Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 I would like to start a new discussion about avataara-vaada in the view of Shankaras Vedanta philosophy. My question is that how can we prove that Shri Krishna is an avataara (as said in the Purana's) of Vishnu and how can the theory of avataara-vaada (as mentioned in the Purana's) be looked at from the Vedantic point of view. Before I tell my problems, regarding this theory, I would like to tell that though I had been studying advaita-vedanta for the last 12 years, I'm to my deepest heart a Krishna-bhakta (and I think, bhakti and jnaana do not clash to the least, the author of advaita-siddhi, Madhusudana Saaraswati paada, is the best proof to this, and in fact they are one, well, this is a topic of later discussion) Therefore >From the beginning, I would like also to inform our honorable scholars, that as they know advaita-vedaanta excepts 6 pramaanas (means to genuine knowledge), the pauraanika's (the authors of the Puranas) accepte 8 pramaanas, out of which, two, aitihya (in this way they accept the pauranika stories as genuine, the word derived from "iti ha"= it was like this) and sambhava (possibility, as much as I) are rejected by advaita-vedaanta philosophers (those would know this, who have studied Vedanta-paribhaashaa) and in this way, if this can be stated, is rejected the pauranika view of genuine knowledge. Before going farther, I would like to give a general treatment about these two pramaanas. What about Shankaracharya himself? He himself, in fact, never discussed about Pramanas (as much as I can remember now, if he has, than I'm interested to know where?), but there is a saying about Him, vyavahaare bhaattanayah, Shankara accept the views of Kumarila Bhatta in the field of vyaavahaarika sattaa, i.e. for things related to vyavahara, this world (said very generally now). Now, as Bhatta Paada accepts only six, Shankara Bhagavatpaada has also to accept 6 and not one single more. Now, haw far can a Vedantin accept the stories about the devas going to Vishnu in Kshira-saagara and praying for incarnation etc. to be valid or genuine? What is their place in this inquiry of supreme truth in the form of Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, the only succeeded one? Furthermore, how far does Krishna himself accept this theory? I mean, Lord Krishna is in His Brahma-bhaava, when He is giving the Upadesha of Gita, not in His Krishna-bhaava. For, Lord Krishna, the krishna, born in vrishni-vamsha, is just His vibhuti , like Arjuna among the Pandavas and a crocodile among the fishes or a lion among the beasts. (see Gita 10-37, 31, 30). Let us clarify this view, with a sutra of Brahmasutra. Shastradrishtyaa tuupadesho vaamadevavat (at present I don't have direct access to Brahmasutra, because I'm out of my personal library, but it is in the end of 1-1-? in Brahma-sutra). Where it has been discussed, that when Indra (the master of Brahma-vidya to Pratardana, according to Kaushitaki Upanishad) says, I'm praana, I'm ajara, amara, aananda etc. (all the qualities of the Supreme), is Indra meant by this I or the Supreme? Then, the answer stated there is, only the Supreme and not Indra, as this upadesha has been stated from the view described in the shaastra, as of Vaamadeva (here by shaastra veda is meant, which becomes clear with the example of Vamadeva, a Rig-veda seer). What is the view of the shaastra? I was Manu, I was Surya etc. (as Vamadeva mentions it in Rig-veda). Why then Krishna's sayings, like be my devotee (the upadeshas about "Me") and all the vibhutis shouldn't be accepted as a view of Shastra (vedic view), i.e. statements are done after seeing His own supreme self from the point of view described in the Shastra? I mean Krishna himself is a vedic seer (two suktas of the Rig-veda are revealed by the absolute to Krishna), as Vamadeva. And Chadogya Upanishad also says, this brahmavidya has been given to the son of devaki, Krishna, by atharva aangirasa (krishnaaya devakiputraaya praaha, I can again not give the quotation details, as I don't have access to the book at present, but if somebody interested, he may ask). More than that, did Krishna ever tell in Gita, chant my name? He always tells to chant OM. I wouldn't derive out of these views anything at present, but would like to hear from the learned scholars, what they think can be concluded. Siddhartha Krishna ------- * "da da da" (Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards all! - The three vedic commandments) * my e-mail address: siddharthakrishna * Like to read a bit more about Vedism? please visit: http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 OM Pranam BHAGAVAN SRI KRISHNA THE GREAT INCARNATION by Sri Swami Krishnananda http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_10.html Pranam OM > I would like to start a new discussion about avataara- vaada in the view > of Shankaras Vedanta philosophy. > My question is that how can we prove that Shri Krishna is an avataara (as > said in the Purana's) of Vishnu and how can the theory of avataara-vaada (as > mentioned in the Purana's) be looked at from the Vedantic point of view. > Before I tell my problems, regarding this theory, I would like to tell that > though I had