|
Post by madanmohandas on Oct 26, 2010 17:12:36 GMT -6
O Nitai you make me laugh, how can we ignore all the theistic jibberish? You do seem to contradict yourself at times. When you say, 'even an atheist would be attracted to Krsna's narratives' you betray your underlying theism.
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Oct 27, 2010 10:01:48 GMT -6
As for a scriptural support for my atheism argument, I would point to sarvadharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM zaraNaM vraja. Sarva-dharmAn is pretty clear. He doesn't say aneka-dharmAn or bahudharmAn. Of course, I don't believe that Krsna really said this, but whoever did made a good point. So on no. 1 we are in full agreement but on this point I have a hard time following you. The support from 18.66 does not seem very strong to me. sarva-dharman is generally taken to mean "all (socio-religious) duties", and not throw out "all religion including God", that is really stretching it beyond its elasticity. One could defend the antinomian behaviour of the gopi's with this verse but I think that's as far as it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 27, 2010 15:19:00 GMT -6
I get all of your points, Nitai, however my question remains: what would impel an atheist to do bhajan of a fictional character? Vaishnavas or those interested in Vaishnavism are already predisposed toward the "mythic" and the "mystical" - what would impel an atheist? I like reading a good fictional novel every now and then but I would not build my life around the study of, meditation of, chanting of, and aradhana of characters in a novel. That approach to bhakti just does not make any sense to me. My question remains, too. How can you possibly like that verse of PS's? It is self-enamored (look how advanced I am---any criticism of a Vv cuts me to pieces) and expresses something that we should all find horror in: the possibility that someone might be condemned to hell forever. Just imagine how dramatically we would have to change our views of Krsna if it were true. Imagine Krsna's condoning someone's going to hell and not having anyone who can save him. That verse is the opposite of rasik for me. I can't see how you can defend it, except blindly, just because it apparently comes from someone we are supposed to respect. An atheist my well be attracted to Krsna, not as a god, but perhaps as a hero (nayaka) and also to Radha as a heroine (nayika). The literature is beautiful. It is too bad that one has to know Sanskrit or Bengali to really appreciate it. No English translation has been created yet that comes anywhere near capturing the beauty of the originals. It may not be possible. Atheists are not immune to beauty. So they may be drawn to the rich Krsna literature to taste rasa. I am not talking about bhakti-rasa, but rasa, the experience of aesthetic rapture. This would not be bhajan in the strictest sense, but bhajan also means merely "having recourse to." Take as an example that first chapter of Kavi Karnapura's Krsnahnika-kaumudi which I just recently posted. There is nothing in that that requires one to believe Krsna to be god. Yet, it is beautiful and sweet. If one approaches it with the idea that he is god and Radhika is his sakti then one experiences (may experience) bhakti-rasa. If one approaches it with the idea that Krsna and Radha are fictional characters one gets rasa. In either case the experience is enjoyable and something that one might want to repeat many more times. Does it hurt them to approach the literature in this way, will they be condemned to an eternity in hell (Prabodhananda might say so, but) I think not. They may become addicts of the Krsna literature in the same way that people become addicts of the works of Shakespeare or Cao Xueqin ( Story of the Stone or Dream of the Red Chamber). In addition to this, some of the Gnu Atheists are inclined to practice and recommend various techniques of meditation. Sam Harris does, for instance. I think he practices some type of Buddhist meditation. But, I can see a a Gnu Atheist doing nama-japa if it were divorced from any kind of doctrine or dogma. The rhythms and sounds, the repetitive nature of the exercise, the sweet associations the sounds come to evoke as one becomes more steeped in the literature (the poetry and drama, not the dogma), those can lead to deep experiences of joy and peace. The problem of theism need never come up. Why would it? What does it really contribute to the practice? But don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting creating a subversive program of converting atheists. That is the farthest thing from my mind. I am thinking about the benefits of adopting a kind of methodological atheism as a boost to sadhana. The idea of godhood lurks in the background and distorts our desires and aspirations. We can't really get beyond selfishness as long as it is there. Can you say to Krsna "I love you whether you are god or not"? Mahaprabhu comes close to saying this when he says: AzliSya vA pAdaratAM piNaSTu mAm, adarzanAnmarmahatAM karotu vA. This is a shade more radical, though.
|
|
|
Post by maasikdharma on Oct 27, 2010 21:41:04 GMT -6
Sure, the aesthetics of the Radha Krishna narrative are so charming that atheists could be captivated by it and that captivation in itself would be a type of bhakti. I've got no problem with that approach.
