Guest guest Posted September 29, 1999 Report Share Posted September 29, 1999 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1999 Report Share Posted September 30, 1999 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1999 Report Share Posted September 30, 1999 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1999 Report Share Posted September 30, 1999 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1999 Report Share Posted September 30, 1999 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 1999 Report Share Posted September 30, 1999 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.