Shouting Like Hell vs. Hellish Mentality

[Guest guest]

On 29 Sep 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

> I think you have somehow completely misunderstood Jnana (Gyaana) dasa. On

his

> behalf, allow me the liberty to substitute "understandings" or "readings" in

> the phrase "superficial interpretations", so that we get instead:

 

> " We may take our own incomplete and 'superficial *readings*' as

absolute..."

 

The only way that you can support such a substitution is by providing a

"non-superficial" reading of Srila Prabhupada's words that leads to the

conclusion that the verse is referring to the avatAras of the Lord. Otherwise,

you cannot deny Krishna Susarla's reading of Jnana dasa's message -- that

Jnana dasa is suggesting that Srila Prabhupada's interpretation is

superficial.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

 

PS: For Krishna Susarla -- it is generally accepted that any individual can

spell his name any way that he or she choses, and that others should follow

that individual's spelling. Thus, if Jnana dasa signs his document thus, you

should not refer to him as "Gyaana daasa" when responding.

[Guest guest]

Sri Srila dasa writes:

 

> Dear Krishna Susharla Prabhu,

> I think you have somehow completely misunderstood Jnana (Gyaana) dasa. On

his

> behalf, allow me the liberty to substitute "understandings" or "readings"

in

> the phrase "superficial interpretations", so that we get instead:

>

> " We may take our own incomplete and 'superficial *readings*' as

absolute..."

>

>

> Do you get what he is trying to say now? It is NOT *Prabhupada's*

> interpretation that is superficial, it is *OURS.*

 

Dear Srila dasa,

 

In the original dispute, there was no question of the validity of any

interpretation other than that of Srila Prabhupada's and H.H. Narayana

Maharaja's. The whole discussion was centered around the conflict between

these two understandings of Shrii Iishopanishad invocation mantra. No other

devotee has given any other interpretation of this mantra. Furthermore,

since the letter was clearly directed at the ISKCON audience, who would by

default follow Srila Prabhupada's commentary on the mantra, the "our" must

naturally refer to them. I am not aware that the ISKCON devotees are now

being criticized for somehow not following Srila Prabhupada's invocation

mantra commentary. Consequently I concluded (after multiple readings of the

letter), that the "superficial interpretation" being referred to is that of

the ISKCON devotees. And since the ISKCON devotees are accepting the

interpretation of Srila Prabhupada, this means that it is Srila Prabhupada's

interpretation of the mantra which is being indirectly labeled as

"superficial." In other words, the criticism of the letter was that ISKCON

devotees were making a cult of a single interpretation that was superficial

(and which happens to be Srila Prabhupada's interpretation).

 

No one else has given an interpretation on the mantra that is being

discussed, unless the letter intended to say that it was Narayana Gosvami's

interpretation that was superficial, which I somehow doubt based on the

context. The wording as such can only lead to the conclusion that Srila

Prabhupada's interpretation is superficial, and it is that interpretation

which ISKCON devotees are "making a cult of."

 

I feel that Sri Jnana dasa and Sri Mundita Mastaka have some explaining to

do, and I eagerly await their comments in this regard. I would like to know

why Srila Prabhupada's interpretation of the mantra must be considered as

superficial. I would also like to see, at some point, the commentary of

Baladeva Vidyabhuushana on Iishopanishad invocation, since it is alleged by

Narayana Maharaja's followers that he bases his "deeper" interpretation on

this.

 

regards,

 

Krishna Susarla

 

p.s. I apologize if my phonetic spelling of others' names was construed as

hurtful. It was not intended to be; I just have a habit of trying to

transliterate all Sanskrit words like that. I shall endeavour to restrain

myself in the future.

[Guest guest]

Sri Srila dasa writes:

 

> Dear Krishna Susharla Prabhu,

> I think you have somehow completely misunderstood Jnana (Gyaana) dasa. On

his

> behalf, allow me the liberty to substitute "understandings" or "readings"

in

> the phrase "superficial interpretations", so that we get instead:

>

> " We may take our own incomplete and 'superficial *readings*' as

absolute..."

>

>

> Do you get what he is trying to say now? It is NOT *Prabhupada's*

> interpretation that is superficial, it is *OURS.*

 

Dear Srila dasa,

 

In the original dispute, there was no question of the validity of any

interpretation other than that of Srila Prabhupada's and H.H. Narayana

Maharaja's. The whole discussion was centered around the conflict between

these two understandings of Shrii Iishopanishad invocation mantra. No other

devotee has given any other interpretation of this mantra. Furthermore,

since the letter was clearly directed at the ISKCON audience, who would by

default follow Srila Prabhupada's commentary on the mantra, the "our" must

naturally refer to them. I am not aware that the ISKCON devotees are now

being criticized for somehow not following Srila Prabhupada's invocation

mantra commentary. Consequently I concluded (after multiple readings of the

letter), that the "superficial interpretation" being referred to is that of

the ISKCON devotees. And since the ISKCON devotees are accepting the

interpretation of Srila Prabhupada, this means that it is Srila Prabhupada's

interpretation of the mantra which is being indirectly labeled as

"superficial." In other words, the criticism of the letter was that ISKCON

devotees were making a cult of a single interpretation that was superficial

(and which happens to be Srila Prabhupada's interpretation).

