Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]Some argue that we should contrast science and modern findings with some affirmations left by our Founder Acarya.[/quote]

Most people who are coming in contact with our movement certainly start the analysis of our teachings by contrasting science and modern findings with the affirmations left by our Founder Acarya. What would you expect from them? Blind faith and unquestioning obedience?

If you cant answer their questions using reason and logic they will lose their interest and go somewhere else. Most of the new people dont buy the argument that: "Whatever our Acharya says is absolutely true just because he is the real Acharya".

So to answer your question: IMO we have no choice but to interpret some of Srila Prabhupada'b4s instructions.

How relevant to the development of Krsna consciousnes is acceptance that Srila Prabhupada was correct when he said that Sun is closer to Earth than Moon in the sense of linear distance between celestial objects? Not relevant at all.

I havent been able to see either video due to a poor Internet connection. However, I would not interpret what Srila Prabhupada taught. Anyone can understand that there are material defects: imperfect senses, illusion, mistakes, and cheating. People can also understand that purifying the senses makes them more sensitive. A good example is that a drug addict loses sensitivity to the finer pleasures in life but may regain sensitivity with prolonged sobriety. So someone who has a strong bodily conception of the self is going to have one kind of experience, while someone who lives a spiritual life is going to see things differently.

It should not be surprising that spiritual perception would be hard to understand for a person who is absorbed in identification with the material body. It may seem to a materialistic person that the empirical version is "correct," and taken as the standard although it is ever-changing; but it has little value when the body can be destroyed at any moment and we dont know what kind of body we will get. Is it advancement if I become the first dog to travel to Mars? Our perceptions depend on the kind of body we have.

What is the value of so much so-called temporary knowledge collected by persons who dont even know what they are? It may have some momentary usefulness, but time reduces the value of our material achievements to zero. On the other hand, if we reject the version given by the bona fide acarya, then we also do not know what will be our destination, although we know from Bhagavad-gita what it will not be. BG 16.23: "He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination."

Hare Krishna.

I think the problem is that something we do not understand we interpret with science and current findings.

If you watch the video rebuttal, the devotee there explains very nicely the concepts of "women as less intelligent", polygamy and material vs spiritual knowledge.

I could agree with Hrdayananda Maharaj if I did not hear the explanation that DOES make sense with Srila Prabhupada'b4s affirmations.
In other words, nobody says here we should accept things blindly, but that does not mean accept the scientists view either.

I find the explanation clarifying SP position as cementing my faith and the "buts" and dividing SP affirmations into relative and transcendental as a deviation.
But, Kula Pavana Prabhu, you have sufficiently stated in this forum and others your lack of faith in SP and your liking of science instead, so your posts do not wonder me as before.
So the problem is as always, ignorance. I recommend you to read some books by devotee scientists that explain some of the concepts that are not accepted by mainstream science nowadays.

There are scientific and logic explanations for it and probably one day official science will come to them.

Someone likes relative findings and the joy of thinking we came to know, others rely on shastra and try to understand what it means, with our God given brain.

Two positions, one is atheist, the other devotee, both using their brain.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]So the problem is as always, ignorance. I recommend you to read some books by devotee scientists that explain some of the concepts that are not accepted by mainstream science nowadays.

There are scientific and logic explanations for it and probably one day official science will come to them.

Someone likes relative findings and the joy of thinking we came to know, others rely on shastra and try to understand what it means, with our God given brain.
[/quote]

That is precisely what I try to do: rely on shastra and try to understand what it means, with my God given brain.

I have read all books by our devotee scientists and they do not support the notion that Sun is closer to Earth than Moon in the sense of linear distance between celestial objects for example. Read Sadaputas books for example.

+++++

Even though I agree with some 99.9% of what Srila Prabhupada said that is not good enough for many devotees. They demand a total suspension of rational thinking, reason and logic when it comes to what SP said. I see no reason to do that, especially since his position on the Sun/Moon distance does not follow the position of his guru, who was an expert on Vedic astronomy and astrology. All ancient cultures knew that Moon is closer to us than Sun. It is visible with a naked eye. Contrary to popular belief the Puranas (including Srimad Bhagavatam) do not claim that Sun is closer to us in a linear sense than Moon. The Puranas say that Moon is a HIGHER planet than Sun in the sense of elevation of the spheres of existence.

I have certain appreciation for Hridayananda Maharaja for having the courage to openly address some of these issues, even as do not always agree with him, or admire his flashy and overly intellectual style of presentation. However, the rebuttal is primarily based on sentimentalism and follows the 1950s Soviet propaganda style. Do you think this is material you can use in preaching to 21st century youth? I preach to such people almost every day and IMO they would laugh out loud at such arguments.