been studying advaita-vedanta for the last 12 years, I'm to my > deepest heart a Krishna-bhakta (and I think, bhakti and jnaana do not clash > to the least, the author of advaita-siddhi, Madhusudana Saaraswati paada, is > the best proof to this, and in fact they are one, well, this is a topic of > later discussion) Therefore > From the beginning, I would like also to inform our honorable scholars, that > as they know advaita-vedaanta excepts 6 pramaanas (means to genuine > knowledge), the pauraanika's (the authors of the Puranas) accepte 8 > pramaanas, out of which, two, aitihya (in this way they accept the pauranika > stories as genuine, the word derived from "iti ha"= it was like this) and > sambhava (possibility, as much as I) are rejected by advaita-vedaanta > philosophers (those would know this, who have studied Vedanta-paribhaashaa) > and in this way, if this can be stated, is rejected the pauranika view of > genuine knowledge. > Before going farther, I would like to give a general treatment about these > two pramaanas. > What about Shankaracharya himself? > He himself, in fact, never discussed about Pramanas (as much as I can > remember now, if he has, than I'm interested to know where?), but there is a > saying about Him, vyavahaare bhaattanayah, Shankara accept the views of > Kumarila Bhatta in the field of vyaavahaarika sattaa, i.e. for things > related to vyavahara, this world (said very generally now). Now, as Bhatta > Paada accepts only six, Shankara Bhagavatpaada has also to accept 6 and not > one single more. > Now, haw far can a Vedantin accept the stories about the devas going to > Vishnu in Kshira-saagara and praying for incarnation etc. to be valid or > genuine? What is their place in this inquiry of supreme truth in the form of > Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, the only succeeded one? > Furthermore, how far does Krishna himself accept this theory? I mean, Lord > Krishna is in His Brahma-bhaava, when He is giving the Upadesha of Gita, not > in His Krishna-bhaava. For, Lord Krishna, the krishna, born in > vrishni-vamsha, is just His vibhuti , like Arjuna among the Pandavas and a > crocodile among the fishes or a lion among the beasts. (see Gita 10-37, 31, > 30). > Let us clarify this view, with a sutra of Brahmasutra. Shastradrishtyaa > tuupadesho vaamadevavat (at present I don't have direct access to > Brahmasutra, because I'm out of my personal library, but it is in the end of > 1-1-? in Brahma-sutra). Where it has been discussed, that when Indra (the > master of Brahma-vidya to Pratardana, according to Kaushitaki Upanishad) > says, I'm praana, I'm ajara, amara, aananda etc. (all the qualities of the > Supreme), is Indra meant by this I or the Supreme? Then, the answer stated > there is, only the Supreme and not Indra, as this upadesha has been stated > from the view described in the shaastra, as of Vaamadeva (here by shaastra > veda is meant, which becomes clear with the example of Vamadeva, a Rig-veda > seer). What is the view of the shaastra? I was Manu, I was Surya etc. (as > Vamadeva mentions it in Rig-veda). Why then Krishna's sayings, like be my > devotee (the upadeshas about "Me") and all the vibhutis shouldn't be > accepted as a view of Shastra (vedic view), i.e. statements are done after > seeing His own supreme self from the point of view described in the Shastra? > I mean Krishna himself is a vedic seer (two suktas of the Rig-veda are > revealed by the absolute to Krishna), as Vamadeva. And Chadogya Upanishad > also says, this brahmavidya has been given to the son of devaki, Krishna, by > atharva aangirasa (krishnaaya devakiputraaya praaha, I can again not give > the quotation details, as I don't have access to the book at present, but if > somebody interested, he may ask). > More than that, did Krishna ever tell in Gita, chant my name? He always > tells to chant OM. > I wouldn't derive out of these views anything at present, but would like to > hear from the learned scholars, what they think can be concluded. > Siddhartha Krishna > > ------------------------- --------------- > > * "da da da" (Control your self! Give to others! Have compassion towards > all! - The three vedic commandments) > * my e-mail address: siddharthakrishna > * Like to read a bit more about Vedism? please visit: > http://members.nbci.com/siddharthakrishna/ > > > > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > For Temporary stoppage of your Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-nomail > > To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-normal > > To receive email digest (one per day) send a blank email to <advaitin-digest > > To to advaitin list, send a blank email to <advaitin-> > > > > ------------ Get FREE E-Mail http://www.valuemail.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 advaitin , "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna@v...