I also appreciate that there are "dharmic atheists" out there. Bare bones Buddhism along with Jainism and certain other South Asian philosophical schools can be considered "dharmic atheism" in a sense, as far as I've read. There's definitely a place for that.
I just don't think Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or what you call "Chaitanya Vaishnavism" is a useful mechanism for dharmic atheism.
Why? There's too many personalities involved. GV is all about lila, visualizing the lila, assuming and affirming that the lila is a reality on some level that we can enter into, and conceiving of ourselves in the lila.
Buddhism, Jainism and the other dharmic atheisms/agnosticisms of South Asia do not have intrinsic to their sadhyas and sadhans all the detailed rupas and lilas that GV has.
Moreover, if it's all a fiction then what would be the use, value or validity of taking diksha within an unbroken "traditional" line as you've argured before?
Does it really matter if one's guru has received a traditional mantra from a traditional CV guru who's guru-pranali can be traced back to a parikara of Mahaprabhu?
If it's all a fiction - who cares if one has diksha from a line that can be traced as such or not?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 28, 2010 11:18:32 GMT -6
Sure, the aesthetics of the Radha Krishna narrative are so charming that atheists could be captivated by it and that captivation in itself would be a type of bhakti. I've got no problem with that approach. Yes, this is surely what Sri Rupa means when he "warns" people not to go see Krsna on the bank of the Yamuna. (I can't think of the verse at the moment. Help, someone!) I don't know if one can call those atheists dharmic. They are atheists plain and simple but they see some value in meditative practices, based in large part on experimental study of meditational techniques that show they have benefits for psychological and physical health. Perhaps there is a sense among them too that such traditions as Buddhism and Jainism are more in harmony with modern science. They are certainly not practitioners of Buddhism and Jainism and other such traditions in the usual sense of the term. Yes, I don't like the term Gaudiya. It makes the tradition seem too parochial and ethno-centric. As I see it, it is a universal tradition. So I simply call it Caitanya Vaisnavism. I don't see this as a problem. In this respect it is very much like many of the role-playing games that people engage in and become quite enthralled by. We talked a little on this forum about creating a world on one of the role-playing internet sites and playing the lila there. That never really got off the ground, but I think CV has great possibilities there. Some of those Tibetan meditations come very close. They are very complex and are filled with forms and mandalas and such. I don't know if any are associated with a narrative. Maybe not, but visualization is an important feature of the practice. Daksinis and Yoginis are all associated with certain psychological elements in the mind and the process of subduing them may take on narrative forms, I presume. I said Sanatana and Rupa wrote fictions, but that does not necessarily mean that Krsna and Radha are fictions. Fictions may be written about real people. Often times fiction may reveal more truth about a person than a moment by moment account of their real lives. Through their fictions we can draw close to R and K. For instance, Sanatana invents a journey that Narada took in quest of the bhakta who has received the greatest amount of Krsna's grace. That journey never took place; Narada probably does not exist, or if he does, Sanatana had no problem writing a fiction that featured him. In the process he reveals a profound vision of the workings of bhakti and Krsna's responses to that. It is gleaned both from scripture and Sanatana's own ecstatic experience. Though it never happened and all of the characters may be fictional, it contains deep truths about the process of gaining intimacy with the divine, here conceived of as Krsna. He creates a hierarchy of blessedness that reveals at the same time the nature of bhakti and of Krsna. Yes, of course it matters, whatever the ontological or theological status of Krsna. Think of it as a game, a game that has rules as all do. Suppose someone wants to join the game but does not want to follow the rules. Doesn't that spoil the game? The game is ruined. CV is a lot like playing a game, except that it has deeper existential consequences. In the game one gets a new identity (through initiation) and learns to play by the rules. Then the game is fun, and enriching, and consequential. Even this question about theism is part of the game, because it impacts as I see the quality of love. If you think that this comparison trivializes CV, think of Hermann Hesse's Magister Ludi (The Glass Bead Game). Games can have deep metaphysical meanings and implications. But to experience them on that level one must play them by the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 28, 2010 12:14:59 GMT -6
As for a scriptural support for my atheism argument, I would point to sarvadharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM zaraNaM vraja. Sarva-dharmAn is pretty clear. He doesn't say aneka-dharmAn or bahudharmAn. Of course, I don't believe that Krsna really said this, but whoever did made a good point. So on no. 1 we are in full agreement but on this point I have a hard time following you. The support from 18.66 does not seem very strong to me. sarva-dharman is generally taken to mean "all (socio-religious) duties", and not throw out "all religion including God", that is really stretching it beyond its elasticity. One could defend the antinomian behaviour of the gopi's with this verse but I think that's as far as it goes. I will admit that the use of dharma for religion is a relatively recent development. But, though the traditional uses of dharma are certainly varied, they do intersect with areas that we generally consider religion. One of the earliest uses of the word dharma, perhaps, is in Rg Veda 10.90. It is used there to describe sacrificial rites, the rites whereby Purusa is dismembered as the sacrificial offering. This is a decidedly religious setting and is regarded as cosmogonic as well. Anyway, I don't feel it is a huge stretch to take dharma as religion here. To defend the antinomian behavior of the gopis with this verse would ruin their sacrifice and disempower the raga behind their actions. The raga that trumps vidhi you want to turn back into vidhi.
