowledge at all, of Vedic philosophy. Thus some choices of words might not conform to what other sanskrit scholars might say. But sanskrit is also a very trick language, and the true meaning of the Vedic scriptures have been debated, by Indian scholars, for hundreds of years. Srila Prabhupadas translations are for giving out the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, and not sanskrit grammar. Sometimes he refers to the context of other verses in the translation of a verse, just to simplify for the reader. That is to his credit, not against. Many sanskrit scholars also praise his brilliant way of translating. Every translator, from one language to another, knows that there are numerous ways of translating a single sentence, and arguments of which way is "the way" are pointless. > >Wherever he can, for example, he brings in the name of Krishna, >even when there isn't the slightest hint that Godhead is being >referred to. In addition, his comments that women are of >``lesser intelligence'' aren't very nice for anyone to read, >man or woman. Because there is not the slightest hint that Godhead is beeing referred to, he points it out, just so that we should understand. As for the "lesser intelligence" of women, one has to ask "less intelligent than whom?". For your information I can tell you that men, of today, are also considered "less intelligent", and in fact to have the same level of intelligence as women. The intelligence referred to is about understanding of the Vedic scriptures. Do you remember every single word from a book, after having heard it once? If not, you are also considered "less intelligent". The vedic concept of "intelligence" is just far removed from today's standard. This is due to the progress in Kali yuga. Everyone is "less intelligent" in Kali yuga. > >books to read.'' Prabhupada's commentaries also show a severe >lack of knowledge of traditional commentaries; see, for .. This is not true. If you read Srila Prabhupada's books you can see that he very often quote previous commentors on the works. You can of course find persons, who has made comments on the Vedic scriptures, that he does not quote. In particular, he might not refer to persons in the mayavadi-sampradayas. > >In addition are the claims that the Mahabharata war was in 3000 >B.C., etc. Claims such as those have been archeologically denied, >but the H. Krishnas don't care. I beg to differ about this point. Everyone knows that timing archeological artifacts is very unprecise, and tricky. About the origin of the Vedic scriptures, the researchers factually don't know very much. That is a known fact. But they have put forward different hypothesises, based on language and similarities between different scriptures. That does not make it a fact. Some choose to accept what the Vedas say about their own origin, in preferrence to unprecise speculations. Prishnigarbha das. Disclaimer: The opinions written here, are not neccessarily the opinion of the BBT, ISKCON, or any other owner of any computer this message is passing through.