> wrote: > I would like to start a new discussion about avataara-vaada in the view > of Shankaras Vedanta philosophy. > My question is that how can we prove that Shri Krishna is an avataara (as > said in the Purana's) of Vishnu and how can the theory of avataara-vaada (as > mentioned in the Purana's) be looked at from the Vedantic point of view. These are my humble thoughts on this subject. This is a difficult topic, so I hope there are no ambiguous statements on my part. If so, I will gladly clarify. MadhusUdana sarasvatI poses the following problem in explaining how Krishna as Ishvara can take births like jIvas, while commenting on the gItA verse 4.5 : bahUni me vyatItAni janmAni tava chArjuna | tAnyahaM veda sarvANi na tvaM vettha paraMtapa || 4.5|| The problem posed by MadhusUdana (and answered in the next verse) is this (gUDhArtha-dIpikA): jIvatve sArvajnya-anupapattir-Ishvaratve cha dehagrahaNa-anupa- pattiriti If Krishna is a jIva then He cannot be all-knowing like Ishvara. If Krishna is Ishvara, then He cannot accept bodies (avatAra's). If Krishna is considered to be Ishvara then He cannot take birth by accepting bodies. Why? sarvajnasya dharma-adharmArthabhAvena janmaiva-anupapannam.h. The all-knowing Ishvara cannot perform any karmas in accordance with dharma or against dharma- because all such karmas are due to ignorance (ajnAna). And due to the lack of such karmas, He, Ishvara cannot take birth because birth is only due to karmas. If Krishna is considered as a jIva, an ordinary self, then He can take birth by accepting different bodies but that proves He acts in ignorance and so He cannot be the all-knowing Ishvara. According to MadhusUdana, the solution (parihAra) to this puzzle is stated in the next verse of the gItA (4.6): ajo .api sannavyayAtmA bhUtAnAm-Ishvaro .api san.h | prakR^itiM svAmadhiShThAya saMbhavamyAtmamAyayA || MadhusUdana remarks here that by saying "ajo .api san.h", Krishna is refuting that He accepts a new body. By saying avyayAtmA, He is refuting that the body of His is destructible like others. By saying "bhUtAnAm-Ishvaro .api san.h", He is refuting that He is subject to dharma and adharma like all other beings from BrahmA down to a tuft of grass (dharma-adharma- vashatvaM nivArayati). How is this possible? prakR^itiM - mAyAkhyAM vichitra-anekashaktiM aghaTamAna-ghaTanA- paTIyasIM svAM svopAdhibhUtAm-adhiShThAya chidAbhAsena vashIkR^itya saMbhavAmi tatpariNAma-visheShaireva dehavAniva jAta iva cha bhavAmi | By bringing My prakR^iti called mAyA under control with chidAbhAsa, the mAyA which has many wonderful powers and is an expert in making incompatible things compatible, the mAyA which is My upAdhi (limiting adjunct), I take birth as it were, ie. I become possessed of a body as it were due to the "special effects" of My mAyA and I become born as it were. Ishvara is the controller of mAyA to be sure, for this is supported in the upaniShads. Brahman, which is sachchidAnanda svarUpa, becomes the Ruler of the world by having mAyA as Its limiting adjunct (upAdhi). This Ruler of the world is Ishvara. mAyAM tu prakR^itiM vidyAn.h mAyinaM tu maheshvaram.h, mAyA is material nature (prakriti), and the controller of mAyA is Maheshvara (God). (Sv. Up. 4.10) Krishna's (Ishvara's) body is not like the physical body (bhautika-sharIra) of the jIvas. Then what is it? It is made of anAdimAyA only which is, as MadhusUdana explains, vishuddha-sattvamaya, full of pure sattva, ie. sattva with not even a trace of rajas or tamas. Further, supporting this is the shruti statement: "AkAshasharIraM brahma" Brahman has AkAsha as Its body, where AkAsha , as per MadhusUdana, indicates the avyAkR^ita AkAsha (the elementary or un-transformed AkAsha), based on the statement "AkAsha eva tadotaM cha protaM cha", in AkAsha itself is That interwoven. The question next arises, as MadhusUdana puts it: tarhi bhautika-vigraha-abhAvAt-taddharma-manuShyatvAdi-pratItiH kathaM iti chet.h If the body of Ishvara is not a physical one, then how is it that there is cognized in it characteristics belonging to humans, etc? (Krishna's body appears to be human, the matsya- avatAra's body appears to be that of a fish, etc.) tatra Aha - AtmamAyayeti. In reply, Krishna says " Due to My mAyA." In the moxadharma section of the mahAbhArata, it is said: "mAyA hyeShA mayA sR^iShTA yanmAM pashyasi nArada | sarvabhUtaguNairyuktaM na tu mAM draShTumarhasi || " What you see as Me is My own created mAyA, O nArada! You are otherwise incapable of seeing Me (who have as the upAdhi, mAyA, the cause of) and has the qualities of all beings. As far as the "vishuddha-sattva-maya-sharIra" of Ishvara is concerned, there is a verse in the bhAgavata wherein Indra extols Krishna saying His body is vishuddha-sattva, dhvastarajastamaskaM, with no rajas or tamas, and this is indeed mAyamaya, full of mAyA. indra uvAcha vishuddhasattvaM tava dhAma shaantaM tapomayaM dhvastarajastamaskam.h | mAyAmayo .ayam guNasampravAho na vidyate te .agrahaNAnubandhaH || (10.27.4) After all this, a question may arise. Why is it that the nondual Brahman appears as Ishvara in the first place? Only after this question is answered, we can wonder how Ishvara undergoes avatAras as described in the purANas. The bhagavatpAda, in his commentary on the third chapter of shvetAshvatara upaniShad has explained well how the non-dual Brahman appears to be the Ruler of the worlds with the IshitrR^i-Ishitavya-bhAva. ya eko jAlavAnIshata IshanIbhiH sarvAn lokAnIshata IshanIbhiH | ya evaika udbhave sambhave ca ya etad viduramR^itAste bhavanti || (Sv. Up. 3.1) The nondual One, the possessor of mAyA, rules by means of His powers, rules all the worlds by His powers. He is verily alone when in possession of His divine powers, and when manifested. Those who know this become immortal. This mantra also refutes the view the world is not controlled by any intelligent power, but runs on its own. Further, Ishavara is only One, not many. eko hi rudro na dvitIyAya tasthu- rya imAn lokAnIshata IshanIbhiH | (Sv. Up. 3.2) Rudra (Ishvara) is indeed the one who rules these worlds by His divine powers. (Knowing this) they (the knowers of Brahman) did not wait for (a second deity). Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 Prabhuji, Hare Krishna My humble submission is as follows: Krishna is not an avatara. He is the full fledged Supreme Personality of Godhead. Please refer Bhagavad Gita ch 10 sloka 8 (aham sarvasya prabhavo) & ch 10 sloka 2 (aham adir hi devanam) as also ch 7 slokas 19 & 20. Regarding chanting, refer Bhagavad Gita ch 10 sloka 25 (yajnanam japa yajno 'smi) Hari Hari Hari Bol!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Shree Siddhanta Krishana wrote: >I would like to start a new discussion about avataara-vaada in the view >of Shankaras Vedanta philosophy. >My question is that how can we prove that Shri Krishna is an avataara (as >said in the Purana's) of Vishnu and how can the theory of avataara-vaada (as >mentioned in the Purana's) be looked at from the Vedantic point of view. Shree Anand gave a very enlightening discussion. I will provide my understanding of the concept. Avataara implies two aspects; 1. one is coming down and 2. taking something other than oneself that is like an actor taking a costume with the implication that the costume is needed for the play to be a play, at the same time the actor that is playing knows that he is acting through the costume. The second part is the same for a jiivanmukta as well as the Lord who descends. For jiivanmukta it is an ascending aspect since a jiiva transforms due to knowledge of the self as mukta - with the knowledge of 'aham brahma asmi'. From then on, there is no more a notion of jiiva-hood and what is there is only brahman since he knows he is brahman but playing through the limited equipments. Here the equipments and temporal knowledge as well as the skills that are now available to the jiivamukata are limited since they are inherited from the previous prarabda karma of that jiiva, who is now no more (are transcended or ascended - in contrast to decedence of avataara - to brahman status). The first part is different for avataara since he is decending from that Brahman status. The cause for descendance is different from jiiva who was propelled by his prarabda karma. In the case of avataara, there is no question of prarabda karma, that pulls him down but it is the samishhTi karma that brings avataara into manifestation - Hence Krishna's declaration - yadaa yadaa hi dharmsya glanirbhaviti bhaarata| abhusthaanm adharmasya taddaa aatmaanam sR^ijaamyaham|| paritraanaaya saadhuuNaam vinaashaaya ca dushhkR^itaama| dharmasamsthaapanaarthaaya sambhavaami yuge yuge|| Hence the avataaram manifests only when it is needed or demanded by the samishhTi vaasana - protection of the good and establishment of Dharma. Hence it is not propelled by not the desire of the Lord but desires of the devotees who need him. Since the motivating force is not the individual prarabda, and further since the totality can manifest in from that is required to accomplish the task with or without the total knowledge (Shree Krishana avataara in contrast to Shree Rama avataara), the avataaram can takes place. Personally I do not see a reason to invoke a transcendental matter etc for the avataara-s. Since at least according to advaita understanding, it is Brahman that is substratum for all and there is not truly any matter anyway. Of course from Bhakta point one can attribute qualities to the matter something different from the normal but that is again a perspective to invoke bhakti or reverence. Krishna's death is very well explained in the Mahabhaarat and his body followed natural laws that are part of the creation since he is playing a role within the creation. Is Krishna avataara or not - depends on ones perspective. Duryodhana did not think so, but those believed in him thought so. some believed Rama as avataara but there were obviously many who did not think he was. In principle everyone is an avataar. Some believe Shree Shankara bhagavat paada is an avataar of shankara. Shree Ramanuja is the avataara of addishesha. Shree Madhvacharya is an avataar of Shre Hanuman. Shree Ramakrishna and Shree Vivekananda are avataar-s Shree Mehar baaba was an avataar. Shree Satya Sai Baaba is an avataar. And Why not? Who is going to deny and who is going to prove. It is all questions of ones reverence of his teacher. A realized soul is indeed not only 'Brahman' but also knows now that he is Brahman. Hence we chant - Guru brahma, guru vishnu guru devo maheswara, guru saakshaat parabrahma tasmi shree gurave namaH|. Ultimately it is oneowns self playing all this multiple roles - everyone is indeed an avataara some realize the fact and others take time! Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Namaste, This quotation from Gurudeva Ranade's book on the Gita will complement the fine analysis by Sadaji: " Our View: Avatara as a descent of God's form before a devotee. We come,finally, to our own interpretation of Avatara. We give to the word Ava the meaning which its due, but at the same time give it a mysticcal interpretation. Avatara is the descent of God's form before the spiritual vision of the aspirant. Yaska has said in his definition of the word R^ishhi in his Nirukta : tat brahma svayambhuH etaan R^ishhiin tapasyamaanaan abhyaanarshhat tat R^ishhiiNaa.n R^ishhitvam.h . A R^ishhi is one who sees the form of God descending before his very eyes." Regards, s. advaitin , "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > Shree Siddhanta Krishana wrote: > In principle everyone is an avataar. Some believe Shree Shankara > bhagavat paada is an avataar of shankara. Shree Ramanuja is the > avataara of addishesha. Shree Madhvacharya is an avataar of Shre > Hanuman. Shree Ramakrishna and Shree Vivekananda are avataar-s > Shree Mehar baaba was an avataar. Shree Satya Sai Baaba is an > avataar. And Why not? Who is going to deny and who is going to > prove. It is all questions of ones reverence of his teacher. A > realized soul is indeed not only 'Brahman' but also knows now that > he is Brahman. Hence we chant - Guru brahma, guru vishnu guru devo > maheswara, guru saakshaat parabrahma tasmi shree gurave namaH|. > > Ultimately it is oneowns self playing all this multiple roles - > everyone is indeed an avataara some realize the fact and others take > time! > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 ---------------------- > > In principle everyone is an avataar ---------------------- May this principle sink into all of us and let us put this to practice. ---------------------- PURUSHA EVA IDAGUM SARVAM ---------------------- AHAM BRAHMAASMI ---------------------- OM TAT SAT ---------------------- Get email at your own domain with Mail. http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 For the realized soul,Sri Krishna is every one,who is only ONE but appears as many.All around is Krishna.Inside and outside us is Krishna.Our bodies and indriyas and minds are all Krishna and Krishna only! Manasa,Vachasa Drishtya Grihyatainyairapeendriyai Aham Eva Na matto anya iti Buddhyaadhwamanjasah So Says Lord Sri Krishna-Whatever you are feeling by your mind,mouth,eyes and all other Indriyaas is only ME! Do not think anything else (or anyone else ) is here.Realize this Truth by your wisdom.--------This is the REAL Viswaroopam of the Lord Sri Krishna who is ever present with us and in us! Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan wrote: ---------------------- > > In principle everyone is an avataar ---------------------- May this principle sink into all of us and let us put this to practice. ---------------------- PURUSHA EVA IDAGUM SARVAM ---------------------- AHAM BRAHMAASMI ---------------------- OM TAT SAT ---------------------- Get email at your own domain with Mail. http://personal.mail./ eGroups Sponsor Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ For Temporary stoppage of your Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-nomail > To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-normal > To receive email digest (one per day) send a blank email to <advaitin-digest > To to advaitin list, send a blank email to <advaitin-> Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Namaste: Anandji's and Sadaji explanations comprehensively answer the questions raised by as usual has answered the questions raised by Shree Siddhanta Krishana. In particular, Sadaji quotation of Gita Verses (chapter 4, verses 7 & 8) is quite concise in nailing down the Vedantic view. I couldn't control my temptation to add some additional observations using these verses on the basis of my understanding: Let me restate those verses with the translation before I begin the discussion. Gita Chapter 4: Verses 7 & 8 yadaa yadaa hi dharmsya glanirbhaviti bhaarata| abhusthaanm adharmasya taddaa aatmaanam sR^ijaamyaham|| paritraanaaya saadhuuNaam vinaashaaya ca dushhkR^itaama| dharmasamsthaapanaarthaaya sambhavaami yuge yuge|| Whenever theres is a decline of Dharma (righteousness) and rise of of Adharma (unrighteousness), O Bharata, then I stage my Avatar (incarnate). The purpose of my Avatar at any time is always to protect the good, destroy the wicked and to reestablish Dharma. Lord Krishna ascertains that there is no fixed period of time for His manifestation. Consequently we cannot be positively asserted that He will manifest Himself in a particular Yuga or age, in a particular year and month, and on a particular date or any particular form. Nor is there any rule to show how many times, and in how many forms, will the Lord appear in a particular Yuga. This fact is evident from the fact that the word `Yada' has been used twice in verse 7. The intention is to show that the Lord manifests Himself whenever He feels it necessary to do so in view of the decline of virtue and preponderance of vice. God alone can determine the threshold to judge the decline of virtue and preponderance of vice like. When the vice dominates over the virtue He decides to manifest Himself. We have neither the authority nor the means to judge