[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Re: REQUEST : Bhagavad Gita commentary

Posted By H. Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu)
Fri, 17 Jan 1997 05:42:21 +0000 (GMT)

> might assist the reader. Also, both these suffer from what I view as
> the serious shortcoming of differing from (and trying to improve upon)
> their respective claimed sampradaaya Gurus, Shankara and Madhva
> respectively. For instance, Prabhupada's claim that Krishna is in some
> sense a superior form of the Paramatman than other forms, is not
> upheld by Madhva (who is, however, misleadingly listed in Prabhupada's
> guru-parampara in the earlier pages of "Bhagavadgita as it is"). As

It's rather pointless to bring up differences between Madhva and Prabhupada
and say that the latter is trying to improve upon what was taught by the
former. Although he claims that paramparaa, Prabhupada does not claim to
represent Madhva's philosophical position. He does claim to represent
Caitanya's philosophy.

Thus, if this criticism is to be made, it should be made if a difference
exists between Prabhupada's purports and what was taught by Caitanya, as
written in the literatures of the six Gosvamis. Or, one could compare what
he wrote to the other commentaries written in his line after Caitanya. I
think Baladeva and Vishvanaatha each wrote a Gita commentary, for example.

> If the above looks familiar, it probably is, and you've a very good
> memory. I wrote that in a posting on alt.hindu more than two years
> ago.

copy-cut-paste, eh Srisha? Isn't Windows wonderful? :-)

regards,

- HKS

This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2014, Dharma Universe.