According to Srila Prabhupada Himself, No, we cannot interpret...
"The succession was broken. So similarly, Christ says something. So if that commandment is received by succession, then it goes nicely. But if you break it according to your necessity, then where is the authority? Suppose there is a law of the state, ordinary, say, "keep to the right", and in this village all members they assemble together to pass a resolution that "no, keep to the left". Will it be accepted? Even they pass a resolution, the state will not accept it. Unless it is...of course, there should be no change. But anything spoken by God or His son or His representative, that cannot be changed. It is not that Christ said two thousand years ago, "Thou shall not kill", now it can be changed. That is rascaldom. They are doing that. If you do that, then, as it is said here in Bhagavad Gita, (4.1 and 4.2), then it becomes lost.Then there is no meaning. If we take the instruction of God and His representative as temporary, then he is not representative. He is not God. Whatever is spoken by God and His representative, that is eternal. You cannot change by your whims. So that is going on. We..., I do not wish to discuss very much, but that is going on. As people they, by votes in the Parliament, they pass any nonsense thing. So they want to do that in the case of the Bible also.Then where is the authority of Bible? If Christ says, that "Thou shall not kill", and if people say, say ten thousand people in a meeting pass resolution, "no this is wrong", then where is the authority of the Bible? Then you become authority. They are passing resolution according to the time, changing the instruction of Bible. How they can be fixed up? Our standard is Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS. We accept guru as representative of Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead. If he speaks what Krsna has spoken, then he is guru. Similar in Christianity, if they actually take care of that whether one is speaking according to the ten commandments, if he is living according to the rules and regulations of the ten commandments, then he is guru. Why people accept them? Because they are ignorant, they do not know who is real and who is fake. But the standard is there. Killing is the business of the Christians.They are maintaining big, big slaughter house. We are maintaining cows here, and there are others, they are maintaining cows for slaughter. Why? In these commandments it is clearly said that "Thou shall not kill". How they will detect? If they are violating themselves the laws, how they will punish the law breaker? "Physician heal thyself". The physician himself is diseased, and hes going to treat other patients".
Excerpt from interview with Mike Darby, Wheeling WV. June 30TH, 1976

[quote][cite] Priyavrata das:[/cite]According to Srila Prabhupada Himself, No, we cannot interpret...[/quote]
Thats your interpretation of this.

No, Can you not read Bubba? If we interpret or change, then where is the authority??? Are you, or anyone else for that matter the new authority. I made no interpretation. Those are not my words. Those are Prabhupadas instructions, not my own. Therefore, your statement is invalid. This is not my interpretation. Please read it once again... " But anything spoken by God or His son or His representative that Cannot be changed". " You cannot change by your whims". "But if you break it according to your necessity, then where is the authority? If we take the instruction of God and His representative as temporary, then he is not representative". "What ever is spoken by God and His representative, THAT IS ETERNAL.! Please explain how I am interpreting Prabhupadas instruction. You said," Thats your interpretation of this". Its actually your interpretation, the excerpt is quite clear. Y S, Priyavrata

Pandu das: Nicely put. Well done prabhu.
Mishra prabhu: You have very nicely exposed Kula-pavana. It is truly unfortunate that he thinks and therefore also acts in that mentality. As long as he does so, his preaching will be ineffective. He has not accepted Srila Prabhupada into his heart. Its that simple.
Kula-pavana: This is not a personal put down as Mishra has said. We are all taking this spiritual journey at our own pace. IMO as you say, its essential to say the least, especially if you are out there preaching, to accept the spiritual master wholeheartedly and not in percentages. Thats nonsense, and I honestly hope you see that now. However, I am certain that everyone involved in this thread will get spiritual benefit from the Prabhupada katha. IMO, Mishra & Pandu das are pointing you in the right direction. The direction of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. He is the authority. If He"s not, then by whos authority are you preaching Krsna Consciousness?

[quote][cite] Priyavrata das:[/cite]No, Can you not read Bubba? [/quote] Is your name Booba? Who said that you can interpret what Prabhupada said?

[quote][cite] Priyavrata das:[/cite]According to Srila Prabhupada Himself, No, we cannot interpret...[/quote]
Someone (named Booba?) just made a wierd interpretation of an interview with Mike Darby, 1976. Is his interpretation right? Why do we need to listen to Boobas interpretation (that he insists is not an interpretation...)

[quote][cite] Priyavrata das:[/cite]Mishra prabhu: You have very nicely exposed Kula-pavana. It is truly unfortunate that he thinks and therefore also acts in that mentality. As long as he does so, his preaching will be ineffective. He has not accepted Srila Prabhupada into his heart. Its that simple.
Kula-pavana: This is not a personal put down as Mishra has said. We are all taking this spiritual journey at our own pace. IMO as you say, its essential to say the least, especially if you are out there preaching, to accept the spiritual master wholeheartedly and not in percentages. [/quote]

If you say that "We are all taking this spiritual journey at our own pace" why do you then object that I do not accept everything Srila Prabhupada said as accurate? Perhaps this is my own pace? How do you know what is in my heart? You simply speculate. It is that simple.

You chose to ignore facts (such as inconsistencies between S.Prabhupadas explanations and S.Bhaktisiddhantas writings when it comes to the Moon issue) and simply push the need to accept everything on faith. In my book that is a sentimental approach, not based on knowledge and facts.

You write: "Mishra & Pandu das are pointing you in the right direction. The direction of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. He is the authority. If He"s not, then by whos authority are you preaching Krsna Consciousness?"

