Accusation is not the Way to Remove Doubts, Either

[Guest guest]

Sri Srila dasa writes:

 

> On 29 Sep 1999, Krishna Susarla wrote:

> > 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.

 

[snip]

 

> *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.

 

Dear friends,

 

Let us consider the following logic:

 

H.H. Narayana Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada do not differ with each other in

their interpretations of shaastra. How do we know this? Because any

perceived difference between their interpretations is simply imaginary, or

in other words it is simply in our minds. Such perceived differences are

only illusory, because we know that there is no difference between the two.

In this way, we can understand that there is no actual difference between

Srila Prabhupada and H.H. Narayana Maharaja.

 

Certainly any intelligent person can see, regardless of their political or

spiritual affilitation, that the above logic is circular and highly dubious.

Our original question is this: why is there a discrepancy in the

explanations of Iishopanishad invocation mantra given by Srila Prabhupada

and H.H. Narayana Maharaja? The answer must explain why there is a

discrepancy, or at least explain how the discrepancy is not in fact a

discrepancy.

 

Merely stating that there is *no* discrepancy is not a convincing

explanation. This sort of evasive answer will not convince anyone, except

for possibly those individuals who have already accepted on the basis of

indiscriminate faith that H.H. Narayana Maharaja's succession to Srila

Prabhupada is legitimate.

 

I would also like to point out that the same, circular logic is frequently

employed by maayaavaadiis to justify the alleged correctness of their

philosophy even while claiming that all other, contradictory philosophies

are also correct. These maayaavaadiis simply tell people what they want to

hear (that all philosophies are right and good), by claiming that there is

no actual difference between them. Why? Because all the philosophies are the

same. This is what they say.

 

And if that sort of logic is incorrect when it is used by the maayaavaadiis,

then it must also be incorrect when used by Srila dasa or anyone else.

 

I am afraid the question of the difference in interpretation is not

imaginary. It is quite real, being presented in this real forum, being based

as it is on real texts and real reports of a real lecture given some years

ago. We realize that some people start with the assumption that a disciple

is the legitimate follower of his guru, and that such people will

automatically ignore "differences"between the disciple's teaching and the

guru's teaching on the assumption that one is following the other, and hence

there cannot be contradiction. However, that assumption cannot be made here,

because it is that very assumption of H.H. Narayana Maharaja's legitimacy as

Srila Prabhupada's disciple that is being questioned.

 

> 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?

 

The fact that other aachaaryas have given a commentary on a given scripture

does not make their commentaries correct. Madhvaachaarya has commented that

the gopikas are all "apsaraa-striiH" who became gopiis simply to satisfy

their mundane lust by worshipping Lord Krishna. But this understanding is

rejected by the Gaudiiyas, who consider the gopikas to be among the topmost

devotees of Lord Krishna.

 

Shrii Raamaanuja comments in his Bhagavad-Giitaa bhaashya that Lord Krishna

is an incarnation of a plenary portion of Vishnu. But our aachaaryas

definitely do not accept this, and they cite numerous evidences from the

Giitaa itself as well as the Bhaagavatam showing that the reverse is true.

 

There are many other examples I could give, where other "bona fide"

aachaaryas have given interpretations that are contradicted by our

commentaries. This does not mean that we accept those alternate

interpretations as correct. Of course, we do not find fault with the

character of these other aachaaryas. But refuting contradictory views is not

tantamount to fault-finding the persons who propose them.

 

As far as Srila Prabhupada's disciplic succession is concerned, I would

expect that anyone claiming to be his disciple would follow his

Bhaktivedaanta purports *exactly.* This is the whole point of paramparaa -

to transmit the teachings in an unadulterated fashion. There are some rare

examples of an aachaarya differing with his predecessors and starting a

whole new tradition. But that is not relevant here since Narayana Maharaja

has not claimed to be starting a new sampradaaya. A disciple is permitted to

support the explanations given by his guru. But nowhere do I see examples of

disciples *rejecting* their guru's teachings while proposing an alternate

one and claiming to follow the same philosophy. What is the meaning of

paramparaa if one can pick and choose what one accepts from one's guru?

 

> 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.