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Oct 29, 2010 9:03:32 GMT -6
Though it never happened and all of the characters may be fictional, it contains deep truths about the process of gaining intimacy with the divine, here conceived of as Krsna. So it seems that you are not really an atheist as I read this passage. You seem to accept the existence of "the divine". That might not make you a theist (believer in a personal God) but still... Do you think it possible for "the divine" to take a personal Form, for example Radha-Krishna, or is that "divine" only fictional? Or was it just a slip of the keyboard?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 29, 2010 9:50:47 GMT -6
Though it never happened and all of the characters may be fictional, it contains deep truths about the process of gaining intimacy with the divine, here conceived of as Krsna. So it seems that you are not really an atheist as I read this passage. You seem to accept the existence of "the divine". That might not make you a theist (believer in a personal God) but still... Do you think it possible for "the divine" to take a personal Form, for example Radha-Krishna, or is that "divine" only fictional? Or was it just a slip of the keyboard? Well, I described myself as a methodological atheist. I am troubled by people who talk about God as if he/she were an apple or a book. Just because we have a word for it or several words does not mean that we have any clue what we are talking about. All this theistic blabber and theology itself make me impatient. That is why I love so much the Gnu Atheists who so aggressively go after the nonsense spouted by the theologians and the abject blind ignorance of the common believer. Now Krsna I can believe in. After all my guru saw him and Radhika and spoke with them often enough. I would have to believe that my guru was delusional if I discredit that. And I don't. But I do have trouble squaring the person Krsna with God. God is such an immense and inconceivable, not to mention contentious, concept, especially considering the vastness of the universe of which we are such a tiny tiny part, that I cannot fit it into the confines of that shining bluish, flute-carrying skin. He obviously has some special powers since he can appear to my guru, but God? How much do we need to mix this God mumbo-jumbo in with our idea of Krsna to come to love him. If it is really important then it conditions our love for him. On the other hand if it is not important why love Krsna instead of someone else? The texts seem to suggest that we just do love him. We can't help ourselves. The problem is getting him into our experience so that that can take place. Sri Rupa says "don't go and look at Krsna on the bank of the Yamuna. If you do you are lost." (I still can't find that verse!) But, can one just go to the Yamuna and find Krsna standing there? it is kind of a tease really.
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Oct 30, 2010 7:39:15 GMT -6
Some thoughts on the above.
I always apply the Cartesian doubt to everything, which is somewhat similar to your methodological atheism, though less biased as atheism might not be the end result. That brought me to the realization that, like yourself I suppose, that I know nothing. I also get upset when people talk about God or Krishna like they went to school together, although they might know something I don't.
You mention two groups of people 1) theologians and 2) common believers "spouting nonsense".
There are also 3) mystics, like your gurudev, who experience the divine in one form or another.
(I might have quoted them before but I love these verses: Bhagavata Purana 10.59.25 "I bow unto You, O Supreme Soul who have assumed form in compliance with the wishes of Your devotees", Bhagavata Purana 3.20.25 "Hari who manifests Himself to His devotees in the form desired by them" and Ahirbudhnya Samhita 6.29 "Whatever form [of God] the devotee has been attached to in his mundane existence, that kind does he behold as an inhabitant of the highest heaven".)
Many mystics are reluctant to talk about God because they also realize the incomprehensibility of "God". They stammer and stutter. They talk about God having Form and being Formless, and being at the same time beyond Form/Formless. Who can comprehend that?