Mishra and Pandu prabhus have their own understanding, and I have mine. I have been preaching for 30 years and helped many devotees join Srila Prabhupadas mission. By whos mercy do you think it has happened? I judge things by the results, not by my fantasies as to what is the proper way to be Krsna-conscious.

Taking the spiritual journey at our own pace means that we may not be able to practice all the rules and regulations perfectly, but we do not dispute the correctness of these rules and regulations. Due to my own material attachments I cannot follow everything Srila Prabhupada has said to do, yet I can still make advancement not only because I follow as much as I can, but also because I worship even those instructions that I am not yet able to follow. I do not pretend to be an acarya, claiming myself perfect. I am only perfect in as much as I identify Srila Prabhupada as the acarya and say to follow him.

I do not directly know what is in anyones heart (its difficult enough to know whats in my own heart), but if someone writes what they think, they are revealing their own heart so that we can understand through that. Just like a physician cannot feel a patients pain, but if the patient says, "my knee hurts on cold days," the doctor can prescribe a medicine. In the same way, I write in places like this so that devotees can know my heart to see how I am spiritually ill and prescribe something to help me to get better.

Once a bona fide guru has been found and accepted, it is not blind faith to accept what he says. It is proper faith, and the authorized process of disciplic succession. Blind faith is to accept an authority without proper examination, not to accept knowledge from a known good authority. I dont know how or why a conch is pure while other animal bones are not pure, but it does not mean that I refuse to blow a conch until I understand how or why it is different from other bones. Srila Prabhupada says the Vedik conclusion about the conch is that it is pure, so I accept it because Srila Prabhupada is an authority in whom I have no doubt.

I dont know what it means to come to Srila Prabhupadas mission without accepting Srila Prabhupadas teachings as completely pure and true. I cant claim to understand everything, but I dont mind feeling like or looking like a fool if thats what it takes for me to sit at Srila Prabhupadas feet and hear from him. Im confident that Krishna consciousness will come not through selective accepting and rejecting of Srila Prabhupadas teachings, but simply by surrendering to him.

As Krishna says, BG 4.34: "Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth." It is not submissive to think, "He is wrong about many things, although he does have some wisdom." Submissive means that upon finding a spiritual master, one who has seen the truth, his words are accepted without doubt. One cannot doubt a spiritual masters teachings without doubting his qualification to be a spiritual master. That is certainly appropriate in some cases, but if someone doubts Srila Prabhupada, it is the persons misfortune because Srila Prabhupada is totally bona fide.

Just like anyone may claim to be a follower of God, but if he thinks Krishna is not God, then he is actually an atheist. Doubt can look very good as long is it turns away imposters, but as soon as one rejects the real thing, then the defect of the doubting process is proven.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]Taking the spiritual journey at our own pace means that we may not be able to practice all the rules and regulations perfectly, but we do not dispute the correctness of these rules and regulations. Due to my own material attachments I cannot follow everything Srila Prabhupada has said to do, yet I can still make advancement not only because I follow as much as I can, but also because I worship even those instructions that I am not yet able to follow. I do not pretend to be an acarya, claiming myself perfect. I am only perfect in as much as I identify Srila Prabhupada as the acarya and say to follow him.
[/quote]

The spiritual journey is all about developing faith. That is a rational process. The instructions in our process are for the most part standard Gaudiya Vaishnava practices and teachings.

I have faith in Srila Prabhupadas words but even he himself never claimed to be omniscient and perfect in all his pronouncements - that was a myth his followers adopted, thus creating a brainwashing cult, where you must believe in everything Prabhupada said or you are considered to be an outcast. No, I do not believe Prabhupada was always right, like with the moon issue. Still, it does not bother me one bit, and I accept him as a beacon of light and a great Vaishnava acharya. But for the cult proponents that is a dangerous practice: independent thinking...

I will gladly take my own misfortune over yours.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]Submissive means that upon finding a spiritual master, one who has seen the truth, his words are accepted without doubt. One cannot doubt a spiritual masters teachings without doubting his qualification to be a spiritual master. That is certainly appropriate in some cases, but if someone doubts Srila Prabhupada, it is the persons misfortune because Srila Prabhupada is totally bona fide.
[/quote]

That is simply your own interpretation. This is what this term means in a dictionary

submissive
adj 1: inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others
or showing such inclination; "submissive servants"; "a
submissive reply"; "replacing troublemakers with more
submissive people" [ant: domineering]
2: willing to submit without resistance to authority; deferent

3. Inclined or ready to submit; acknowledging ones
inferiority; yielding; obedient; humble.

4. Showing a readiness to submit; expressing submission; as,
a submissive demeanor.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]

I have faith in Srila Prabhupadas words but even he himself never claimed to be omniscient and perfect in all his pronouncements - that was a myth his followers adopted, thus creating a brainwashing cult, where you must believe in everything Prabhupada said or you are considered to be an outcast. No, I do not believe Prabhupada was always right, like with the moon issue. Still, it does not bother me one bit, and I accept him as a beacon of light and a great Vaishnava acharya. But for the cult proponents that is a dangerous practice: independent thinking...
[/quote]

"And if, whatever little success I have got -- only for this reason. I have never said anything which is not spoken by Krsna. I never said, "In my opinion." I never said. You are so many students. I never said that to you. What is my opinion?" -- Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.5.22 -- Vrndavana, August 3, 1974

