06-08-2005, 07:59 PM
Dear <b>Pulikeshi</b>,
You asked:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Could you tell me what this singular paradox is in one line?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
acintya bheda-abheda -- Inconceivable, simultaneous Oneness and Difference. Or, as Immanuel Swedenborg put it, Distinguished Oneness.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You said that to understand a teacher/avatar/etc. one has to consider: desha, kala, paatra.
Fine, donât you agree that the BG was written, much later, after the Vedic exuberance, and the idea that Krishna supposedly says, âbrahmano hi pratishtha-ahamâ in the BG, is revisionist in one sense. The Vedic acharyas would not have known Krishna â in the sense the BG authors would have. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So this is the kind of deprecation of scripture I was referring to in my post. But let me answer you briefly.
Firstly, every statement in the BG is supported by the "previously existing" Vedic literature. Let's be clear about that. you are WRONG in suggesting that the Vedic sages "would not have known" Krishna. Not only the Upanishads, but even the Rigveda, Samaveda, etc (and the Upanishads in their category) have many references to Krishna and His expansions. Just a few samples--
"The lotus feet of Lord Visnu are the supreme objective of all the demigods. These lotus feet of the Lord are as enlightening as the sun in the sky." <b>(Rg Veda 1.22.20)</b>
"Just as the sun's rays in the sky are extended to the mundane
vision, so in the same way the wise and learned devotees always
see the supreme abode of Lord Vishnu. Because those highly
praiseworth and spiritually awake brahmanas are able to see the
spiritual world, they are also able to reveal that supreme abode
of Lord Vishnu." <b>(Rg veda 1.22.20)</b>
"Lord Krishna is the color of a new rain cloud, therefore He is
compared to a transcendental cloud full of eternity, bliss, and
cognizance. He is the original supreme person. He is the origin
of all activities and the one and only Lord of all. He is the
worshipful Lord of the best of the demigods, the controller of
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Krishna is without any beginning.
Whatever auspiciousness is found within or beyond this universe the
devotee obtains in Krishna alone." <b>(kRShNa upaniShad, Rg veda)</b>
"The realm of Lord Visnu is the supreme spiritual abode." <b>(Katha Upanisad 1.3.9)</b>
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the reservoir of transcendental mellows (<i>rasa</i>)." <b>(Taittiriya Upanisad 2.7.1)</b>
"May Lord Govinda, Acyuta, Ananta Sesa, Vasudeca, and Lord
Vishnu bestow auspiciousness upon us. May Nara-Narayana,
Padmanabha and Purusottama bestow auspiciousness upon us. May
Vishvaksena, the Lord of the universe, Hrsikesha, and Lord
Hari bestow auspiciousness upon us. May Garuda and the son
of Anjana, who is the great devotee of Lord Rama, Hanuman,
bestow auspiciousness upon us. May the great and only Lord
of auspiciousness, Sri Krishna, who is like a transcendental
cloud full of eternity, knowledge, and bliss and who is the Lord
of all the demigods, bestow upon us all prosperity and
auspiciousness." <b>(kRShNa upaniShad, Rg veda)</b>
"hare kRShNa hare kRShNa kRShNa kRShNa hare hare
hare rAma hare rAma rAma rAma hare hare" - <b>Yajur Veda</b>
And so on...
What "Vedic exuberance" are you speaking of? Weren't the Upanishads also written "after" the Veda proper? In fact, isn't it acknowledged that originally there was only One Veda, which has been split into four as the Ages progressed? So where do you begin? But since you like shaky, unverified chronology, you must ONLY refer to the karma-kanda portion of the Vedas, because that seems to be preliminary to the jnana-kanda. So from now on, should we only pay attention to ritual piety and fruitive activities?
Obviously, this chronological argument is not valid by any standard. In fact, other rascals use it in reverse -- saying that the prior portions are "primitive", and should be ignored, while only the later portions should be accepted.
So I suggest you abandon this sort of silly speculation, and try to understand why great authorities, even in modern times, have recommended the Bhagavad Gita as a standard summary study of all Vedic literature. Shankara, Ramanuja, etc...all wrote commentaries on this text, and they said it was in the same league as the Upanishads, hence the name Gitopanishad.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Posit</b> being the key word â âto assume or affirm the existence ofâ. Thus in your own words Vaishnavaism is another idea, yet unproven.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Unproven?? In a laboratory, by "repeatability", you mean? <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> My friend, the Vaishnava theology is proven by all Vedic measures of proof, pratyaksha, shabda, etc... And the realizations of various Vaishnava saints are indeed identical, and therefore should serve to satisfy your penchant for repeatability! In fact, by "Vaishnava" saints I am not only referring to people from the Indian cultural sphere (b/c one could argue that it may be culture-specific fantasy), but these identical realizations are given by others from Iran, Turkey, Arabia, Eastern and Latin Europe, and Scandinavia. the most recent example I cited was Swedenborg.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I see you desire a purposeful, casual, predictable universe which is shepherded by a deity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh on the contrary, unenlightened human nature "desires" just the opposite. They do not like to think themselves eternally dependent, etc. This sort of thinking, exemplified by the disdain in your tone, is symptomatic of what the Rishis call False-ego. In that state of mind, one cannot see the true value of concepts. For instance, "surrender" to people like you is a very mean position. You cannot see that it is factually the position of greatest freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->500 years from now there may be a God called Carl who claims that he is Krishna, who is also Brahman. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why wait for 500 years? <b>Every mayavadi says the above.</b> "I am God, and you can also become God". But no Vaishnava will say the same. Never before, never in the future. After all this discussion, you are still mixing up typical mayavadi traits with Vaishnavism.