[One might note a difference between India, Europe and the USA. Fundamentalism (viz. taking the scriptures literally: "shining, bluish skin") is very common in India, quite common in the USA and virtually non-existent in Europe (with the exception of the Hare Krishnas of course). This explains the relatively little success Dawkins' book had here.]
But also the theologians, especially the Protestants, are very careful in the way they talk about God and are sometimes even outright mystical, although they despise mysticism, like Calvin in his Institutiones or Karl Barth in his Kirchliche Dogmatik.
Fourthly there are the esotericists, about whom on this forum will not be talked (I tried that a few years ago), who say that Jehova, Christ and Krishna are not the Supreme Being but are just gods of the middle category.
(there is not really a point to these ramblings)
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 31, 2010 15:36:28 GMT -6
Some thoughts on the above. I always apply the Cartesian doubt to everything, which is somewhat similar to your methodological atheism, though less biased as atheism might not be the end result. That brought me to the realization that, like yourself I suppose, that I know nothing. I also get upset when people talk about God or Krishna like they went to school together, although they might know something I don't. You mention two groups of people 1) theologians and 2) common believers "spouting nonsense". There are also 3) mystics, like your gurudev, who experience the divine in one form or another. (I might have quoted them before but I love these verses: Bhagavata Purana 10.59.25 "I bow unto You, O Supreme Soul who have assumed form in compliance with the wishes of Your devotees", Bhagavata Purana 3.20.25 "Hari who manifests Himself to His devotees in the form desired by them" and Ahirbudhnya Samhita 6.29 "Whatever form [of God] the devotee has been attached to in his mundane existence, that kind does he behold as an inhabitant of the highest heaven".) Many mystics are reluctant to talk about God because they also realize the incomprehensibility of "God". They stammer and stutter. They talk about God having Form and being Formless, and being at the same time beyond Form/Formless. Who can comprehend that? [One might note a difference between India, Europe and the USA. Fundamentalism (viz. taking the scriptures literally: "shining, bluish skin") is very common in India, quite common in the USA and virtually non-existent in Europe (with the exception of the Hare Krishnas of course). This explains the relatively little success Dawkins' book had here.] But also the theologians, especially the Protestants, are very careful in the way they talk about God and are sometimes even outright mystical, although they despise mysticism, like Calvin in his Institutiones or Karl Barth in his Kirchliche Dogmatik. Fourthly there are the esotericists, about whom on this forum will not be talked (I tried that a few years ago), who say that Jehova, Christ and Krishna are not the Supreme Being but are just gods of the middle category. (there is not really a point to these ramblings)Thanks, gerardji, for your thoughtful responses. It is true that there is a strong tendency in Vaisnavism in general to see the different forms of the Lord as responses to the desires of bhaktas. As you point out, there are many scriptural texts to that effect. But I keep wondering to myself who could have called up Krsna? I can see how maybe Nrsimha or Rama or even Matsya and Varaha might have been forms created in response to certain desires in bhaktas, desires for protection from the wicked, desires for a just king, desires for safety during floods and other natural calamities. But Krsna? Who called him up? Anyway, I understand your point. Sorry we were not more receptive to your earlier presentation of eroteric ideas. To be frank, I did not understand them very well. They are probably still around the forum here somewhere. I did not remove them. So unless you did, they are still here somewhere. You are talking mostly about certain theosophical ideas. I have read some more about them now. I still find them rather odd, but I would be happy to hear more about them and especially why you think they are credible. I have been reading Sri Krsnaprem by Dilip Kumar Roy. It portrays Sri Krsnaprem as a devoted bhakta of Radha and Krsna, but one who also thinks highly of Sri Aurobindo and Sri Raman Maharshi. Sri Krsnaprem also co-authored a book towards the end of his life on the Stanzas of Dzyan called Man the Measure of All Things. How much of it was his and how much Ashish Madhava's is something I would like to know. As you know those stanzas were part of the core of Theosophy, the basis of Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine. As for methodological atheism, it seems to me to end in just the right place. Krsna seems to want us to love him not as God but as a friend, son, or lover. On the other hand I think that if it were proven that Krsna is not God, most of us here would stop trying to love him. It therefore conditions our love for him. Somewhere buried under all out protestations to the contrary we want to love him because we believe he is God. How do we get beyond that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2010 22:34:30 GMT -6
Radhe Radhe!
"My question remains, too. How can you possibly like that verse of PS's? It is self-enamored (look how advanced I am---any criticism of a Vv cuts me to pieces) and expresses something that we should all find horror in: the possibility that someone might be condemned to hell forever."