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]Submissive means that upon finding a spiritual master, one who has seen the truth, his words are accepted without doubt. One cannot doubt a spiritual masters teachings without doubting his qualification to be a spiritual master. That is certainly appropriate in some cases, but if someone doubts Srila Prabhupada, it is the persons misfortune because Srila Prabhupada is totally bona fide.
[/quote]

That is simply your own interpretation. This is what this term means in a dictionary

submissive
adj 1: inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others
or showing such inclination; "submissive servants"; "a
submissive reply"; "replacing troublemakers with more
submissive people" [ant: domineering]
2: willing to submit without resistance to authority; deferent

3. Inclined or ready to submit; acknowledging ones
inferiority; yielding; obedient; humble.

4. Showing a readiness to submit; expressing submission; as,
a submissive demeanor.[/quote]

[p]Srila Prabhupadas instructions are clear. If someone does not like them he can spin out a weird meaning, and when someone else comes along to explain in a straightforward way, he calls that "your interpretation." Bah! It is not interpretation if it explains the actual meaning of the original; not that there is no original meaning, and understanding, misunderstanding, and spin are all interpretation.[/p] Submissive means you dont argue with your spiritual master. Your dictionary definitions are quite consistent with my explanation. How do you think that the dictionary definitions say that yielding and deferring are consistent with disagreement? Quoting the dictionary only strengthens your argument if the definitions dont contradict your usage of the word.

Kula pavana:
And because Lord Caitanya never said He is Krishna, you take it as truth? What an strange argument.
I can agree that Srila Prabhupada did not know about for example, car engines... But we are talking vaisnava philosophy and vedic culture here, the perfect arrangement by Krishna for society. That includes social AND psychological as well as transcendental knowledge.
Its simple, you accept Srila Prabhupada as long its not clashing with current scientific views and trends. But above there is a link showing you the moon issue, did you read it?
Even if something its not clear for us, as Prabhupada followers we take for granted its truth, not a mistake. We try to understand it with that premise. You do the opposite and that is why your faith in Srila Prabhupada is gone.
The reality is that you accept Srila Prabhupada in the same level as other saints, scientists or similar exalted personalities. We accept it as the pure devotee of the Lord sent by him to teach us how to be devotees in ALL aspects of our life.
You can doubt as much as you want, and try to ascertain "what is right and wrong" in Srila Prabhupadas legacy, its your call.
But our faith is not blind but cemented precisely on his character and his teachings: all of them.

You submit to your gurus instructions in the matter of executing devotional service and learning the Veda. This is how you make progress. I did. The part about accepting everything he said as absolutely true is your speculation.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]Its simple, you accept Srila Prabhupada as long its not clashing with current scientific views and trends. But above there is a link showing you the moon issue, did you read it? .[/quote]

Yes I did. I have read about this issue many times and discussed it with Sadaputa in person many years ago.

So in your opinion the material presented in this link proves that Prabhupada was right when he proclaimed that in a linear sense Sun is closer to Earth than Moon? Maybe you should read it again?

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]
The reality is that you accept Srila Prabhupada in the same level as other saints, scientists or similar exalted personalities. We accept it as the pure devotee of the Lord sent by him to teach us how to be devotees in ALL aspects of our life.[/quote]

So you are saying that a pure devotee must always be right? On every subject? That is the test? Care to back it up with shastra?

Kula-pavana:
First I would like to thank you as I am exploring my own faith depths and arguments on this most important issue.
So, you know more than Sadaputa Prabhu? Or you accept materialistic science instead? Why?
Do you think that Srila Prabhupada can put in writing something that is not vedic conclusion?
It is perfectly possible you think so, the strange thing is that 1 second after you declare yourself Prabhupada follower. THAT is the weird thing.
And wanting to spread your doubts on others even without materialistic arguments, just doubts, is the cherry on top.

1. So in your opinion Sadaputa accepts that in a linear sense Sun is closer to Earth than Moon? Care to post a quote?
2. Srila Prabhupada presented some things that were simply his opinions or educated guesses, based on the understanding he developed over the years. Srila Bhaktivinoda did the same for example.
3. Yes, I follow Srila Prabhupada in my life, but not blindly. He did not demand blind following from his disciples. He was very happy when people took his teachings seriously. The myth of total surrender and blind following was created in Iskcon by his cult-makers.

The myth created in Iskcon is precisely SP was an educated vaishnava capable of philosophical mistakes and common psicological features, see Lilamrta, and you seem to be in tune with that.
Now that is used to attack SP faithful followers precisely because they dont buy their bs.
Go figure.
As for the quote, you are the one with serious doubts, google is fabulous for that.

Doubts? No, I do not have doubts. This is how I see it and I am very much at peace with that.

Sadaputa addresses the question of the distance of sun and moon in section 8 of Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy, page 161.

"Q: In SB 8.1.38p, Srila Prabhupada says, "The sun is supposed to be 93,000,000 miles above the surface of the earth, and from the Srimad-Bhagavatam we understand that the moon is 1,600,000 miles above the sun. Therefore the distance between the earth and the moon would be about 95,000,000 miles." Doesnt this plainly say that the moon is farther from the earth than the sun?

