shastra interpretations

[anadi]

Do you think it is possible to understand shastras objectively?
There are of course different interpretations, although for example ''Bhagavad Gita As It Is'' is supposed to be only a presentation, not an interpretation.
Do you think this is possible?
Would you agree with me if I say that sanskrit is a bit unpractical, because one can juggle with sanskrit words and pull out a different meaning?

 

[Poeticus]

Do you think it is possible to understand shastras objectively?
There are of course different interpretations, although for example ''Bhagavad Gita As It Is'' is supposed to be only a presentation, not an interpretation.
Do you think this is possible?
Would you agree with me if I say that sanskrit is a bit unpractical, because one can juggle with sanskrit words and pull out a different meaning?

Sanskrit detests monopolization. Its reality is pluralistic. And thus it makes its practicality very valid, believe it or not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are of course different interpretations, although for example ''Bhagavad Gita As It Is'' is supposed to be only a presentation, not an interpretation. Do you think this is possible?

Would you agree with me if I say that sanskrit is a bit unpractical, because one can juggle with sanskrit words and pull out a different meaning?

BhagawadGita can be understood from many angles. I am an atheist advaitist Hindu. SrimadBhagawadGita says some thing different to me than to a theist. That is the magic of BhagawadGita and that is why I love it. Sanskrit is not at fault. It is a beautiful language, just like Tamil is.

 

[Vinayaka]

, just like Tamil is.

Try reading Tirumular's great treatise... at least with Tiruvalluvar the message is fairly clear. With Tirumular it's vague, mystical, and full of inner references.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/TIRUMANTIRAM-A-TAMIL-SCRIPTURAL-CLASSIC/dp/8171203833#reader_8171203833

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree that what Thirumular or Thiruvallavar said must be wonderful, as must be Marathi Jnaneshwari, my homage to the great sages, but I have arrived at my conclusions (with the reading of RigVeda, Upanishads, SrimadBhagawatham and Sri Ramacharit Manas). Now I do not need to read anything except the new researches in science.

 

[Stormcry]

Do you think it is possible to understand shastras objectively?
There are of course different interpretations, although for example ''Bhagavad Gita As It Is'' is supposed to be only a presentation, not an interpretation.
Do you think this is possible?

"Bhagavad Gita as it is' is a strict interpretation according to 'Chaitanya Charitamruta'....

Would you agree with me if I say that sanskrit is a bit unpractical, because one can juggle with sanskrit words and pull out a different meaning?

No it's not possible .. Shastra reveals the hidden meaning only when you've good knowledge of Sanskrit.

Those who've good level of logical reasoning and grace of Sattva Guna can predict the accurate meaning of a word.

 

[Ekanta]

Those who've good level of logical reasoning and grace of Sattva Guna can predict the accurate meaning of a word.

Hello Hinduism♥Krishna... I do understand what you mean... but I would like to add the following (which is open for debate/reflection).

1. When I read Shankara's Gita comment, I saw that in many cases Shankara would say that it means either this or that. So either he is saying it can be interpreted in at least two ways or he is saying there are multiple meanings.

2. When we read the (lets continue as above) Gita comments of other acharyas, should we not take into account that the interpretation is meant for a certain audience? And is this the right thing to do? I would say yes and that the Gita 3.26 also teaches that:
“The enlightened man should not create disturbance in the beliefs of the ignorant, who are attached to work. Working, while himself remaining deligent, he should make them do all the duties.”
I.e. if one instruct the unfit in jñāna-yoga, his faith in karma-yoga will cease and ātma-jñāna will not arise. He will be deprived of both!

Now, this is not a critic of what you said above Hinduism♥Krishna, but a further reflection.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram HLK ji

No it's not possible .. Shastra reveals the hidden meaning only when you've good knowledge of Sanskrit.

Those who've good level of logical reasoning and grace of Sattva Guna can predict the accurate meaning of a word.

jai jai , ....thank goodness you said ....''And Grace'' ...of Sattva Guna'' ....as Grace indeed is prehaps more valuable even than knowledge of Sanskrit

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you think it is possible to understand shastras objectively?

I.e. if one instruct the unfit in jñāna-yoga, his faith in karma-yoga will cease and ātma-jñāna will not arise. He will be deprived of both!

