Krsna in Gita nº1

[Radha-Govinda Mandir]

Dear Dominik:
PLase, my teacher send me his paper, He is may teacher in sanscrit and india philosphy.
I think it is very nice paper. You can check his corriculum with Dr. Witzel in Harvard.

Krishna in the Bhagavad-gîtå
>A Beginning Ontology
>This is a paper originally presented to the Committe on Study of Religion,
>at the University of California at Los Angeles by Hridayandanda Goswami MA
>and Ph D. From Harvard and it is the first draft, the original was show in
>the BGT of sep/oct , Nov/Dec 1994  and Jan/feb 1995.
>
>Introduction
> I attempt in this paper to clarify certain essential teachings of the
>Bhagavad-gîtå which are traditionally "zones of puzzlement" among scholars.
>These areas focus on a single point: the nature and status of God, Krishna,
>according to the Gîtå. My strong conviction is that the Gîtå itself is a
>lucid, self-explanatory work, and therefore the occasional practice of
>commentators to force on it extraneous doctrines often renders the text
>obscure where it is bright, esoteric where it is literal, and impersonal
>where it is intensely personal. I am operating here on an ancient principle
>which holds that certain Vedic  literatures are svata--pråmåyam, literally
>"evident in or by themselves". As stated in the Bhavibya-puråna:
> rig-yajur-såmårtharvår ca  bhåratam pañca-råtrakam
> müla-råmåyanaµ caiva  veda ity eva sabditåh
> purånåni ca yånîha  vaisvavåni vido viduh
> svatah-pråmånyam etebåµ nåtra kiñcid vicåryate
> “The rig Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahåbhårata, Pañcaråtra and
>original Råmåyana are all considered by authorities to be Veda. The knowers
>also know that those Purånas dedicated to Lord Visnu enjoy the same status.
>These literatures are self-evident, and there is nothing at all to
speculate
>about them.”
> It should be noted at once that the above exegetic principle does not do
>away with intellectual response to the scriptures. Rather it is a call for
>sober hermeneutical practices, in which we first struggle to comprehend a
>scriptural message on its own terms, through careful study of its internal
>structures of meaning.
> We get some historical flavor of this methodology by turning to a
>fascinating theological debate which took place almost 500 years ago in
>Benares between Srî Caitanya Mahåprabhu, the founder of Gaudîya Vaisnavism,
>and Prakåsånanda Sarasvatî, a leading ¸sankarite sannyåsî of the time.
After
>hearing Prakåsånanda's interpretation of Vedånta-sütra, Srî Caitanya
>Mahåprabhu replied: “The Veda is evident by itself. It is the crown-jewel
of
>all evidence. By interpreting it, the self-evident quality is lost.”
>[Caitanya-caritåm®ta, Ådi-lîlå, 7.132] The original text, in medieval
>Bengali, is:
>  svatah-pramåna veda -- pramåma-siromani, laksarå karile
>svatah-pramånatå-håni.
>
>The quality of self-evidence mentioned above is especially apparent, in my
>view, in the Bhagavad-gîtå, which is part of the Mahåbhårata. I have
>therefore selected five specific areas, vital to the Bhagavad-gîtå's
>message, which are especially prone to misinterpretation, and I have
>attempted to demonstrate from the Bhagavad-gîtå itself the consistent, and
>self-evident view of the speaker, Lord srî Krishna, especially as He
>describes Himself.
> The first topic is the Gîtå's strong montheism, in which the many gods of
>the Hindu pantheon are sharply relegated to the status of subordinate
>servitors to the Supreme Lord. The second topic is that of the separate
>individuality of Krishna as God, distinct from, and transcendental to, the
>individual entities, who are tiny expansions of the Lord. Third, I have
>shown that within the Gîtå, Krishna is understood to be the supreme
>controller. The fourth subject is the delicate issue of monism. I believe
to
>have clearly shown that despite certain statements in the Gîtå to the
effect
>that "Krishna is everything," there is nothing like a bald monistic
doctrine
>in the Gîtå. Finally, in the fifth section, I have argued from the
>Bhagavad-gîtå itself that Krishna comes to this world in a spiritual,
>eternal form, and not a material body, such as those we inhabit.
> As mentioned above, these five topics ineluctably lead to a single
>conclusion: that the real and final topic of the Bhagavad-gîtå is Krishna
>Himself, who is inseparably related to, and yet eternally transcendental to
>the individual souls, of whom we are specimens. This doctrine of
>bhedåbheda-tattva, or the inconceivable, simultaneous difference and
>non-difference of the Lord and the individual souls, is Srî Caitanya's
>reading of the Bhagavad-gîtå, and Vedic literature in general.
> I have included the topic that Krishna is the controller to drive home the
>point that the Godhead being talked about in the Bhagavad-gîtå is not a
>vague, wispy Deity, whose true ineffable status is but indirectly hinted at
>by the hierarchical language of mortals. Completely to the contrary, we
have
>in the Gîtå a full-blown expression of an omnipotent, omniscient,
>omnibenevolent Supreme Lord, commanding, and even poignantly entreating,
the
>individual souls enmeshed in måyå to return to Him in His divine abode.
> I call this paper a "Beginning Ontology" because the constraints of time
>and space have permitted only an introductory statement about the Godhead,
>as He is conceived in the Bhagavad-gîtå. In fact, the points made herein
are
>amplified by the rest of the Bhagavad-gîtå. At the very least, I hope this
>paper will stimulate the reader to investigate the Gîtå as far as possible
>on its own terms. There are certainly esoteric passages in religious
>scriptures, including the Vedic books. But the guiding Vedic principle is
>that we should interpret that which is ambiguous, that which plainly calls
>for explication of hidden meanings. There are many such statements in the
>Sanskrit scriptures, but the fundamental message, the central theme is
>generally clear.
> The verses quoted here are all my own translations, unless otherwise
>indicated, and I have given great stress on literal accuracy in their
>rendering. I have endeavored to avoid, thereby, unfounded flights of poetic
>inspiration, and dubious constructions devised to legitimate tentative
>insights. My conclusions reflect what I have learned from the Bhagavad-gîtå
>As It Is, [The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Los Angeles, 1989]  whose
>translation and purports are the the unique devotional scholarship of His
>Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
> The point of view here is clearly in the tradition of ¸rîpåda Madhvåcårya,
>¸rîpåd Råmånujåcårya, ¸rî Caitanya Mahåprabhu, and other illustrious
>Vaisnava scholars, who opposed the monistic interpretation of srîpåda
>¸Sankaråcårya, and those in his line. In a sense, one gets here a glimpse
of a millennial theological debate in action.