The Science of the Meaning of Life
Just as the thirst for water indicates the existence of water, similarly our thirst to know the meaning of life indicates that life does in fact have meaning. And when we are serious to discover that meaning and fully dovetail our thoughts, words, and deeds with it, the Supreme Absolute Truth Personality of Godhead, who is seated within our hearts will manifest before us externally in the form of the spiritual master to enlighten us fully with scientific understanding of that meaning and how to always live in perfect harmony with it.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada and to Your Grace.
I have a question after listening yesterday to a devotee preaching. He was saying that although we have lots of different groups in the "Hindu" "religion", we have the same books. It raised a question to my mind: Do these groups interpret the books differently or do they choose what they find the most important and stress on that? He gave the example of Mayavadis and explained that in the books, both are explained that Krishna has no form, and that Krishna has form. We read that Sri Krishna has a form but not like us on earth, whereas Mayavadis choose to read that He does not, although it is written clearly that He has a form.
Your Grace's eternal servant,
J.D.
As long we take the words of the scriptures exactly as they are stated, there can be no difference of opinion because the scriptures are as clear as the bright sun in the sky. What creates confusion is when different commentators instead of taking the clear, direct meaning of the scriptures proudly make their own interpretations. This is compared to the clouds that sometimes fill the sky not allowing us to see the sun.
The Mayavadis give more stress to certain verses which they interpret to support their impersonal agenda and completely ignore other verses which defeat their agenda. For example the impersonalists argue that God is impersonal and formless on the strength of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (3.10):
tato yad uttarataraṁ tad arūpam anāmayam
ya etad vidur amṛtās te bhavanti athetare duḥkham evāpiyanti
"In the material world Brahma, the primeval living entity within the universe, is understood to be the supreme amongst the demigods, human beings and lower animals. But beyond Brahma there is the Transcendence, who has no material form and is free from all material contaminations. Anyone who can know Him also becomes transcendental, but those who do not know Him suffer the miseries of the material world."
The impersonalists takes the word arūpam out of context arguing that it means no form instead of no material form. Their argument completely falls apart if we analyze the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad verses which immediately precede the above verse. Here are the preceding verses (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8-9):
vedāham etaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam
āditya-varṇaṁ tamasaḥ parastāt
tam eva viditvāti mṛtyum eti
nānyaḥ panthā vidyate 'yanāya
yasmāt paraṁ nāparam asti kiñcid
yasmān nāṇīyo no jyāyo 'sti kiñcit
vṛkṣa iva stabdho divi tiṣṭhaty ekas
tenedaṁ pūrṇaṁ puruṣeṇa sarvam
"I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead who is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and death. There is no way for liberation other than this knowledge of that Supreme Person. There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person, because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies."
The cheating method of the impersonalists is to emphasize verses which can be twisted through grammatical word jugglery to support their impersonal agenda and completely ignore those verses which solidly defeat their agenda.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Revealing the Meaning of Life 18 April 2011, Riga, Latvia
Answers According to the Vedic Version:
Question: Misinterpretation of the Mayavadis
My dear Srila Gurudeva,Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada and to Your Grace.
I have a question after listening yesterday to a devotee preaching. He was saying that although we have lots of different groups in the "Hindu" "religion", we have the same books. It raised a question to my mind: Do these groups interpret the books differently or do they choose what they find the most important and stress on that? He gave the example of Mayavadis and explained that in the books, both are explained that Krishna has no form, and that Krishna has form. We read that Sri Krishna has a form but not like us on earth, whereas Mayavadis choose to read that He does not, although it is written clearly that He has a form.
Your Grace's eternal servant,
J.D.
Answer: Twisting and Taking Out of Context
It is very common for spiritual organizations to identify themselves with a certain sect such as Hinduism, Christianity, etc. But this belies their lack of deep spiritual realization. God does not give us sects. It is man's materialistic conception to conjure up so many different sects. Real religion is one, to become a pure lover of God.As long we take the words of the scriptures exactly as they are stated, there can be no difference of opinion because the scriptures are as clear as the bright sun in the sky. What creates confusion is when different commentators instead of taking the clear, direct meaning of the scriptures proudly make their own interpretations. This is compared to the clouds that sometimes fill the sky not allowing us to see the sun.
The Mayavadis give more stress to certain verses which they interpret to support their impersonal agenda and completely ignore other verses which defeat their agenda. For example the impersonalists argue that God is impersonal and formless on the strength of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (3.10):
tato yad uttarataraṁ tad arūpam anāmayam
ya etad vidur amṛtās te bhavanti athetare duḥkham evāpiyanti
"In the material world Brahma, the primeval living entity within the universe, is understood to be the supreme amongst the demigods, human beings and lower animals. But beyond Brahma there is the Transcendence, who has no material form and is free from all material contaminations. Anyone who can know Him also becomes transcendental, but those who do not know Him suffer the miseries of the material world."
The impersonalists takes the word arūpam out of context arguing that it means no form instead of no material form. Their argument completely falls apart if we analyze the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad verses which immediately precede the above verse. Here are the preceding verses (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.8-9):
vedāham etaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam
āditya-varṇaṁ tamasaḥ parastāt
tam eva viditvāti mṛtyum eti
nānyaḥ panthā vidyate 'yanāya
yasmāt paraṁ nāparam asti kiñcid
yasmān nāṇīyo no jyāyo 'sti kiñcit
vṛkṣa iva stabdho divi tiṣṭhaty ekas
tenedaṁ pūrṇaṁ puruṣeṇa sarvam
"I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead who is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and death. There is no way for liberation other than this knowledge of that Supreme Person. There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person, because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies."
The cheating method of the impersonalists is to emphasize verses which can be twisted through grammatical word jugglery to support their impersonal agenda and completely ignore those verses which solidly defeat their agenda.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Comments
Post a Comment