re: some thought on "parasurama"

[Guest guest]

In Sam rengi's article is included this following paragraph :

> This is anoter classical example that no one

> is exceptional to the Karmic cycle, and Bakthi yoga can relieve one from the

> adverse reaction due to one's bad karma's. I invite some comments and am

>interested in knowing any other such karmic references of HIS Avathaarams.

 

 

This is against the principles of visistadvaita. and such references which

sam rengi has quoted are typical examples of a major flaw of deriving

philosophical tenets from puranas. According to visistadvaita and even

other systems to some extent, Srimannarayana is exempt from all karmas

even in his avataras. He is not bound as we are. The concept of avatar

has to be very seriously studied (atleast some 10 hrs of reading different

shastras!) before getting into conclusions. Avatar is a human or animal

incarnation which is done for some purposes - "punishing of wicked" and

"protection of the pious", for instance. During these avatars normal

conclusions should not be resorted to. All philosophical doctrines should

be derived from "prasthana traya" only. ie. bhagavadgita, bramhasutras and

vedas. NOte that Naalayira divya prabandham, though considered as on par

with vedas cannot stand as a valid testimony in any inter scholastic debate.

 

But, since naalayira divya prabandhams are divine experiences of alwars, they

have been found to corroborate vedic truths on the basis of experiential

evidence, and hence openly embraced by visistadvaita system. Thus visistadvaita

system is known as "ubhaya vedanta" or two-fold vedanta.

 

First of all durga purana is not in the list of satvic puranas as enumerated

by veda vyasa in mahabharatha. So conclusions should not be done from them.

 

The satvic puranas are to a large extent taken as authority. Please see

vedartha sangraha of ramanuja for details. But the bottom line is do not

conclude vedantic details from puranic evidence.

 

similar pranks are done by several people in fighting about siva-narayana

issues quoting from puranas and even upanishads which are not taken as

valid by any vedantin - dvaita, visistadvaita or advaita.

 

Krishna

 

----- Begin Included Message -----

>From RENGI Wed Apr 5 13:45:37 1995

RENGI

Wed, 05 Apr 1995 09:26:09 -0500 (EST)

some thought on "Parusu Rama" Avataaram

prapatti

X-Vms-IN%"prapatti"

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Content-Length: 1432

 

I read the classical reference by Mr.Dileepan on this avathaaram, from 4000.

I have not read the Sriman Naaraayanaa puraanam in complete. But my mind

goes after certain classified information on meditation and references to

such in each puraana I read. In Durga puraanam, it is mentioned that Lord

"Parasu Raman",tough being an Avathaar of "aathimoolam" has to worship

Durga for for certain relief. ie After accomplishing his mission destroying

shathriyaas all over, he felt that he still was followed by the cures "Maatru

Banga Betham". ie He hacked his mother as perhis father's advise but then

got her own life back as a boon from his father. The action of hacking his

own "life giver" was not nullified by the getting back the life. ie Even

the Lord was bound by that Karma or that "action-reaction cycle" and so he

sought the blessings of "Kanaka Durgha" (HER temple is in AP) by doing a severe

penenance for years and finally got her blessings and was relieved from his

"Karma" on "Maatru Beda bangam". This is anoter classical example that no one

is exceptional to the Karmic cycle, and Bakthi yoga can relieve one from the

adverse reaction due to one's bad karma's. I invite some comments and am

interested in knowing any other such karmic references of HIS Avathaarams.

Sorry for some typos, my key board is old and I typed it on line. I shall

type and proof read nextg time. Bear with me

Sam Rengi

 

 

----- End Included Message -----

[Guest guest]

This is with reference to two recent mails sent from sam rengi:

 

I have not replied with blind faith in avatars. This is the visistadvaitic

view. Note that the so called karma like events such as killing of vali and

end of krishnavatara by hunter's arrow etc. cannot be taken as binding karmas.