You asked:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Could you tell me what this singular paradox is in one line?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
acintya bheda-abheda -- Inconceivable, simultaneous Oneness and Difference. Or, as Immanuel Swedenborg put it, Distinguished Oneness.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You said that to understand a teacher/avatar/etc. one has to consider: desha, kala, paatra.
Fine, donât you agree that the BG was written, much later, after the Vedic exuberance, and the idea that Krishna supposedly says, âbrahmano hi pratishtha-ahamâ in the BG, is revisionist in one sense. The Vedic acharyas would not have known Krishna â in the sense the BG authors would have. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So this is the kind of deprecation of scripture I was referring to in my post. But let me answer you briefly.
Firstly, every statement in the BG is supported by the "previously existing" Vedic literature. Let's be clear about that. you are WRONG in suggesting that the Vedic sages "would not have known" Krishna. Not only the Upanishads, but even the Rigveda, Samaveda, etc (and the Upanishads in their category) have many references to Krishna and His expansions. Just a few samples--
"The lotus feet of Lord Visnu are the supreme objective of all the demigods. These lotus feet of the Lord are as enlightening as the sun in the sky." <b>(Rg Veda 1.22.20)</b>
"Just as the sun's rays in the sky are extended to the mundane
vision, so in the same way the wise and learned devotees always
see the supreme abode of Lord Vishnu. Because those highly
praiseworth and spiritually awake brahmanas are able to see the
spiritual world, they are also able to reveal that supreme abode
of Lord Vishnu." <b>(Rg veda 1.22.20)</b>
"Lord Krishna is the color of a new rain cloud, therefore He is
compared to a transcendental cloud full of eternity, bliss, and
cognizance. He is the original supreme person. He is the origin
of all activities and the one and only Lord of all. He is the
worshipful Lord of the best of the demigods, the controller of
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Krishna is without any beginning.
Whatever auspiciousness is found within or beyond this universe the
devotee obtains in Krishna alone." <b>(kRShNa upaniShad, Rg veda)</b>
"The realm of Lord Visnu is the supreme spiritual abode." <b>(Katha Upanisad 1.3.9)</b>
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the reservoir of transcendental mellows (<i>rasa</i>)." <b>(Taittiriya Upanisad 2.7.1)</b>
"May Lord Govinda, Acyuta, Ananta Sesa, Vasudeca, and Lord
Vishnu bestow auspiciousness upon us. May Nara-Narayana,
Padmanabha and Purusottama bestow auspiciousness upon us. May
Vishvaksena, the Lord of the universe, Hrsikesha, and Lord
Hari bestow auspiciousness upon us. May Garuda and the son
of Anjana, who is the great devotee of Lord Rama, Hanuman,
bestow auspiciousness upon us. May the great and only Lord
of auspiciousness, Sri Krishna, who is like a transcendental
cloud full of eternity, knowledge, and bliss and who is the Lord
of all the demigods, bestow upon us all prosperity and
auspiciousness." <b>(kRShNa upaniShad, Rg veda)</b>
"hare kRShNa hare kRShNa kRShNa kRShNa hare hare
hare rAma hare rAma rAma rAma hare hare" - <b>Yajur Veda</b>
And so on...
What "Vedic exuberance" are you speaking of? Weren't the Upanishads also written "after" the Veda proper? In fact, isn't it acknowledged that originally there was only One Veda, which has been split into four as the Ages progressed? So where do you begin? But since you like shaky, unverified chronology, you must ONLY refer to the karma-kanda portion of the Vedas, because that seems to be preliminary to the jnana-kanda. So from now on, should we only pay attention to ritual piety and fruitive activities?
Obviously, this chronological argument is not valid by any standard. In fact, other rascals use it in reverse -- saying that the prior portions are "primitive", and should be ignored, while only the later portions should be accepted.
So I suggest you abandon this sort of silly speculation, and try to understand why great authorities, even in modern times, have recommended the Bhagavad Gita as a standard summary study of all Vedic literature. Shankara, Ramanuja, etc...all wrote commentaries on this text, and they said it was in the same league as the Upanishads, hence the name Gitopanishad.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Posit</b> being the key word â âto assume or affirm the existence ofâ. Thus in your own words Vaishnavaism is another idea, yet unproven.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Unproven?? In a laboratory, by "repeatability", you mean? <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> My friend, the Vaishnava theology is proven by all Vedic measures of proof, pratyaksha, shabda, etc... And the realizations of various Vaishnava saints are indeed identical, and therefore should serve to satisfy your penchant for repeatability! In fact, by "Vaishnava" saints I am not only referring to people from the Indian cultural sphere (b/c one could argue that it may be culture-specific fantasy), but these identical realizations are given by others from Iran, Turkey, Arabia, Eastern and Latin Europe, and Scandinavia. the most recent example I cited was Swedenborg.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I see you desire a purposeful, casual, predictable universe which is shepherded by a deity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh on the contrary, unenlightened human nature "desires" just the opposite. They do not like to think themselves eternally dependent, etc. This sort of thinking, exemplified by the disdain in your tone, is symptomatic of what the Rishis call False-ego. In that state of mind, one cannot see the true value of concepts. For instance, "surrender" to people like you is a very mean position. You cannot see that it is factually the position of greatest freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->500 years from now there may be a God called Carl who claims that he is Krishna, who is also Brahman. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why wait for 500 years? <b>Every mayavadi says the above.</b> "I am God, and you can also become God". But no Vaishnava will say the same. Never before, never in the future. After all this discussion, you are still mixing up typical mayavadi traits with Vaishnavism.