it correctly. But it is possible for us to hypothesize on the basis of known Avatars of Vishnu (and also Shiva) that His presence become inevitable when the wicked gets strong and oppress the devotees of God, innocent, weak and helpless people. When the tyranny and injustice of the strong and wicked over saintly and virtuous souls continues, His presence become eminent. For instance, during the Satyayuga, when Hiranyakasipu ruled over the world, vice and immorality prevailed; innocent men were tyrannized over and people were forced to abandon all forms of spiritual practice like meditation, Japa, austerities, worship, recital of sacred texts, performance of sacrifices, charity etc. The gods were cudgeled out of their abodes in heaven and were driven from pillar to post like flocks of sheep. A devotee like Prahlada was subjected to various forms of persecution. That was the moment when God suddenly appeared as a man-lion and rescuing Prahlada from the grip of his tyrannical father, established virtue and righteousness on a solid foundation. In Mahabharat when Draupadi was disrobed by Dhuchadanan (Dhryodhana's brother) Lord Krishna appeared to rescue her. All Puranic stories illustrate the same using heroic stories to illustrate that the righteousness will prevail at all times. The word `Sadhunam' in verse 8 stands for those who observe the rules of law which includes observance of non-violence, truth, non-thieving, continence, etc, which have a universal application. All citizens duly perform duties pertaining to their order in society and stage in life, such as the performance of sacrifices, charity and austerities, teaching and governance of the people, etc. All human beings are naturally disposed to do good to others, who are the infinite repositories of all forms of virtue, and the very embodiments of right conduct and are by nature devotees of God, given to the devout practices of hearing, chanting and remembrance of God's name; form, virtues, glory and sports, etc. Being virtuous is a necessary condition and everyone has the responsibility to obey the Law of God in order to get His protection from the wicked. The word `Duskrtam' stands for the antithesis of a `Sadhu' as described above. It refers to wicked men possessing a demoniac disposition, who persecute innocent and virtuous men and devotees of God, are repositories of vices like lying, hypocrisy, theft, adultery etc, who are unbelievers by nature, and are engaged in amassing wealth by objectionable methods, and with whom it has become a habit to wage war against God and the Vedas and other scriptures. And "destruction of evil-doers" means chastising such wicked and evil-minded people with a view to freeing them from the clutches of evil and sin, and depriving them of their body by means of war or any other expedient, directly or through the instrumentality of other beings. Here it may be asked: Why does God, who is extremely compassionate, find it necessary to punish and chastise these wicked men instead of reforming their character through persuasion and remonstrance? Our problem is our ignorance of the true meaning of compassion. It should never be imagined that punishment by God involves the least relaxation of His compassion. When an abscess is formed in a particular limb of a child, its parents attempt, in the first instance, to suppress it by the use of some medicine; but when it is found that no medicine will avail in its case and that the least delay will cause the poison to spread to other parts as well, they immediately get the abscess opened and will not hesitate even to have the limb amputated, if necessary, in the interests of the other limbs. Similarly, the Lord tries to reform the wicked, first by persuasion and instruction, according to the policy of conciliation, as He did in the case of Duryodhana, and then even by threat of punishment. But when He finds that such instruction and threat do not avail, and their wickedness is gradually assuming proportions, He, in the last resort, takes recourse to punishment, or even causes them to be killed, as a method of expiation of their sins. Those among the wicked, whose stock of past Karma has beer. good, but whose conduct in the current life has become vicious due to some special cause or association with evil, He liberates by inflicting the penalty of death by His own hands. All these actions of the Lord are nothing but expressions of His extreme compassion. Now coming back to the thoughtful statement by Sri Sadanandaji: "Everyone is indeed an avataara some realize the fact and some don't." Let me narrate story relating to His avataara: Once upon a time, Gangaram, a great devotee of the Lord was trying to cross the river Ganges in a boat. At that time, Ganges was overflowing and there was heavy wind and the boat operator, Muni suggested Gangaram to postpone the trip for a few days. Gangaram insisted Muni that he is a great devotee and the Lord will protect him. Muni reluctantly agree to sail but he put on lifeguard and requested Gangaram to do the same. Gangaram once again refused to obey Muni and told him that "the Lord will protect him." Muni once again asked Gangaram whether he knows swimming? Gangaram again insisted that "the Lord will protect