 

No one else has given an interpretation on the mantra that is being

discussed, unless the letter intended to say that it was Narayana Gosvami's

interpretation that was superficial, which I somehow doubt based on the

context. The wording as such can only lead to the conclusion that Srila

Prabhupada's interpretation is superficial, and it is that interpretation

which ISKCON devotees are "making a cult of."

 

I feel that Sri Jnana dasa and Sri Mundita Mastaka have some explaining to

do, and I eagerly await their comments in this regard. I would like to know

why Srila Prabhupada's interpretation of the mantra must be considered as

superficial. I would also like to see, at some point, the commentary of

Baladeva Vidyabhuushana on Iishopanishad invocation, since it is alleged by

Narayana Maharaja's followers that he bases his "deeper" interpretation on

this.

 

regards,

 

Krishna Susarla

 

p.s. I apologize if my phonetic spelling of others' names was construed as

hurtful. It was not intended to be; I just have a habit of trying to

transliterate all Sanskrit words like that. I shall endeavour to restrain

myself in the future.

[Guest guest]

Sri Srila dasa writes:

 

> Dear Krishna Susharla Prabhu,

> I think you have somehow completely misunderstood Jnana (Gyaana) dasa. On

his

> behalf, allow me the liberty to substitute "understandings" or "readings"

in

> the phrase "superficial interpretations", so that we get instead:

>

> " We may take our own incomplete and 'superficial *readings*' as

absolute..."

>

>

> Do you get what he is trying to say now? It is NOT *Prabhupada's*

> interpretation that is superficial, it is *OURS.*

 

Dear Srila dasa,

 

In the original dispute, there was no question of the validity of any

interpretation other than that of Srila Prabhupada's and H.H. Narayana

Maharaja's. The whole discussion was centered around the conflict between

these two understandings of Shrii Iishopanishad invocation mantra. No other

devotee has given any other interpretation of this mantra. Furthermore,

since the letter was clearly directed at the ISKCON audience, who would by

default follow Srila Prabhupada's commentary on the mantra, the "our" must

naturally refer to them. I am not aware that the ISKCON devotees are now

being criticized for somehow not following Srila Prabhupada's invocation

mantra commentary. Consequently I concluded (after multiple readings of the

letter), that the "superficial interpretation" being referred to is that of

the ISKCON devotees. And since the ISKCON devotees are accepting the

interpretation of Srila Prabhupada, this means that it is Srila Prabhupada's

interpretation of the mantra which is being indirectly labeled as

"superficial." In other words, the criticism of the letter was that ISKCON

devotees were making a cult of a single interpretation that was superficial

(and which happens to be Srila Prabhupada's interpretation).

 

No one else has given an interpretation on the mantra that is being

discussed, unless the letter intended to say that it was Narayana Gosvami's

interpretation that was superficial, which I somehow doubt based on the

context. The wording as such can only lead to the conclusion that Srila

Prabhupada's interpretation is superficial, and it is that interpretation

which ISKCON devotees are "making a cult of."

 

I feel that Sri Jnana dasa and Sri Mundita Mastaka have some explaining to

do, and I eagerly await their comments in this regard. I would like to know

why Srila Prabhupada's interpretation of the mantra must be considered as

superficial. I would also like to see, at some point, the commentary of

Baladeva Vidyabhuushana on Iishopanishad invocation, since it is alleged by

Narayana Maharaja's followers that he bases his "deeper" interpretation on

this.

 

regards,

 

Krishna Susarla

 

p.s. I apologize if my phonetic spelling of others' names was construed as

hurtful. It was not intended to be; I just have a habit of trying to

transliterate all Sanskrit words like that. I shall endeavour to restrain

myself in the future.

[Guest guest]

> 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.

 

On 29 Sep 1999, Krishna Susarla wrote:

 

> Sri Srila dasa writes:

> > Dear Krishna Susharla Prabhu,

> > I think you have somehow completely misunderstood Jnana (Gyaana) dasa....

It is NOT *Prabhupada's* interpretation that is superficial, it is *OURS.*

>

> Dear Srila dasa,

> In the original dispute, there was no question of the validity of any

> interpretation other than that of Srila Prabhupada's and H.H. Narayana

> Maharaja's. The whole discussion was centered around the conflict between

these two understandings of Shrii Iishopanishad invocation mantra. No other

devotee has given any other interpretation of this mantra.

 

With all respect, Prabhu, you are incorrect again.

 

Here's the second half of the paragraph in question:

"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."

 

*Our own* is NOT "Srila Prahupada's" nor Narayan Maharaja's. Isn't that

clear? we have to take responsibility for the ideas that you or I think,

YOUR + MY = OUR *interpretations.*

 

In terms of OUR *interpretions*, the so-called "conflict between these two

understandings" exists in *your* mind. That is *your* INTERPRETATION. Own it.

Say it, "MY *INTERPREATION.*" If I was present on the occasion, this wouldn't

even be an issue for me. There wouldn't any question of contradiction,

since *difference* does not imply *contradiction.* (as I have stated before.)