Objectivity is different in different cases as Ekanta said.

 

[Chakra]

It is possible to get different interpretation of the same text. A good example would be the Vedantic philosophies. All of the 3 main Vedantic sects use the Upanishads, but there are still 3 different interpretations. Of course, there are reasons for this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To understand shastras according to the needs of a person will be true objectivity.

 

[anadi]

It is possible to get different interpretation of the same text. A good example would be the Vedantic philosophies. All of the 3 main Vedantic sects use the Upanishads, but there are still 3 different interpretations. Of course, there are reasons for this.

and these reasons are? What Aupmanyav said?

To understand shastras according to the needs of a person will be true objectivity.

Oh, and If anybody would be very kind I would like to know how Madhvacarya interpret's the Mahavakyas? I see them purely non-dualistic..

 

[Chakra]

and these reasons are? What Aupmanyav said?

In the Vedas, there are 3 types of texts. Abheda Shruti (that talks about non-dualism), Bheda Shruti (that talks about dualism), Gataka Shruti (that talks about both).

Advaita focuses on Abheda Shruti, Dvaita focuses on Dvaita Shruti, and Vishishtadvaita and Bhedabheda focuses on all three, mainly the Gataka Shruti.

 

[Vinayaka]

Do you think it is possible to understand shastras objectively?
There are of course different interpretations, although for example ''Bhagavad Gita As It Is'' is supposed to be only a presentation, not an interpretation.
Do you think this is possible?
Would you agree with me if I say that sanskrit is a bit unpractical, because one can juggle with sanskrit words and pull out a different meaning?

What exactly do you mean when you say, 'shastras'. I've discovered the word has different meanings to different people. The most common is a general 'scripture'. Is that how you meant it?

 

[Chakra]

Oh, and If anybody would be very kind I would like to know how Madhvacarya interpret's the Mahavakyas? I see them purely non-dualistic..

Please read these:
Tattvavaada Philosophy: Aham Brahmasmi: An explanation from Tatvavada view

Atat tvam asi of Madhva | Sulekha Creative

They are maybe talking about non-dualism, but not absolute non-dualism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have not completed reading it, but, Axlyz, thanks for the links.

 

[Chakra]

For the 2nd one, you actually need to click his profile and look for his analysis on Tat Tvam Asi. The link I gave does not give his analysis.

 

[Stormcry]

Oh, and If anybody would be very kind I would like to know how Madhvacarya interpret's the Mahavakyas? I see them purely non-dualistic..

Just by distorting the translation of words, like translating Atma as Paramatma. When shruti says Atma is Brahma, they translate it as paramatma is Brahma in fear of getting refuted . Absolute foolish and funny translation!

 

[Stormcry]

Advaita focuses on Abheda Shruti, Dvaita focuses on Dvaita Shruti, and Vishishtadvaita and Bhedabheda focuses on all three, mainly the Gataka Shruti.

Are you kidding?

That's not logical at all. There can be only two possibilities, either bheda or abheda. Actually bhedabheda is a type of Bheda.

And Advaita considers all bheda and abheda shruti. Bheda is through ignorance and abheda is through knowledge. This is because all bheda verses are mentioned in upasana and karma khanda as it's expected in karma. However karma is contradictory to moksha. Shruti says knowledge alone is the cause of moksha not karma.

However where does shruti say atma is not brahman? Give us some pramana.

 

[Chakra]

Are you kidding?

That's not logical at all. There can be only two possibilities, either bheda or abheda. Actually bhedabheda is a type of Bheda.

And Advaita considers all bheda and abheda shruti. Bheda is through ignorance and abheda is through knowledge. This is because all bheda verses are mentioned in upasana and karma khanda as it's expected in karma. However karma is contradictory to moksha. Shruti says knowledge alone is the cause of moksha not karma.

However where does shruti say atma is not brahman? Give us some pramana.

You can go a google search for Bheda and Gataka Shrutis and find out those verses. I think it is time that we wrapped up our discussion :yes:.

Advaita only cares about its "Mahavakyas". To Advaitins, these are the most important parts of Upanishads and the rest is to be ignored completely. This is how most Advaitins react to Bheda and Gataka Shrutis.

But whatever. I'm glad you have Advaita as your path.