Brahminism and Kalale's questions

[Guest guest]

Dear Prapatti Group Members:

 

I appreciate Dileepan's bold and spirited reply on the above subject. It

represents our scriptural view better. However, it must be emphasized that

caste is immaterial for attaining the Lord. There is ample support from the

Bhaghavat Gita. On the other hand, I think the views expressed by Tatachar and

Mohan Sagar on the above suject are politically correct, but unfortunately far

from reality. For example: How many arranged marriages that we see today are

inter-caste?

 

It is however possible that one day we may see a society (as it is headed

today) sans distinction including that of the Gods.

 

In response to Kalale - I have heard the Krishna-Durga- Arjuna incident in one

of the upanyasams. I tend to interpret this incident like we do in the Sandhya

or other Vedic Homams, where we make offerings to other Devatas (like Agni,

Varuna, Rudra etc,.). While all these devatas derive their power from one

source (Sriman Narayana), may be they represent the proper channel to tap that

power (for a desired result only). However, Sriman Narayana seems to reserve

the power to give Moksha to Himself. I do not know how else we could explain

doing sandhya and other things with devotion, and yet claiming to be solely

devoted to Sriman Narayana. Granted that we do those Karmas for Loka-Kalyana

and to please the Lord. I would appreciate member's response.

 

Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan

[Guest guest]

Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan writes:

>

>In response to Kalale - I have heard the Krishna-Durga- Arjuna incident in one

>of the upanyasams. I tend to interpret this incident like we do in the

Sandhya

>or other Vedic Homams, where we make offerings to other Devatas (like Agni,

>Varuna, Rudra etc,.). While all these devatas derive their power from one

>source (Sriman Narayana), may be they represent the proper channel to tap that

>power (for a desired result only). However, Sriman Narayana seems to reserve

>the power to give Moksha to Himself. I do not know how else we could explain

>doing sandhya and other things with devotion, and yet claiming to be solely

>devoted to Sriman Narayana. Granted that we do those Karmas for Loka-Kalyana

>and to please the Lord. I would appreciate member's response.

>

>Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan

>

 

If one understands Sareera Sariri bhava clearly, this issue or doubt should

not arise. The devatas have to be honored via nitya karma - sandhya and

vihita karmas - tarpana, homa etc. The prayers have to be addressed to

"antaryami" of each devata which is Narayana. By addressing the antaryami

using the names of these devatas Srimannarayana along with all devatas will

be satisfied. There are two versions (both acceptable) to handle this. The

terms rudra, agni etc. directly can refer to Brahman - as per "sakshadapi

avirodhaat iti jaiminihi" - brahma sutra. Or they can refer to the

antaryami as per - aparyavasana vritti - ie. all names finally indicate

Brahman as the sarvantaryami. Just because nitya karmas , homams etc. have

the name of the devata's does not mean one can "arbitrarily" worship any

devata to attain even carnal pursuits. Please refer to bhagawadgita - (and

Ramanuja Bhasya) - "labhate cha tataha kamaan Mayaiva Vihitaan hi taan".

which means "Lord Krishna says: A devata worshipper attains fruits of

his/her devotion to that devata, since I provide fruits of actions through

those devatas, and those devatas were assigned to take such positions by

me". other reference : Kenopanishat where devatas are taught a lesson as to

who is the power behind them. When one can get everything from the source,

why go to trickling and dried up tributaries?

 

It is not enough to state that "Some Upanyasam" referred to "Krishna Durga

Incident". the original work or scripture should be found out first. If

one does refer to the original work there is no use attaching any importance

to the statement. The proof should be from prasthana trayas or Vedas. The

rest of the proofs are not acceptable to any vedantin. Some puranas and

samhitas and later works are acceptable to Madhvacharya. But, Luckily!

Madhvacharya is a Vaishnava (ignoring the devata taratamya aspects) . God

Bless Him. Even the devata taratamya aspects are secondary since

Madhvacharya states : there are only two categories: Independent and

Dependent. Vishnu is the only Independent and the rest are dependent. This

statement is enough for me to extoll Madhvacharya , considering the bitter

fact that the current kaliyuga is creating "warped" convictions in so many

minds regarding the importance and superiority of the Lord Keshava.

Krishna Kalale

619-658-5612 (phone)

619-658-2115 (fax)