It is verily possible that Lord Krishna would have given a hunter chance to end

his avatar and even that hunter could be the very same vali reborn. The idea

to keep in mind is that the avatar's birth or end was not caused by karmic

bondage. it was caused by only Narayana's will. similarly the prayers from

other deiites to narayana and the prayers of avatars to other dieties are also

will and not indicative of relative greatness. In fact, Lord Siva as

Ahirbudhnya explains this concept very well in Ahirbudhnya samhita.

 

read details of ramanuja bhasya on bhagawadgita chapter 4-1 to 4-13 which

explains avatara rahasyam. for details.

 

the validity of testimonies have to be considered in different levels of

views. On a global level different scriptures such as vedas, bible, quran etc.

are testimonies to the people who follow them. A christian by faith may

not believe in the word of quran or vedas. truth is a different issue.

truth found in any scripture has to be accepted. truth regarding supra

sensory issues like soul and god is not easily verifiable, hence people take

up different faiths depending on birth and personal belief. no body in

general (except thirumaizai alwar : according to our belief) has the time

to evaluate validity of different religions and evaluate the relative merits

and demerits of religions before following one of them. incidentally,

thirumaizai alwar is supposed to have lived for about 4700 years and lived

as a buddhist, jainist, saivaite, yogi etc. before he finally attained moksha at

"aravamudhan's" sannidhi in kumbakonam.

 

Among vedantic faiths, vedas are assumed to be valid because of the common

acceptance of its "apaurseyatva" or "not created by any human or even God!!"

God is creator of all but not responsible for the content of vedas!! if he

is the author of vedas then vedas fail to be a testimony since it results in

mutual dependence between vedas and God!

 

coming to naalayiram, they were all "purusha krita" authored by human beings

this makes them not acceptable as valid testimony - even though naalayiram

may explain the truths better than the vedas!! IT is even true that naalayiram

explains vivid details of the experience of God not found in the available

portions of vedas. but when other vedantic

faiths are involved in any argument, naalayiram cannot be brought in as

testimony. Since if we say our alwars said so. they can say their

nayanmaars said differently!! there is no common ground for acceptance.

similarly, puranas are created by authors. Even bramha sutras are authored

and bhagawadgita is authored. So the highest status for testimony is given to

vedas. But since all of the vedas and vedangas are not completely available

to us today, bhagawadgita which is supposed to be directly the spoken word of

God, is taken as equal authority as suggested by vyasa. Vyasa who is said to

be an avatar of narayana authored the mahabharata of which bhagawadgita is a

part.

 

As far as puranas are considered, Vyasa in mahabharatha separates 18 puranas

into 3 categories of 6 each. These 3 categories are satvic, tamasic, and

rajasic puranas. Vyasa's view is that satvic puranas are to be referred to

while clarifying views on philosophy. This view was adopted by Sri Ramanuja

and explained in vedartha samgraha. Incidentally, Advaitins, Dvaitins agree

to this view completely!!!

 

do not ever mistake my respect to naalayiram and the words of alwars. But

still They

cannot be used in any inter scholastic debates but can be used as highest

authority when arguing among srivaishnavas!! not in a cross cultural vedantic

discussion.

 

Regarding a long list of examples you have given regarding siva, hanuman,

durga, vamana, aiyyappa, murugan, ganesha etc. Please understand carefully

that many of the stories here contradict each other and hence cannot be used

for determination of tatva or philosophical essence. In fact Pillai lokacharya

clearly says ramayana, mahabharatha and itihasa puranas have to be resorted

to while determining tatvam since vedas are too dry and in many places

apparently

contradictory. But even Pillai lokacharya agrees with the higher validity

of 6 satvic puranas as explained by ramanuja.

 

In deciding for example the "aadi moolam" or jagat karana vastu - or the

origin of everything, many puranic stories do not give a unilateral view.