"A: In the summary at the end of Chapter 23 of the Fifth Canto Srila Prabhupada says, "The distance from the sun to the earth is 100,000 yojanas." At 8 miles per yojana, this comes to 800,000 miles. We suggest that when Srila Prabhupada cites the modern Western earth-sun distance of 93,000,000 miles, he is simply making the point that if you put together the Bhagavatam and modern astronomy you get a contradictory picture. His conclusion is that one should simply accept the Vedic version, and he was not interested in personally delving into astronomical arguments in detail."

Sadaputa explains that the 100,000 yojana distance is relative to the plane of Bhu-mandala, not the linear distance from the earth to the sun, and that a yojana may be about 5 or 8 miles, or somewhere in between. "The distance given from the center of Jambudvipa to the orbit of the sun around Manasottara Mountain is 15,750,000 yojanas according to the dimensions given in the Fifth Canto. This distance lies in the plane of Bhu-Mandala and comes to 126,000,000 miles at 8 miles per yojana and 78,750,000 miles at 5 miles per yojana. Since values for the yojana ranging from 5 to 8 miles have been used in India, this distance is compatible with the modern earth-sun distance of 93,000,000 miles." (p.162) A distance of 93,000,000 miles would give an approximate yojana value of 5.9 miles.

Hare Krishna.

ccd: Get over yourself will ya. Im sure in your next birth you will have your desires fulfilled with many disciples who are like minded and will worship your lotus feet. Once again, NO! I did not interpret anything. I simply presented what Prabhupada said verbatim in reference to the question. Thats all. If Prabhupadas explanation is bewildering to you, than that is your great misfortune. Your are an envious personality who simply pontificates. I have nothing further to say to the likes of you and your juvenile envious name calling and pontification. At least not in reference to this subject matter. However, I will say this: good luck in you spiritual life (Booba) as you say, because you will need it. Actually, that name suites you quite well. In case you werent aware, Bubba is a friendly term, but like I said Booba suites you better. I will therefore address you in this way in future threads, as Im sure you will no doubt make it a point to attempt to throw in your worthless, self centered comments at anything anyone says. Especially me.

[quote][cite] Priyavrata das:[/cite]Once again, NO! I did not interpret anything. I simply presented what Prabhupada said verbatim in reference to the question. Thats all..[/quote] Sorry that is your interpretation Booba. I am sure that even in this life I can have so many ritvik disciples if only I follow Hamsadutas interpretations nicely. Main thing is to please the ritvik-acharya, that is the interpretation (of something you claim is verbatim)!

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]Sadaputa addresses the question of the distance of sun and moon in section 8 of Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy, page 161.

"Q: In SB 8.1.38p, Srila Prabhupada says, "The sun is supposed to be 93,000,000 miles above the surface of the earth, and from the Srimad-Bhagavatam we understand that the moon is 1,600,000 miles above the sun. Therefore the distance between the earth and the moon would be about 95,000,000 miles." Doesnt this plainly say that the moon is farther from the earth than the sun?

"A: In the summary at the end of Chapter 23 of the Fifth Canto Srila Prabhupada says, "The distance from the sun to the earth is 100,000 yojanas." At 8 miles per yojana, this comes to 800,000 miles. We suggest that when Srila Prabhupada cites the modern Western earth-sun distance of 93,000,000 miles, he is simply making the point that if you put together the Bhagavatam and modern astronomy you get a contradictory picture. His conclusion is that one should simply accept the Vedic version, and he was not interested in personally delving into astronomical arguments in detail."

Sadaputa explains that the 100,000 yojana distance is relative to the plane of Bhu-mandala, not the linear distance from the earth to the sun, and that a yojana may be about 5 or 8 miles, or somewhere in between. "The distance given from the center of Jambudvipa to the orbit of the sun around Manasottara Mountain is 15,750,000 yojanas according to the dimensions given in the Fifth Canto. This distance lies in the plane of Bhu-Mandala and comes to 126,000,000 miles at 8 miles per yojana and 78,750,000 miles at 5 miles per yojana. Since values for the yojana ranging from 5 to 8 miles have been used in India, this distance is compatible with the modern earth-sun distance of 93,000,000 miles." (p.162) A distance of 93,000,000 miles would give an approximate yojana value of 5.9 miles.

Hare Krishna.[/quote]
That is a good interpretation. Anyone has a better idea?

ccd:
according to you everybody interprets except you... (?)
That makes me think of a phrase I saw in a t-shirt: Everybody is looking after their own self-interest, except me that I mind mine."
Telling all the time "you interpret" as your main argument, is just not serious.
GIve some arguments so that we can learn from your experience.

