shastra interpretations

[Aupmanyav]

Jai and Ratiben, nice posts. Thanks.

What was Lord Dattatreya's position or response (to the OP)?

Dattatreya's position is broken up in nine sects (Wkipedia). I think it is basically advaitic and aghor. Don't no for sure.

What would Lord Hanuman say? Advauta, dwaita, both?

Again, I think. In think, Hanuman's position would be clearly 'davaita'. He did not start a tradition.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am going to ask mods to move this to the Same Faith Debates. If anyone doesn't agree please let me know.

Do you mean only Krishna devotees should post about 'shastric interpretation'. Why should the forum be so exclusivist?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

It seems to me that achintya bhedabheda is not much different than vishishtadvaita, just another acharya's version of it (they all have to have the last word... like these threads )...

I am sad to say that I find this remark highly offensive , for if anyone were to think that each acharya were to put forward his own philosopical veiw point simply to have the final say , ...would mean that our highly revered acharya's were no nore than supreme egotists , ..where in fact nothing could be further from the truth .

further more I think it is true and fair to say that allmost everyone who post here allthough posting for a multitude of reasons , most commonly participate to learn and to share , having to have the last word is hardly what most people's posts here are about !!!

as far as I , and I think most here are concerned this is satsanga !

in case you are unsure as to the meaning of Satsanga wickipedia gives a very nice rendition

Satsanga, Satsangam, Satsang (Sanskrit सत्सङ्ग sat = true, sanga = company) in Indian philosophy means



(1) the company of the "highest truth,"

(2) the company of a guru, or

(3) company with an assembly of persons who listen to, talk about, and assimilate the truth.[1] This typically involves listening to or reading scriptures, reflecting on, discussing and assimilating their meaning, meditating on the source of these words, and bringing their meaning into one’s daily life.[citation needed]


I think (3) is most aplicable here .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupu ji

Do you mean only Krishna devotees should post about 'shastric interpretation'. Why should the forum be so exclusivist?

I doubt very much this was the intention ,

unfortunately where ever there is mention of ''the Bhagavad Gita as it is '' , a debate insues as to its validity , thus making discussion of the original question impossible .

same faith debate would be equaly open to all Hindus , ...surely ?

I notice ...(as vinayaka usualy does) that the author of the original post is not actively participating , therefore I sometimes wonder if this is yet again another red flag being waved to get an argument going ???....?

 

[Madhuri]

Do you mean only Krishna devotees should post about 'shastric interpretation'. Why should the forum be so exclusivist?

He means that the thread had turned into a debate and no longer belongs in the DIR.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. I sometimes wonder if this is yet again another red flag being waved to get an argument going ?

No Ratikalaben. Just like our Acharyas who gave different views, the members here too give their various views on how shastras can be interpreted. Why should there be just one view point? Most Hindus are polytheistic. To them, the Abrahamic type of view that 'my God (or Goddess) is better than yours' is not correct, and I am a 'piece of the mill' Hindu. Krishna, Shiva, Shakti, Murugan, Hanuman, Rama, Buddha, Ganesha, all of them are mine.

 

[Jainarayan]

namaskaram




I am sad to say that I find this remark highly offensive , for if anyone were to think that each acharya were to put forward his own philosopical veiw point simply to have the final say , ...would mean that our highly revered acharya's were no nore than supreme egotists , ..where in fact nothing could be further from the truth .

So why did they debate and/or contradict each other? Not a single one agrees with another. If it can be shown that even one reversed his philosophy having been convinced by another that the former's philosophy was incorrect, then I'll retract my statement. Until then, however, I see it as them putting forth their own ideas and versions. One cannot say they were divinely inspired, because if so, then God has a sense of humor par excellence to cause such confusion.

 

[Vinayaka]

So glad I'm not a scholar, or so inclined.

Jai Ganesha!

 

[Stormcry]

also the common man does not need a sharp interlect he sees god with the heart .

Bhagavan says in Gita "The people with subtle and Sharp intellect sees the self" "Those who see one self in all beings know the truth" This is what Krishna says..

it seems that there are many forms of vaisnavism that you do not count as valid not just ISKCON alone ???

For me all vaishnawism that believe in multiplicity of atma are not valid at all. Because Krishna himself refutes the belief of multiplicity of atma in Uddhava Gita...

