Shouting Like Hell is not the way to resolve doubts

[Guest guest]

In an article posted courtesy of Shrii Mundita Mastaka daasa, Shrii Gyaana

daasa writes the following regarding the Iishopanishad invocation mantra

commentary by Shriila Prabhupaada:

 

> Obviously we should be faithful to Srila Prabhupada's instructions.

However,

> we

> should avoid making a cult of superficial interpretations. We may take our

> own

> incomplete and superficial interpretations as absolute, and reject any

> apparent

> contradictions as absolutely wrong and even irrational. In that case, we

> will

> mislead ourselves and others.

 

In justifying the difference of opinion between H.H. Naaraayana Maharaaja

and Shriila Prabhupaada on the meaning of the Iishopanishad invocation

mantra, Shrii Gyaana daasa indirectly opines that the commentary given by

Shriila Prabhupaada on this mantra is a "superficial interpretation." In

this way, he tries to reconcile the differences of opinion in regards to its

meaning.

 

I am troubled by this remark. Personally, I found Shriila Prabhupaada's

commentary on the Iishopanishad invocation to be pregnant with meaning.

There was certainly nothing superficial about it as far as I was concerned.

The Bhaktivedaanta purport has the great advantage of being consistent with

context, as I have pointed out in my previous posting. I have nowhere read

any comment by Shriila Prabhupaada or his predecessors indicating that the

understanding given by him in his Bhaktivedaanta purport is a "superficial

interpretation." Therefore, I am not clear on just how the followers of

Naaraayana Maharaaja have derived this understanding.

 

Therefore, because this statement was written by Gyaana daasa and posted

here by Mundita Mastaka daasa, I request these two gentlemen to immediately

furnish logical and shaastric arguments indicating why Shriila Prabhupaada's

commentary on this mantra must be taken as a "superficial understanding."

Note that merely pointing to an alternative commentary will not prove this

point. No one has so far proven that Shriila Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana has

commented on Iishopanishad invocation in the way that Naaraayana Maharaaja

was alleged to have commented. Satisfactory proof that he did in fact do so

would require that we see the original Sanskrit of Shriila Baladeva's

bhaashya to the same. So far, this has not been provided by anyone.

 

But for the sake of generosity, we will stipulate to the possibility that

the mantra could have more than one, correct meaning. We will also stipulate

to the possibility that Baladeva did in fact comment on it as Naaraayana

Maharaaja has claimed. I believe these are generous assumptions, but we will

concede them temporarily for the sake of argument. Why then, does the mere

fact that an alternate meaning exists lead one to the conclusion that

Shriila Prabhupaada's understanding is only "superficial?" Who exactly makes

these kinds of decisions, and on what basis? I see no logical reason why

Shriila Prabhupaada would give only a "superficial" commentary on the verse,

especially if the "deeper" meaning was simply that the Lord remains complete

in spite of so many complete expansions emanating from Him. Certainly such

an understanding could have been communicated to anyone, regardless of

qualification, and so it makes little sense to assume that Shriila

Prabhupaada would hold back on the allegedly "deeper" meaning in favor of

the "superficial" one. Furthermore, when Shriila Bhaktivinoda Thaakura has

also commented on the verse in the same way as Shriila Bhaktivedaanta

Prabhupaada, the conclusion must be that both of these two great aachaaryas

have given only "superficial" interpretations of this mantra. This is

certainly difficult to believe of Vaishnavas who claim to represent the

highest conclusions of the shaastras and devotional service.

 

Furthermore, Shrii Aananda Tiirtha (aka Madhvaachaarya) is well known to

have commented on "o.m puurnam adaH puurnam ida.m" mantra of Iishopanishad

in the way that Shriila Baladeva was alleged to. So what kind of conclusion

is this to suggest that Shrii Madhvaachaarya had access to an understanding

which Shriila Bhaktivinoda and Shriila Bhaktivedaanta Prabhupaada did not?

And if they knew this understanding but simply decided not to teach it, then

why praytell were Shrii Madhva's disciples qualified to hear this

understanding but Shriila Bhaktivinoda and Shriila Bhaktivedaanta's

disciples were not? By what logic is it suggested that Shrii Madhva, whose

philosophy we have abandoned in favor of Mahaaprabhu's

achintya-bedha-abedha-tattva, would give a higher understanding than our

aachaaryas?

 

I have seen nothing so far to make me accept that the interpretation of

Shriila A.C. Bhaktivedaanta Swaamii Prabhupaada on Iishopanishad invocation

is "superficial." Furthermore, it seems very inappropriate for a disciple to

claim that his guru's interpretation on anything is "superficial,"

especially if the purport of this is that the disciple is somehow giving an

"improved" or "deeper" understanding which his guru did not. Where did this

understanding come from, if not from his guru?

 

Until I see some justification for this idea, I must reject it as

unwarranted speculation. I also urge other devotees to do the same. We

deserve a higher standard of proof than simply "this is correct because I

say so."

 

hare kR^iShNa!

 

 

warm regards,

 

-- krishna