 

Sri Ravindra-svarupa dasa's article aside, we have factual confirmation that

H.H. Narayana Maharaja does give a different interpretation of Iishopanishad

invocation mantra than Srila Prabhupada. Here again is the statement by Sri

Jnana dasa:

 

"If Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu had respectfully asked for an explanation of the

contradiction, he would have found out that Maharaja was not speculating his

own version or dismissing Srila Prabhupada's purports. Rather, his

presentation

was directly from Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary on Sri

Isopanisad."

 

Now first of all, even Jnana dasa acknowledges "the contradiction," so

obviously the two explanations are different. But he hopes to prove to us

that the two explanations are simply complementary rather than

contradictory. That is a lovely thought, assuming that one could provide

evidence that Baladeva commented on the mantra in the same way as Narayana

Maharaja.

 

Unfortunately, it would seem that Srila Baladeva Vidyabusana has not

commented on the Iishopanishad invocation mantra at all.

 

For example, I have recently become aware of the following book:

 

Title: Isopanisad.

Translator: Sri Nrtyagopala Pañcatirtha.

Place of Publication: Calcutta

Publisher: Srisarasvata-Gauriyasana-Misan-Pratishthanatah [1970]

 

Please look at this book at your leisure. It contains Sanskrit and Bengali

for three commentaries on Shrii Iishopanishad. These are the commentaries of

Madhvaachaarya, Baladeva Vidyabhuushana, and Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Strangely

enough, the book does not contain commentary for any of these aachaaryas on

the Iishopanishad invocation mantra, even though it contains the mantra

itself and the commentaries for the other mantras.

 

It seems puzzling that H.H. Narayana Maharaja can claim to be following

Srila Baladeva Vidyabhuushana's commentary on a mantra when that commentary

does not even exist. Therefore, I think it is more important than ever that

someone trying to defend his legitimacy try to find Baladeva's commentary

and provide the Sanskrit here. Otherwise, all we are left with is the

knowledge that Baladeva did not comment on that mantra, which does not bode

well for H.H. Narayana Maharaja.

 

> 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.

 

It seem to me that accusations of "sadhu-ninda," imagining some impure

motivations, or claiming that the discussion is "speculative" are simply

ways of intimidating the doubters into silence. I for one think that the

questions are completely reasonable. With all due respect, I do not accept

that I am insincere for asking a question simply because you do not know the

answer to it.

 

I would also like to point out that I have seen some ISKCON devotees use

these same kinds of evasive maneuvers in order to get out of answering

questions that they did not know the answer to. How disappointing it is,

then, to see that those who are claiming to be followers of Bhaktivedanta

Narayana Maharaja simply do the same. I would have expected that those

trained by a bona fide Bhaktivedanta would rise above such petty tactics and

answer questions in a forthcoming and convincing manner.

 

Just to summarize then, I will list all of the unanswered questions here so

as to give Narayana Maharaja's followers every opportunity to understand and

answer them.

 

1) Why is there discrepancy between Srila Prabhupada's/Srila Bhaktivinoda's

and H.H. Narayana Maharaja's readings of Iishopanishad invocation mantra,

especially when the latter claims to be the disciple of the former?

 

2) In what sense is H.H. Narayana Maharaja a "disciple" of Srila Prabhupada

if he does not follow Srila Prabhupada's commentaries closely?

 

3) Why has H.H. Narayana Maharaja stated (according to Ravindra-svarupa

dasa) that the explanation given by Srila Prabhupada for Iishopanishad

invocation is incorrect?

 

4) Why is it alleged that H.H. Narayana Maharaja is following Baladeva

Vidyabhuushana's commentary on Iishopanishad when the commentary on the

relevant mantra does not appear to exist?

 

5) Why has Jnana dasa alleged that the interpretation of Srila Prabhupada is

a "superficial" interpretation? Let us have an explanation by Jnana dasa

please.

 

6) Who determines what is a "superficial" meaning and what is a "deeper"

meaning? By what standard is this judged?

 

7) Why are repeated attempts being made to dismiss the differences between

H.H. Narayana Maharaja's and Srila Prabhupada's commentaries, when the

questions being asked are in regards to why those differences exist in the

first place?

 

 

warm regards,

 

Krishna Susarla