Such matters have to be settled only with the help of karana vakyas in the

vedas - such as "Eko ha vai narayana aseeeth na bramha na isanaha neme vidhytho

etc. which states nothing existed in the beginning except narayana,

not bramha nor siva nor the stars or moon existed. These origin issues etc.

have to be cleared up only using vedic testimony. this is the general

agreement of advaita, visistadvaita, dvaita and others.

 

I do agree that Narayana had a purpose in participating in activities

with other dieties and it is his own will. I do not want to under play

those issues either.

 

In fact, if you listen to krishnapremi maharaj's cassettes on srimad

bhagavatam, he says bhagavatam is more clearer in presenting what is

needed for these poor living souls who are deluded by life, he further

clarifies that bhagavatham is like a fruit and the roots are the vedas.

and obviously fruits are tastier than the roots but verily depend on the

roots for its existence!

 

 

I hope this answers most questions.

 

coming to dileepan's questions

:

 

 

[2] If we hold that the supreme Lord is bound by karma then

how can we explain His ability to absolve us from our sins and

grant us mOksham? Further, if He himslef is bound by

karma, how would He get out of the cycle of birth-death-rebirth?

 

the answer is supreme lord is not bound by karmas

 

further dileepan's states:

 

/p.s. It is my understanding that dhivya prabandham is completely

/consistent with the vEdhaas. Therefore it is just academic

/to discuss whether dhraavida vEdhaas have less authority. But,

//the point is, I think, when one engages in debates with people

/of other persuations only vEdhaas will be acceptable as authoritative

/to them, not prabhandams.

 

you are right. internally we can hold naalayiram equal to or greater than

vedas not when talking to cross cultural vedantins - or even sakthas or

saivas.

[Guest guest]

Krishna writes:

> coming to naalayiram, they were all "purusha krita" authored by human beings

> this makes them not acceptable as valid testimony - even though naalayiram

> may explain the truths better than the vedas!! IT is even true that

naalayiram

> explains vivid details of the experience of God not found in the available

> portions of vedas. but when other vedantic

> faiths are involved in any argument, naalayiram cannot be brought in as

> testimony.

 

I understand your point on inter-scholastic debate, but don't

our acharyas consider azhvaar paadals to be apaurusheya in the same sense

as the Vedas? I think the normal citation is a paasuram where

Nammaazhvaar says that PerumaaL sings through him (the obvious

analogy being that just as the rishis were the means for the

broadcasting of the Veda, so is Nammaazhvaar simply being used

by God as an instrument).

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

mani writes:

 

Krishna writes:

> coming to naalayiram, they were all "purusha krita" authored by human beings

> this makes them not acceptable as valid testimony - even though naalayiram

> may explain the truths better than the vedas!! IT is even true that

naalayiram

> explains vivid details of the experience of God not found in the available

> portions of vedas. but when other vedantic

> faiths are involved in any argument, naalayiram cannot be brought in as

> testimony.

 

I understand your point on inter-scholastic debate, but don't

our acharyas consider azhvaar paadals to be apaurusheya in the same sense

as the Vedas? I think the normal citation is a paasuram where

Nammaazhvaar says that PerumaaL sings through him (the obvious

analogy being that just as the rishis were the means for the

broadcasting of the Veda, so is Nammaazhvaar simply being used

by God as an instrument).

 

Mani

 

 

----- End Included Message -----

 

 

My answer: You are right, those words of alwars are verily the words of God

who used alwars as his divine instruments. In fact 10 alwars have been

referred to as "Nava Dasha Avatharas" - new 10 avatars of Sri hari by

sri vedanta desika in rahasya traya sara. He states that like how

the dark clouds bring up the water of the oceans inaccessible to a majority

of human beings for their use, vedas which are inaccessible to many are

brought out as these wonderful naalayiram by our alwars. In fact in

rahasya traya sara, vedanta desika quotes more from naalayiram rather than

even vedas!! so that he can reach the commoner rather than pundits. that is

one of the major reasons why rahasya traya sara of vedanta desika is his

magnum opus even dethroning his logical master pieces such as tattva mukta

kalapa or satadushani!