For the record, i like that statement too, and I'm sure I did not take it the way you did. No sir, I did not take it in that way at all! Srila PS speak in the voice of a lover, for an audience of lovers. Fear of actual hell is not aroused in me by this statement. Srila Prabhodhananda has a fiery mood and that suits me fine.
ys, v
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Nov 1, 2010 10:43:40 GMT -6
Radhe Radhe! "My question remains, too. How can you possibly like that verse of PS's? It is self-enamored (look how advanced I am---any criticism of a Vv cuts me to pieces) and expresses something that we should all find horror in: the possibility that someone might be condemned to hell forever." For the record, i like that statement too, and I'm sure I did not take it the way you did. No sir, I did not take it in that way at all! Srila PS speak in the voice of a lover, for an audience of lovers. Fear of actual hell is not aroused in me by this statement. Srila Prabhodhananda has a fiery mood and that suits me fine. ys, v Well, good for you. I will steer clear of such lovers, thank you, especially if they are carrying dandas. It looks too much like hate speech for my tastes.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Nov 1, 2010 13:52:09 GMT -6
I guess I have shown my hand, in case there were any doubts before. I don't love Krsna. What is worse is that it may be that I cannot love him, if by loving him I have to accept the idea that he will throw people into a hell without any hope of redemption. I just can't love such a Krsna any more than I can love a Yahweh, who condoned the mass slaughter of whole peoples, or a Jesus for whom denial of the holy spirit is the one unforgivable sin. Am I taking Prabodhananda too seriously here? Shouldn't I realize that he did not really mean what he said? Shouldn't I realize that he really didn't want anyone to go to hell permanently? He was just issuing a warning. But, how does one know that? Maybe I should just suck it up and let Krsna be what he is. If he wants to send people off for eternal damnation that is his business. I can't change him. But, how can I hang out with people who are not horrified at the idea of the suffering of other people? To love Krsna does one have to become heartless towards everyone else?
Anyway, fair warning. This is a site run by someone who does not love Krsna. Those of you who love Krsna or who want to love Krsna might want to find your sanga somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Nov 1, 2010 16:24:40 GMT -6
I thought we were exploring those hands. I thought we agreed on the existence of "the divine". Lets explore that a little further in connection to Krishna. But you broached some other subjects also in reply # 24.
Generally scholars accept the theory of a slow process of divination of the folk hero Krishna. I like to believe that it was a slow process of revelation of this particular Form of the Divine. As Krishna became wider known through that process the more popular Krishna became in India the more devotion went to Him the more He revealed Himself to the bhaktas. A process of gradually increasing reciprocal revelation, or something.
As to Theosophy and Anthroposophy (a Christian break-away movement of the Theosophy in Germany in 1913), that is mainly the story of the past and future evolution of Cosmos & Man as seen by them. It takes hundreds of pages to get into their stories of root-races, earth rounds, manvantara's etc. but those stories might, symbolically, also be in the Mahabharata or the Bhagavata Purana. A good overview can be found in Geoffrey Barborka The Peopling of the Earth, TPH Wheaton IL 1975.
In The Secret Doctrine Blavatsky was mainly interested in Tibetan Buddhism, in Isis Unveiled she based herself mainly on Wilson’s translation of the Vishnu Purana. Theosophy pretends to be the Truth & Science behind all religions.
The Stanzas of Dzyan (= dhyana) might be Kalacakra Tantra. Blavatsky called it the Kiu-te which was only in 1975 identified by Spierenburg to be the rGyud-sde (De zeven menselijke beginselen in het werk van H.P. Blavatsky en het Tibetaans Boeddhisme, Netherlands). That Kalacakra Tantra is available in every Tibetan Gelugpa library, but David Reigl says that it might be the missing or lost Mula Kalacakra Tantra. (Blavatsky’s Secret Books; Twenty Years’ Research, San Diego 1999). But none of the stanzas that Blavatsky quotes from the Book of Dzyan has so far been located in the abridged Kalacakra Tantra or in verses from the Mula Kalacakra Tantra quoted in other Buddhist writings.
Interestingly, in 1927 Alice Leighton Cleather and Basil Crump issued a reprint of Blavatsky’s The Voice of the Silence under the auspices of the Chinese Buddhist Research Society in Peking. In their editorial foreword they state that they undertook the work at the request of the (ninth) Panchen Lama, ‘as the only true exposition in English of the Heart Doctrine of the Mahayana and its noble ideal of self-sacrifice for humanity’. The Panchen Lama contributed a brief message on the path of liberation.