Kula-pavana: Do you agree with the explanation about the moon distance above? If you don'b4t, please give us yours.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]ccd:
according to you everybody interprets except you... (?)
That makes me think of a phrase I saw in a t-shirt: Everybody is looking after their own self-interest, except me that I mind mine."
Telling all the time "you interpret" as your main argument, is just not serious.
GIve some arguments so that we can learn from your experience.[/quote]
Again that is your interpretation of what I have said...(?) I suggest that to receive any information one must interpret. Everyone interprets including me. (the fact that you misinterpreted what I have just said is the proof). If you do not interpret you are failing to be a conscious being. When someone said:" This is what Prabhupada states literary... without interpretation, you must take it." Not only he already assumed that you will understand the quote exactly the same way as he did (or did not) it is also a form of mis-interpretation that ignores the fact that Prabhupada may have written or even said it to someone for a purpose or in context. etc
[quote][/quote]
One must interpret if he wants to receive spiritual knowledge. But one should not misinterpret. That is the key. Correctly interpreted jnana becomes vijnana.
[quote][/quote]
To avoid misinterpretation (I would consider the above as a sample of a possible misinterpretation by HDGoswami) one needs to have a correct not just set of values, but also guidance and association. To ultimately interpret scripture (for example when translating it from Sanskrit) one has to have a realization level that is appropriate, ie at least be a madhyama bhakta, better uttama. Kanistha who just quotes his gurus words left and right is misinterpreting him left and right.
[quote][/quote]
Therefor requirement for anyone who represents Prabhupada is that he or she should also understand the bigger picture, do it in the preaching context if madhyama or in philosophical if one is uttama, one must be more then just a kanistha who thinks that my guru and my thakur are right, everyone else is wrong. That lack of vijnana will spoil not only fruits of preaching but will also create anarthas.

so, who`s interpretation you accept?

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]so, who`s interpretation you accept?[/quote]
For that you should always be consulted in each particular situation. It should always be based on guru-sadhu-sastra. In this case I [b]do not[/b] accept Hridayanandas interpretation, because of the lack of sastric references and the fact that he is mainly using nyaya/logics principles in his presentation. Nyaya is a supporting principle and is not sufficient for correct interpretation of the words of our founder acharya. If Hridayananda Maharaja wants he can build a convincing case of this interpretation and if it is then will be based on sastra and views of other sadhus/our acharyas, then I would consider it a valid interpretation that I may or may not use according to time and audience.
[quote][/quote]
The main point it that any interaction with words of Prabhupada or scripture should be done in such a way that it is increasing the faith in the process of devotional service. In fact if two parties have different interpretation of the same passage (as sometimes acharyas do), because both are building the faith to the point of prema, both are true. While even literally quoting words of acharyas out of context may achieve an opposite effect, and therefor is false.
[quote][/quote]
From another angle: You having obviously an experience of translating Prabhupadas books/words from his native English to Spanish should know more about the basic interpretation principles and how word-for-word not always conveys the meaning or the mood.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]
Kula-pavana: Do you agree with the explanation about the moon distance above? If you don'b4t, please give us yours.[/quote]

Did you understand what it says? Read this part: "Sadaputa explains that the 100,000 yojana distance is relative to the plane of Bhu-mandala, not the linear distance from the earth to the sun." Prabhupada is clearly talking about the linear distance when he makes a claim that astronauts could not have gone to the Moon because it is further away than Sun. But that is NOT what Bhagavatam says.

WHERE in his writings does Sadaputa EVER claims that Moon is further away in linear sense from Earth than Sun? That is only SPs claim.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]
Kula-pavana: Do you agree with the explanation about the moon distance above? If you don'b4t, please give us yours.[/quote]

Did you understand what it says? Read this part: "Sadaputa explains that the 100,000 yojana distance is relative to the plane of Bhu-mandala, not the linear distance from the earth to the sun." Prabhupada is clearly talking about the linear distance when he makes a claim that astronauts could not have gone to the Moon because it is further away than Sun. But that is NOT what Bhagavatam says.

WHERE in his writings does Sadaputa EVER claims that Moon is further away in linear sense from Earth than Sun? That is only SPs claim.[/quote]
Sadaputa had explained (some years back to me) that the celestial Moon (ie the destination) is higher than the planet of Sun. BTW Prabhupada never said anything about linear distance ... that is your interpretation.:-)

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Sadaputa had explained (some years back to me) that the celestial Moon (ie the destination) is higher than the planet of Sun. BTW Prabhupada never said anything about linear distance ... that is your interpretation.:-)[/quote]

That was always his position - moon as a heavenly world is a more desirable (higher) destination than the sun world. Because he refused to back the notion that Moon is further from Earth than Sun, Iskcon-orthodox GBC were always unhappy about him.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Sadaputa had explained (some years back to me) that the celestial Moon (ie the destination) is higher than the planet of Sun. BTW Prabhupada never said anything about linear distance ... that is your interpretation.:-)[/quote]

That was always his position - moon as a heavenly world is a more desirable (higher) destination than the sun world. Because he refused to back the notion that Moon is further from Earth than Sun, Iskcon-orthodox GBC were always unhappy about him.[/quote]
--Taking about that. It was actually Harikesh who asked Sadaputa to explain to him the connection and distinction between the two - heavenly body and measurable planet on SMPDC meeting in London. It is good to be able to reconcile different interpretations, as long as it does not take away from the real purpose of it, [i]Man mana bhava mad bhakto...

