©1997-2003 VNN
|
EDITORIAL  Epistemological View Of The Deity's Eyes BY YUGALA KISHOR DASA EDITORIAL, Nov 5 (VNN) — Recently, we had the chance to read two articles which appeared in the Dipika.org web site. One was titled "The Deities' Eyes: Dark Blue" authored by Varnadi Dasa dated 10/06/03. The second one was titled "Blue Eyes, Dark Eyes" authored by Ananga Manjari Devi Dasi and was dated 10/27/03. Varnadi Prabhu drew references from several acaryas' writings, but mainly dealt with "Krsnakarnamrta" by Bilvamangala Thakura. Mother Ananga Manjari devi dasi drew her proof from Krsnahnika Kaumudi by Srila Kavikarnapura, which was translated (into English I think) by Bhanu Swami. Both articles give conflicting information about the color of the eyes of Sri Sri Radha and Krishna. Some say They are blue, others dark blue, yet others state that They are just dark. This confusing information lead me to ponder over the epistemological consequences of going outside of Srila Prabhupada's textual ambit. One thing about the nature of the Absolute, i.e. Sri Krishna, is that He is not bound to any specific manifestation. Factually, He has manifested (and continues to do so) unlimited forms which, in all probability, have different colored eyes. This is, perhaps, a satisfying explanation why both authors quoted different previous acaryas with conflicting references about the nature of the eyes of Their Lordships. In my humble opinion, these articles reveal a caveat; a serious trend to be taken with caution. Specifically, the articles raised two very weighty issues. One is the epistemology we are supposed to use in gaining knowledge about the Absolute, and the second one is the academic validity of translations from Sanskrit or Bengali into English. First of all, what is somewhat disturbing, in both articles, is than none of the authors bothered to quote Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. He probably made statements (whether implicit or explicit) in his writings, or even verbally, about this issue. Yet the authors are silent about it. The crux of the problem in not quoting ö or approaching ö Srila Prabhupada is an epistemological issue that may have, or already has, detrimental effects on Srila Prabhupada's movement in other areas of concern such as guru/disciple issues, the so-called female-guru issues, the women issues, the family issues, our managerial policies, etc., etc. I would argue that whenever we have to say anything about the Movement (whether it be about the Deities, Scriptures, temple management, devotee relationships, family relationships, the GBC, management etc. etc.), we need to use the proper epistemology; that is, we need to approach the matter through Srila Prabhupada, i.e., his writings, tape instructions, etc.. As members of the Krishna Consciousness Movement that is the least we can do to show our respect, loyalty and commitment to Srila Prabhupada. Only in this way, we understand the Absolute, and only through Srila Prabhupada's mercy we appreciate the parampara's contribution to krsna-katha. In fact, we see all affairs, whether mundane matters or spiritual subject matters, through the eyes of Shastra; which for us means, pretty much through Srila Prabhupada. Jumping over Srila Prabhupada's legacy is a major, devastating blunder, and not merely a venial error. Departing from Srila Prabhupada's ambit surely will affect us detrimentally, and along with us, those who depend on us for spiritual guidance and instructions. Therefore, before we resort to, or draw quotes from, any other source, whether devotional or academic, we ought to exhaust our research in Srila Prabhupada's abundant legacy. With great love and perseverance, he spent so much time and energy to put the subject matter of the Absolute in terms appropriate for our understanding. He wrote for the world, but mainly for us. Shouldn't we show the due respect by citing his text first? I would argue that Srila Prabhupada's instructions are final. I would also argue that if we find differing points between Srila Prabhupada's instructions and that of other acaryas we ought to adhere to Srila Prabhupada's. His teachings on any issue take precedence. At best, we may correlate other textual sources to that of Srila Prabhupada, but remarking, at all times, that his insights remain paramount to us. As far as translating ancient texts is concerned, I think our GBC has already devised an appropriate committee to ensure fidelity. At any rate, oftentimes the intricacies of Sanskrit or other languages, in which the Shastra were written, can't be so easily translated into mleccha languages such as English. Could that explain the changing colors of Sri Sri Radha-Krisha as the authors portray? I don't know. Perhaps the ISKCON pundits have the answer. Differentiating between Sanskrit and English is not so easy as it might seem at first. This may help explain the existing confusion in the usage of the word "prabhu." If you have been around ISKCON for a few years and did care to regularly, and thoroughly read Srila Prabhupada's books (yes, including his Sanskrit transliterations) you would notice that the word "prabhu" in inherently masculine. Addressing both men and women as Îprabhu' is then inappropriate. It is akin to addressing both men and women as "Mister" or "Sir." By the same token it would laughable to address men as "Miss." It is ludicrous. Yet, some of our women members are fervently pushing to be addressed with such a masculine Sanskrit noun. The reason? I just cant' figure it out; it doesn't even get to level of basic, sound reasoning. Your servant, Yugala Kishor dasa Disciple of Hridayananda Das Goswami Gainesville, FL Contact VNN about this story  Send this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