This is MY *INTERPRETATION*. So many acaryas have offered their various

commentaries on the scriptures. And on any given day in a Bhagavatam class,

you can hear another novel interpretation. OUR *INTERPRETATIONS*. What is

the difficulty?

 

This discussion is not just between Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja.

There is also an important THIRD PERSON involved: This entire debacle has been

brought to our attention only due to Ravindra's Svarupa's personal reaction

and HIS *INTERPRETATION* to what Narayan Maharaja supposedly has said. Indeed,

the whole controversy revolves on the accuracy of Ravindra's reminiscence of

and spin on the episode.

 

Consequently, this entire discussion amounts to speculative hairsplitting. Or

in other words, it's an utter waste of time -- or worse than that, as I have

said too many times already -- sadhu-ninda. Otherwise, what is your purpose

other than to find some defect? Not to find out anything new or vital for your

spiritual life, that's for sure. If you have a genuine philosophical question,

ask it of any appropriate authority. But please don't pollute this conference

with imaginative inquiries that are subtly meant to demean a senior Vaisnava.

 

If you don't like Narayan Maharaja's interpretation, fine. But continuing to

allege some fault when Jnana dasa has given adequate reply is simply devious.

If you want to know more about Narayan Maharaja's explanation, then DO YOUR

OWN HOMEWORK (ie, write to him). If you want the chapter and verse for

Maharaja's reference, LOOK IT UP. Maybe the Sanskrit COM conference can help

you. Further your imaginative speculations in private if you must. BUT STOP

PUBLICLY IMPUGNING SOME DEFECT IN THE MAHARAJA. This is your unjustifiable

INTERPRETATION only. It is not only unrighteous, it is cowardly. Please cease

and desist.

 

Discussion in an attempt to genuinely understand is one thing, but mantaining

an ulterior motive to find fault is another.

 

What kind of bad logic are you laboring under?

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

> 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.

 

On 29 Sep 1999, Krishna Susarla wrote:

 

> Sri Srila dasa writes:

> > Dear Krishna Susharla Prabhu,

> > I think you have somehow completely misunderstood Jnana (Gyaana) dasa....

It is NOT *Prabhupada's* interpretation that is superficial, it is *OURS.*

>

> Dear Srila dasa,

> In the original dispute, there was no question of the validity of any

> interpretation other than that of Srila Prabhupada's and H.H. Narayana

> Maharaja's. The whole discussion was centered around the conflict between

these two understandings of Shrii Iishopanishad invocation mantra. No other

devotee has given any other interpretation of this mantra.

 

With all respect, Prabhu, you are incorrect again.

 

Here's the second half of the paragraph in question:

"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."

 

*Our own* is NOT "Srila Prahupada's" nor Narayan Maharaja's. Isn't that

clear? we have to take responsibility for the ideas that you or I think,

YOUR + MY = OUR *interpretations.*

 

In terms of OUR *interpretions*, the so-called "conflict between these two

understandings" exists in *your* mind. That is *your* INTERPRETATION. Own it.

Say it, "MY *INTERPREATION.*" If I was present on the occasion, this wouldn't

even be an issue for me. There wouldn't any question of contradiction,

since *difference* does not imply *contradiction.* (as I have stated before.)

This is MY *INTERPRETATION*. So many acaryas have offered their various

commentaries on the scriptures. And on any given day in a Bhagavatam class,

you can hear another novel interpretation. OUR *INTERPRETATIONS*. What is

the difficulty?

 

This discussion is not just between Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja.

There is also an important THIRD PERSON involved: This entire debacle has been

brought to our attention only due to Ravindra's Svarupa's personal reaction

and HIS *INTERPRETATION* to what Narayan Maharaja supposedly has said. Indeed,

the whole controversy revolves on the accuracy of Ravindra's reminiscence of

and spin on the episode.

 

Consequently, this entire discussion amounts to speculative hairsplitting. Or

in other words, it's an utter waste of time -- or worse than that, as I have

said too many times already -- sadhu-ninda. Otherwise, what is your purpose

other than to find some defect? Not to find out anything new or vital for your

spiritual life, that's for sure. If you have a genuine philosophical question,

ask it of any appropriate authority. But please don't pollute this conference

with imaginative inquiries that are subtly meant to demean a senior Vaisnava.

 

If you don't like Narayan Maharaja's interpretation, fine. But continuing to

allege some fault when Jnana dasa has given adequate reply is simply devious.

If you want to know more about Narayan Maharaja's explanation, then DO YOUR

OWN HOMEWORK (ie, write to him). If you want the chapter and verse for

Maharaja's reference, LOOK IT UP. Maybe the Sanskrit COM conference can help

you. Further your imaginative speculations in private if you must. BUT STOP

PUBLICLY IMPUGNING SOME DEFECT IN THE MAHARAJA. This is your unjustifiable

INTERPRETATION only. It is not only unrighteous, it is cowardly. Please cease

and desist.

 

Discussion in an attempt to genuinely understand is one thing, but mantaining

an ulterior motive to find fault is another.

 

What kind of bad logic are you laboring under?

 

Srila dasa