him." As feared by Muni, the boat capsized and both fell from the boat. As a last resort, Muni suggested Gangaram to hold him tightly until they reach safely to the shore. But Gangaram again refused and said: "the Lord will protect him." Gangaram was swept by the currents of Ganges and drowned. When Gangaram reached the heaven, he directly went to the Lord and asked Him: O Lord, I am a great devotee of yours and I was seeking your help all the time and you never came to rescue me, why? The Lord replied: I came to rescue to you four times and you never agree to take my help! Gangaram asked: What do you mean my Lord, I never saw you, how did that happen? The Lord replied: I came as the Muni to stop you crossing the river, I offered you the lifeguard, and finally I asked you hold my hand . You refused all my help! That is why you are here! The moral of this story is quite clear. The avataara of Lord happens in all forms through all means and those recognize are able to take His help and others fails like Gangaram. When we seek the help of Lord and when we get the help through someone, His presence is revealed. It is also true, when we see someone gets punished for the wrongdoing, we should recognize His presence. In reality, the question of avataara is irrelevant for Advaita Philosophy; because He is everpresent and neither bounded by space nor by the time! regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: >......... > Ultimately it is oneowns self playing all this multiple roles - > everyone is indeed an avataara some realize the fact and > others take time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2001 Report Share Posted April 6, 2001 Bhaskara ji wrote: > It is true that one can listen to many sources of information before really surrendering oneself unto the Lotus Feet of a bona fide Spiritual Master. By bona fide, i mean, a Spiritual Master Who has been authorized by His own Spiritual Master in a disciplic succession. Otherwise there will be every chance of getting misguided by quake masters. However, Upanishads give the authority only to a person who has studied the Vedas and has realized the truths in his own life, i.e. a Jnani. Bhagvan Shri Krishna himself states this in the end of the fourth chapter (Gita). >>>>>>Even Srila Prabhupada says that the research for the right path and guru is OK as long as you haven't found one, but after attaining your path, further research is only for sense pleasure. Am I wrong Prabhuji?? pls. correct me. I think, research starts on the day a person is born and ends with his death. However, saying that research ends after attaining your path, doesn't seem correct even from a Vaishnava point of view. A person studies Brahma Sutra from a qualified master, and Brahma Sutra starts with "athaato brahma jijnAsA". Here we start an inquiry in to Brahman, i.e. Krishna. But, indeed, the research shouldn't be for sensual pleasure or uplifting one's ego, but due to true thirst of knowledge. That's how I would like to put it. To be explicit, real research starts after finding a Guru. Isn't it so? > Prabhuji, It is not the question of winning/losing. The Absolute truth hardly affects by our futile discussions. Isn't prabhuji? Indeed. >>>>>>>>However, your mail is interesting enough, but you still have ignored a point, which is of the most vital, that Krishna places himself (his worldly form) among all other Vibhutis. Do you have anything to say about that? > Prabhuji, just i didn't get you!! could you please elaborate this. What I mean here is that Krishna has listed himself (his worldly form born in YaduVamsha) among his other Vibhutis, "vrishninaam vaasudevo'smi". He is in his state of Realization and is identifying himself with the Supreme, as every other Rishi has done, and then being in that transcendental state, he even lists the Krishna, born in Mathura, among his Vibhutis. > I have heard a lot about this great Krish bhakta with advaita back ground. Prabhuji, where can i get a translated version (english) of his work *advaita siddhi* Sorry, but I really don't know. But I doubt somebody would have dared to write a translation on it. It is one among the most difficult three books of Advaita Vedanta, the other two are Khandana-khanda-khadya by Shri Harsha and Tattvapradipika or Chit-sukhi by Chitsukhacharya. It is only the last one and the easiest among these three, but tougher than any other Vedanta philosophical book. > Does this list not include Itihasa & purana also??? No, not in the case of Shankara. > But stalwarts like Sri Ramanuja, Sri madhva draws heavily from Itihasa / puranas to proove their view point prabhuji. What is your opinion?? I know they do, but not Shankara. However, Purana's really become more and more problematic, if a person starts to learn the Vedas. And my experience had been that a person turns up saying, "most of the Puranas have been written due to ignorance of the correct meaning of the Vedas, even verbal meaning". However, I disagree with it, but still would say that those books have to be understood in their true significance, and we shouldn't be overwhelmed by their stories, we should try to seek a higher truth in them, which the Author has tried to convey in that way. I'm reading Bhagavatam