Looking through more than a dozen "partition hits" in the Vedabase searching for "interpret," I cant find even one example where Srila Prabhupada uses the word, "interpret," to mean giving a proper explanation to something. However, there are many cases where he says things like: "Dont interpret. Then youll understand Vedas." >>> Ref. VedaBase => Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 7.107-109 -- San Francisco, February 15, 1967

Heres another example. ("If the meaning is clear, there is no chance of interpreting. If the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret.")
"You have to understand from the higher authorities. (Quotes B.g. 4.1, 4.2) As soon as you give up this line of understanding, then it is lost. Yogo nastah parantapa. Then you are dealing in not Bhagavad-gita, something else, something rubbish. Yogo nastah, it is nastah, it is spoiled. As soon as you interpret, it is spoiled. First of all, why you should interpret? If the meaning is clear, there is no chance of interpreting. If the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret." >>> Ref. VedaBase => Evening Darsan -- August 10, 1976, Tehran

Srila Prabhupada explains that interpretation is appropriate when the direct meaning is not clear:

Prabhupada: Yes. Yudhya ca. (Hindi conversation) There is some word; the meaning is not clear. Then you can suggest that "Meaning may be like this." But when it is clear, there is no, I mean to say, chance of interpreting.
Indian man (1): As, for example, vicara, those such words which requires some clarification or..., these can be interpreted...
Prabhupada: No, no, when it is clear, why it should be interpreted?
Indian man (1): No, for other words...
Prabhupada: Other words... (Hindi) ...that when it is clear-yudhya ca -- then why should you interpret? The example is there in the Sanskrit grammar. Just like... The example is given, where interpretation required. It is said, example is given like, gangayam ghosa-pali, that "There is a neighborhood called Ghosha-pali on the Ganges." So then you can ask that "Ganga is water. How there is a neighborhood?" Then the interpretation: "Not on the Ganges water but on the bank." Then interpretation. But when it is clear that "On the bank of the Ganges there is a neighborhood called Ghosha-pali," then where is interpretation? Interpretation will be required when the meaning is not clear. Otherwise, if the meaning is clear, that is (Hindi), to interpret. But in Bhagavad-gita, in the first line, the word is used, yuyutsvah, "desiring to fight." So desiring to fight, they assembled; they must fight. So where is the question of interpretation?
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Evening Darsana -- May 9, 1977, Hrishikesh

Here is one quote where Srila Prabhupada specifically distinguishes interpreting from explaining:

"If anyone can understand the clear passage... Just like in the Bible, "God said, Let there be creation, and there was creation." Where is the question of interpretation? Yes, God created. You cannot create. Where is the opportunity of interpretation? So unnecessary interpretation is not required and that is not bona fide, and those who are interpreting unnecessarily, they should be rejected immediately. Immediately, without any consideration. God said, "Let there be creation." So there was creation. Simple thing. Where is the question of interpretation? What can be the interpretation here? Suggest that this can be interpretation. Am I right? In the beginning of the Bible it is said like that? "God said, Let there be creation, and there was creation. So what is your interpretation? Tell me what is your interpretation. Is there any possibility of interpretation? Can any one of you suggest? Then where is the opportunity of interpretation? One can explain. That is different thing, but the fact that God created, that will remain."
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Lecture -- Seattle, October 2, 1968

Prabhupada would often use the word interpretation to mean secondary meanings of a verse or a scriptural passage. That is used only as he said: "If the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret". That is the key difference between Mayavadis and nyayakas and Vashnavas, we normally do not concentrate on secondary meanings.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Prabhupada would often use the word interpretation to mean secondary meanings of a verse or a scriptural passage. That is used only as he said: "If the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret". That is the key difference between Mayavadis and nyayakas and Vashnavas, we normally do not concentrate on secondary meanings.[/quote]

Yes. There is interpretation, and there is understanding which reflects itself in difference of opinion. It may be, that in ISKCON we are mixing this two terms. We do such mixing often, we name something, but we relate to it in another way, as if it was something else.

As I see it, problem is not in interpretation of revealed facts, but in differences of understanding, or difference of opinions about practical implementation of revealed facts. But to most of us this may be one and the same thing, more or less.... So, in the end, on our level of social development, interpretation equals understanding. And we accuse each other of improper interpretation, but actually we are aggresively forcing our own understanding down anothers throat.

I have hard time defining the difference, but I feel that there must be. As I see it, interpretation has more to do with vision of things, looking forward, what you have to achieve. And understanding is solid background, looking backwards, what you already achieved. They both have its place. But should not be mixed.

Problem is, when we attack someone for his interpretation, but actually we are attacking his understanding. Because interpretation can be this or that, but understanding is a solid thing. Demonizing one for his understanding is a heavy thing. Trying to impress ones understanding upon another can be problematic for both sides involved. We should be respectfull for understandings of each other.

But interpretation, we can play with that left or right, no problem.

Maybe difference between interpretation and understanding is in level of attachment alone.... When you are on level of interpreting, you look forward, and you are not attached to that - so you can get smashed for it, and you will not care much. But when understanding is built, it becomes part of your background, and you cannot just throw it away - if you get smashed for it, you will suffer big time.