 

BUT .,.......

 

accepting all the above alwar paadals are not considered as the highest

authority

since, a saivite can claim that "our nayanmaar's words " are verily the words

of Lord shiva who used them as his instrument in his thiruvilaiaadal - or

divine play!. Hence we both cannot agree when our views based on different

gurus' words are different. Hence we should agree that eventhough we believe

that the words of God are words of alwars we cannot use it as testimony

in cross culturual debates. Please note that madhura kavi a vedic scholar

said that "verornrum naan ariyen" - All I know is the divine words of my guru

"Maaran" I dont need anything else. this obviously indicates that the content

of nammalwars words indicates so many truths that are hidden in the vedas like

needles in a haystack.

 

 

Even true saivaite authors agree that saivism is not a vedic religion even

though, vedas profusely talk about Lord Shiva. The influence of historical

rulers in this matter has been different from rational analysis. See the book

vaishnavism of DR. SMS chari, in his introduction of first few chapters he

states : Agora siva charya a famous saivite author writes, " arvaacheena

pandithaihi vedanta vasana vathbihi, saiva mathaha kalusheekrithaha"

 

I might not have quoted him exactly but the meaning is clear that "

the new saivaites are polluting the old saivism since they are under the

influence of the vedic thought"

 

I should add that Dr. SMS chari's book is excellent, really technical and still

simple.

[Guest guest]

----- Begin Included Message -----

>From sunder Thu Apr 6 16:21:06 1995

Thu, 6 Apr 1995 15:20:06 -0500

Srinivas Sunder <sunder

krishna

re: some thought on "parasurama"

 

 

Thanks you for a very insightful discussion.

 

Could you please tell me which are the 6 PuraaNaas that Vyaasa referred

to as Saatvic ? And if possible, which 6 are Rajasvic, and Tamasvic too ?

 

Thanks

 

Srinivas

 

 

----- End Included Message -----

 

 

let me write to you from a preface to vishnupurana written by a sreevaishnava

scholar. yajna narayana deekshita's disciple:

 

agnehe sivasya maahatmyam taamaseshu prakeerthyate

raajaseshu cha mahatmyam adhikam bramhano viduhu

saatvikeshu atha kalpeshu maahatmyam adhikam harehe

 

what this is in agni and other taamasa puranas sivas greatness is upheld

in raajasa puranas 4 faced bramhan is extolled

in saatvika puranas it is hari's greatness that is extolled.

 

the saatvika puranas are :

 

vishnu purana, naaradeeya purana, srimad bhagawatam

garuda purana, paadma purana, varaha purana

 

 

these are rajasik puranas.

 

bramhanda, bramhakaivarta, maarkandeya, bhaviyat, vamana, braamha

 

the taamas puranas are:

maatsya, tamram , linga, saiva, skaanda and agni.

 

In fact these are quoted from Siva parvati dialoges. Further siva

states that only the saatvic puranas have to be used to find way for

moksha. the other puranas do have important knowledge. our acharyas

quote profusely from linga purana etc. for example for our

bhagawad aradhana - a sloka from linga purana is used!!

 

yesha naarayanaha sreeman ksheerarnava niketanaha

naaga paryankam utsrijya hyagato maduram pureem

 

 

Note the important quote is from rahasya traya sara - vedanta desika says:

 

matsya purana - saatvikeshu kalpeshu maahatmyam adhikam harehe

teshveva yoga samsiddhaha gamishyanti paraam gatim

 

his explanation states:

 

yangai ale, avargal pakkal moksham vilabithum kidaiyaathu.

 

ie. only vishnu can grant moksha and bramha rudras even after a long time

cannot give moksha - hence only saatvika information - both satvik puranas

and satvik smritis which are:

 

vaasista, haareeta, vyasa, paarashara, bharadvaja kashyapa should be

 

resorted. to.

 

other puranas can be used as long as major decisions are not take n based on

them. and as long as others do not conflict with saatvik puranas.