 

[Aupmanyav]

The disagreements and many views only show the magnificience of the deities. The producer of Ramayana serial, Ramanand Sagar quoted, "Hari ananta, Hari katha ananta" (The deity is infinite and so are his stories." Let us rejoice in it.

 

[anadi]

I notice ...(as vinayaka usualy does) that the author of the original post is not actively participating , therefore I sometimes wonder if this is yet again another red flag being waved to get an argument going ???....?

I observe and learn.

But you're right, this discussion has gone the wrong way. My intention was not to provoke an Advaita vs. Vaishnavism debate.

The point of my OP is that if we don't have the ability to understand shastras the way they were mean't to be understood, doesn't that make them a bit unpractical and confusing?

Why are there so many variations in their philosophy? woudn't it be better if it was all a bit simpler?
I'm getting a feeling that we in the Kaliyuga can't even read shastras properly, because of all the different interpretations that can be quite confusing (at least to me)...

 

[Stormcry]

The point of my OP is that if we don't have the ability to understand shastras the way they were mean't to be understood, doesn't that make them a bit unpractical and confusing?

Why are there so many variations in their philosophy? woudn't it be better if it was all a bit simpler?
I'm getting a feeling that we in the Kaliyuga can't even read shastras properly, because of all the different interpretations that can be quite confusing (at least to me)...

People interpret Scriptures according to guna they have...All people interpret through these factors...

1】 Fate

2】Guna

3】Varna

If these all three are strong, then one has ability to interpret scriptures in an exact way...You should know that having knowledge of Brahman is not an ordinary thing, it's very very rare, fate matters....

 

[Aupmanyav]

Anadi, you may ask as to why there are so many scientific theories of creation of the universe or why all people do not subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum theory. This is because we are still learning new things each day.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Hinduism♥Krishna ji

Bhagavan says in Gita "The people with subtle and Sharp intellect sees the self" "Those who see one self in all beings know the truth" This is what Krishna says..

Krsna also says ....

Lord Krishna said I am situated as the soul within the heart of all beings, remembrance and forgetfulness comes from me. I can be known by the knowledge of the Vedas. I am the original creator of the Vedic scriptures and a knower of the Vedas. ​

Bhagavad-Gita, ch ..5, v ..15​

Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, offer obeisances and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me. Bhagavad-Gita, ch ..9, v ..34



​

Lord Krishna said only by unalloyed devotional service can I be understood as I am and can be seen directly. Only in this way can one enter into the mystery of my understanding. ​

Bhagavad-Gita, ch ..11, v ..54

so there are many ways not just by interlect alone .
​

For me all vaishnawism that believe in multiplicity of atma are not valid at all. Because Krishna himself refutes the belief of multiplicity of atma in Uddhava Gita...

it depends what you mean by multiplicity ?

 

[Asha]

Namaste

Dear Hinduism Krishna

Bhagavan says in Gita "The people with subtle and Sharp intellect sees the self" "Those who see one self in all beings know the truth" This is what Krishna says..

Here are two more verses that show Krishna mercy in that he gives many ways of coming to him.

BG 13.25: Some perceive the Supersoul within themselves through meditation, others through the cultivation of knowledge, and still others through working without fruitive desires.
BG 13.26: Again there are those who, although not conversant in spiritual knowledge, begin to worship the Supreme Person upon hearing about Him from others. Because of their tendency to hear from authorities, they also transcend the path of birth and death.

For me all vaishnawism that believe in multiplicity of atma are not valid at all. Because Krishna himself refutes the belief of multiplicity of atma in Uddhava Gita...

We must be very carefull not to assume that one thing Krishna says in one situation I.E. within the conversation which is the Bhagavad Gita, is not in our minds canceled out by something said in another conversation, the Uddhava Gita, because these are two different conversations, in otherwords two different situations.
surely we canot take one to cancel out the other.

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[4consideration]

***Mod Post***

This thread has been moved to Same Faith Debates.
(Hinduism)​

 

[Stormcry]

We must be very carefull not to assume that one thing Krishna says in one situation I.E. within the conversation which is the Bhagavad Gita, is not in our minds canceled out by something said in another conversation, the Uddhava Gita, because these are two different conversations, in otherwords two different situations.
surely we canot take one to cancel out the other.

Jai Shree Krishna

Nothing gets cancelled out.. Bhagavad Gita too preaches that there's one Atma who's appearing as if he's been divided in different bodies....

The essence of Bhagavad Gita and uddhava Gita is the same....Jiva is Brahman.