So dealing with interpretation and understanding, it has all to do with compassion and empathy, which are also big words in modern ISKCON, also often abused within ISKCON power structure. So, guess what, in the end it is lack of culture alone, the simplest, but tha hardest fact for us to digest.

OK, some mental gymnastics from my side.... It is just my interpretation of word interpretation :) not attached to it, so smash it as you like. :)

"If you know Krsna, you know everything. You know science, you know mathematics, you know philosophy, you know geography, everything. There is no dirth of knowledge. Dont think that a Krsna conscious person actually, he can be a foolish man. No. That is given guarantee in the Bhagavad-gita,
tesam evanukampartham
aham ajnana-jam tamah
nasayamy atma-bhava-stho
jnana-dipena bhasvata
[Bg. 10.11]
A devotee who is always in Krsna consciousness, for him there is nothing unknown. He knows everything. Just like we can give information of the whole creation. Not only of this material world, of the spiritual world. Clear conception. Where is where, what is what, everything. That is Krsna consciousness. The more you make progress, then you fully, I mean to say, conversant with all departmental knowledge. Everything is completed."

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 2.46-62 -- Los Angeles, December 16, 1968

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Prabhupada would often use the word interpretation to mean secondary meanings of a verse or a scriptural passage. That is used only as he said: "If the meaning is not clear, then you can interpret". That is the key difference between Mayavadis and nyayakas and Vashnavas, we normally do not concentrate on secondary meanings.[/quote]

Problem is, when we attack someone for his interpretation, but actually we are attacking his understanding. Because interpretation can be this or that, but understanding is a solid thing. Demonizing one for his understanding is a heavy thing. Trying to impress ones understanding upon another can be problematic for both sides involved. We should be respectfull for understandings of each other.

OK, some mental gymnastics from my side.... It is just my interpretation of word interpretation :) not attached to it, so smash it as you like. :)[/quote]

See also Krsna Sandarbha Anuccheda 29
[quote][/quote]
TEXT 26
[quote][/quote]
The statements of scripture may be accepted in two ways: 1. by accepting the direct or literal meaning and 2. by accepting an indirect, obscure or allegorical meaning.
[quote][/quote]
TEXT 27
[quote][/quote]
Among the rules for interpreting the scriptures we find the statement:

saksad upadesas tu srutih

" The instructions of the Sruti-sastra should be accepted literally, without fanciful or allegorical interpretations."
[quote][/quote]
TEXT 28
[quote][/quote]
The statements of the Sruti-sastra are always correct and do not need to be substantiated by any external authority. Because the scriptures are thus the supreme authority, they should be taken literally, without imaginative interpretation.
Therefore it is said:

nirapeksa-rava srutih

" The statements of the Sruti-sastra are the supreme independent authority."
[quote][/quote]
TEXT 29
[quote][/quote]
The Mimamsa-darsanam (3.3.14) explains: " Scriptural instructions are more authoritative than the logical arguments known as linga, vakya, prakarana and sthana and these logical arguments are more authoritative than conclusions drawn from historical accounts." The statement of our paribhasa-sutra (Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam) that Krsna is the original form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears to contradict the Bhuma-purusas assertion (S.B. 10.89): " O Krsna and Arjuna, you are both My plenary expansions". The first statement is in the context of a philosophical discussion and the second in the context of an historical narration. For this reason, according to the description given in the Mimamsa-darsanam, the former statement is more authoritative than the second.
[quote][/quote]
TEXT 30
[quote][/quote]
These words of the Bhuma-purusa are not to be taken very seriously for the following reasons: 1. Sri Krsna, who is omniscient, did not begin His conversation with the Bhuma-purusa by offering respectful prayers, as is customary when one approaches a spiritual superior to receive instruction from him, 2. The Bhuma-purusas statement is contradicted by His activity of stealing the brahmanas sons just to get the audience of Sri Krsna. (The Bhuma-purusa said: "I have taken away the brahmanas sons because I am so eager to see You.")
3. The statement of Suta Goswami in the beginning of Srimad Bhagavatam and the instructions of many other exalted speakers in the Bhagavatam clearly contradict the statement of the Bhuma-purusas assertion is followed by other statements that contradict it.
[quote][/quote]
TEXT 31
[quote][/quote]
Even though Sri Krsna is the Original Personality of Godhead, He indulgently accepts the Bhuma-purusas indentification of Him as an incarnation of Narayana Rsi, Sri Krsna will soon reveal that He is actually the Original Godhead, the origin and resting place of the innumerable incarnations of Godhead.
The followers of Sripada Ramanujacarya accept that the Original Personality of Godhead is Narayana and Sri Krsna is and incarnation of the purusa-avatara Karanarnavasayi Visnu. They quote the verse "yuvam nara-narayanav rsi dharmam acaratam" (My dear Krsna and Arjuna, You are both incarnations of Nara-Narayana Rsis, who formerly performed exemplary activities for spiritual progress) and the verse "tvarayetam anti me" (O Krsna and Arjuna, please quickly come to Me) to support their views, although the actual meaning of the Vedic literatures refutes their conclusion.
[quote][/quote]

(it is interesting to note that here Jiva does not accept interpretations of Ramanuja... obviously)