I don’t think Krishna Prem knew it was Kalacakra Tantra. Madhava Asish (born Edinburgh 20 February 1920 as Alexander Phipps, died Mirtola, India 13 April 1997) was his initiated disciple who wrote in his introduction to Man, Son of Man (vol. 2 of Man, Measure of All Things):
“Man, the Measure of All Things, first published in 1966 shortly after Sri Krishna Prem's death, is the result of our joint efforts to revise the draft of a commentary he had written more than twenty years earlier. More than half of it is from the original manuscript, and the rest is my presentation of his ideas. The second part, we had agreed, needed complete re-writing; and we had worked out the general theme together before his death. But because the hand would be mine, he insisted, more out of kindliness than truthfulness, that it should appear under my name alone.”
A few months ago I read the two books of lectures of Rudolf Steiner on the Bhagavadgita. That was rather disappointing. He doesn’t know much about the East and he doesn’t care, but he does have some interesting theories about Krishna (which he thinks are completely true because he saw it with his clairvoyance). Now brace yourself, when you are not used to “esoteric truths” they may sound a bit quirky:
Krishna is supposed to be the twin soul of Adam. That soul was held back in the spiritual world while Adam (second Purusha?) was doing his thing…
Later Krishna came to the Earth to instruct Arjuna (and mankind) in such a way that humans could become free and independent individuals. Because of tribal consciousness that had not been possible before. The Gita also marks the end of the age of ancient clairvoyance. Now it is not innate anymore, you have to gain it by meditation. That is the main function of Krishna as seen by Steiner.
Later when Christ was born Krishna also plays a role as a being a part of the constitution of Christ, together with the Buddha and Zoroaster.
This is an interesting fragment as an example, from his The Bhagavad Gita and the Epistles of Paul:
“As Paul journeyed to Damascus, it was the Christ who appeared to him. The flood of light that enveloped him was Krishna. Because Christ took Krishna as his own soul sheath, through which he then continued to work, everything that once was the content of the sublime Gita streamed from him. So much in the revelations of the Testaments, even if in scattered fragments, comes from the ancient teaching of Krishna. “But that teaching became something for all humanity because the Christ as such is not merely a human ego belonging to humankind, but belonging to the higher hierarchies. For this reason also, Christ belongs to those times when humanity was not yet separated from what now surrounds us as material existence, and when we were not yet enveloped in maya through our own luciferic temptation. "A look back through the whole of evolution shows that in ancient times there was not yet that sharp division between the spiritual and the material. The material was still spiritual, and the spiritual—if we may put it so—was still manifesting itself outwardly. "In the Christ impulse, something entered humanity that completely excluded such a sharp separation as existed in the Sankhya philosophy between purusha and prakriti, and for this reason, Christ became the leader in taking human beings out of themselves but also toward divine creation. Dare we say then that one must absolutely abandon maya when we recognize that it appears to have been given us through a fault of our own? No. For that would be a blasphemy against the spirit in the world. It would mean assigning to matter qualities that we imposed upon it ourselves under the veil of maya. Instead, we should much rather hope that when we conquer in ourselves that which caused matter to become maya, we may again be reconciled with the world.”
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Nov 1, 2010 17:58:25 GMT -6
In defense of Prabodhananda S I should say that the original is nowhere near as fanatical as whoever did the translation:
Here is what masikadharma posted:
Do those who recount the flaws of the residents of Vrindavan, whether they are mobile or still, not realize that they cut me into a hundred pieces, as if with sharpened knives and arrows? If one should condemn even the tiniest blade of grass in this beloved abode of the Supreme Lord, there is no one, no one who could lift him out of the darkest reaches of hell. (1.13)
The actual Sanskrit for that last quarter verse is:
ghoranarakAt taM kaH kadA voddharet
"Who would lift him up from dreadful hell, or when?"
The translator not only answered the question in the negative, but repeated the negative ("no one, no one"). Prabodhananda leaves it open-ended. Eternity in hell is not implied. The zealot translator covers all that with his or her fanaticism. Though Prabodhananda implies a reluctance to free from hell someone who "hates" (dveSa) even a blade of grass of Vraja, the suggestion is that someone will at some point. All that is smashed down by the translator.
So after reading the original I would say that while I still don't like it it is not as fanatically overboard as I originally thought.
|
|