[Advaita-l] What does "Hare Krishna" Mean?

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Aravind Mohanram wrote:

> >>> Yes, exactly - but when I say that I have great respect for Srila
> >>> Prabhupada and Chaitanya because they teach nothing but pure
> >>> devotion to Krishna and the process actually yields results, it is
> >>> somehow not agreeable to you. I don't know why this double standard.

Because you are saying more than that.  You are also saying that
Chaitanyas' sampradaya is "bona fide" and "authorized" and that is the
source of its authority.  Yet it's historical origins and shastraic basis
are highly dubious.

Now take the example of Ramana Maharshi for instance.  While he obviously
had a good grasp of shastra, he did not formally teach it.  But those who
were experts in Advaita Vedanta could see that his teaching was in line
with Advaita Vedantic teaching and that was good enough from them.

> >>>I agree, the Truth itself does not depend. But, you cannot deny that
> >>>you needed an incarnation of Bhagavan to explain a highly esoteric
> >>>philosophy to laymen.

I can and I do deny that.  Moksha is not really something that is
acquired.  All beings are and always have been free.  But they have been
misled into thinking they are in bondage and it is the destruction of that
false notion which is the highest purushartha.  All Gods, Gurus, and
shastras are subsuduary to the understanding which destroys false
knowledge.

> You seem to depend too much on logic and as I
> >>>have pointed out many times, logic ALONE cannot take you to the
> >>>Absolute Truth. There is always a possibility that a better logician
> >>>will come and defeat your arguments - and so, pure mundane logic can
> >>>never access the Absolute Truth. It is only possible by the mercy of
> >>>guru and Bhagavan. I'm not very surprised to see your statement
> >>>minimizing the importance of Sankara - after all, even Bhagavan is
> >>>ultimately disposed of in Advaita.

No the limited childish notions of the nature of Bhagavan are disposed of.

> >>> What do you mean "somewhere near" Bhagavan? Do you think He is
> >>> sitting in a nearby planet

No but apparently the author of "Easy Travel To Other Planets" did.

> and we can reach him easily by a
> >>> spacecraft. Great sages who meditate on Him for thousands of years
> >>> find it difficult to understand Him, and I don't understand, how by
> >>> pure logic and your sanskrit knowledge you aim to go "somewhere
> >>> near" Bhagavan.

*sigh* See a neglect of logic starts affecting ones reading comprehension.
I said *Vaishnavas*  aim to be somewhere near Bhagavan.

 Moreover, Krishna clearly says in the Gita that He
> >>> can be understood as He is only by bhakti.
>

And the highest stage of bhakti as we both agreed a couple of messages
back in jnana.  You said you've visited the Kanchi Math.  Did you happen
to see all the murtis there?  What do you think they were there for
decoration?

> >>>I have already answered this. The process of bhakti-yoga is a science
> >>>and it has been put to test and verified by great devotees such as
> >>>Prahlad, Narada Muni, Maharaj Ambarish etc.,.

Every sampradaya claims these figures as authorities.  To claim them as
your own show where they have have suggested or even mentioned Harekrishna
mantra.  And not by Prabhupadas method of merely substituting it wherever
sankirtana occurs in a text.  Show me the actual words.

> >>> No one said, I love Srila Prabhupada and so I accept whatever he
> >>> said.

So why are you so averse to reading the Bhagavata in sanskrit?  you should
be fully confident that it will agree with your guru.

> >>>It is obvious that it is combination of the three names, but on what
> >>>authority are you stating this?

On the authority of Panini, Katyayana, and Patanjali.

> If it is your own intepretation, I
> >>>may as well repose my faith in Chaitanya than a conditioned soul like
> >>>me.
>

well that's the difference between us then.  Neither I nor anyone I know
is a conditioned soul.  In the summer some are air-conditioned.  Is that
the same thing?

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/