and I think, Shankara's Advaita Vedanta becomes the most explicit in it. But, the true significance seems only to come out, when it is seen in the light of the Upanishads and the Vedas. And I think, it was that light, in which those books were written. However, they are not accepted as a Pramana. But, they indeed help a person in his spiritual quest. Regarding Bhagavatam, it is a Paramahamsi Samhita, and only fit for Paramahamsa, those who are really well-versed in the Upanishads, other people lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation, which destroys the soul of that Great Book. > While talking to Sri Vidya shankar of Adv. List, once he told me that Parashara's work Sri Vishnu Purana is much older than Srimad Bhagavatam. He think that Srimad Bhagavatam is probably a 10th Century Work from other Vyasa. In continuation he said, That purANas are all said to be vyAsa's works is said by way of upacAra, for the sake of praise of these texts. The word vyAsa means "editor", and if you read the texts, it should be easy to make out that there is no one single author of all of them. Vishnu Purana is no doubt very old, as it found to be quoted very early. Is this right to conclude like this prabhuji?? Vedavyasa/krishnadvaipayana has not written the 18 puranas then?? I personally would fully agree with Vidya Shankar ji. But I would just like to ask something, is it the author who should be counted or the content. Who ever wrote it, the content of Bhagavatam is very high and it is indeed a very great book, and a very practical explanation of the Vedic truths. Whoever wrote it, it was written by a great self-realized saint, and when once a person has self-realized, he is no more inferior to an other self-realized saint. So, even if it is not a book by Vyasa, the author of it is as great as Vyasa, that is a fact. >Now here are some quotes to substatiate the supremacy of the Srimad Bhagavatam as the highest literature among the Vedic Scriptures. Actually, all of Them ( 18 puranas) are equally important, but the Bhagavatam is the essence of all the vedic Scriptures. However, its understanding/interpretation also should be in the alignment of the Vedic scriptures, which most of its commentator don't do. They don't try to understand the Bhagavatam in the light of the Upanishads. If a person understands it in that light, the book is indeed the essence of all the vedic Scriptures. >>>>>>>Bhashyam brahma-sutranam vedartha paribrmhitam (i don$BZX(B know the origin). In the Srimad-Bhagavatam 12.13.15 it is said; Sarva-vedanta saram hi Srimad-bhagavatam isyate Tad-rasamrta-trptasya Nanyatra syad ratih kvacit Therefore, it should be understood in accordance of the Great Scriptures called Upanishads, and not by merely speculative interpretations, as most of them are. I have looked at different 11 commentaries on ShriBhagavatam, but non of them really quotes Upanishad Mantras, to prove the Bhagavata. Even the first shloka in not the least interpreted in accordance of the Upanishads, but by speculative systems, which are nowhere visible in any Vedic book. >>>>>It is the expansion of the Gayatri mantra and the essence of all Vedic knowledge. This Srimad Bhagavatam, containing 18000 verses, is known as the explanation of all Vedic literature.? When I do Bhagavat Kathaa, my prime focus is to interpret the first shloka, janmaadyasya yatah etc., in accordance with Gayatri Mantra. Thank you for the valuable quotation. I would quote it always in my katha and remember you. Please accept my adoration. >>>>>>> In Srimad Bhagavatam 1.4.20, where Srila Vyasadeva explains His attempts in compiling Vedic knowledge, says; Rg-yajuh-samatharvakhya Vedas catvara uddhrtah Itihasa-puranam ca Pancamo veda ucyate But, I just simply don't understand, why people don't try to understand it in the light of the Upanishads. Why do they want to understand it in the light of their own speculation? >>>>I request you to read Srila Prabhupada's Srimad Bhagavatam. In continuation to his introduction to bhagavatam, he says that Sripada Shankaracarya did not purposely comment on the Bhagavatam because He knew He cannot overcome the natural commentary of the Bhagavatam. This is not my whimsical claim prabhuji, This is disclosed in the Padma Purana by Lord Shiva, who appears as Shankaracarya in the Kali yuga. I know, this has also been many times quoted by Jiva Goswami in his Tattva Sandarbha. He also tells that Shankara was fearing Shri Krishna, that Shri Krishna may become angry if he, i.e. Shankara, makes Bhagavatam, which is the body of the Lord, dirty with his dirty philosophy of Mayavada. Therefore, he misinterpreted the Vedas, the Gita and the Brahma-sutra, but didn't do the same with Bhagavatam. However, these type of statement would seem ridiculous to every scholar, may it be a scholar who admires shankara or dislikes him. Even Prabhupada didn't admire this portion of Jiva-goswami, therefore, he didn't considered/included it in his introduction to Bhagavatam. However, let me tell you that according to Jiva Goswami in his Tattvasandarbha, bhaagavatam should be interpreted in accordance to Shandilya's Pancharatra, and then Upanishads should be interpreted in accordance to that sort of interpretation of Bhagavatam. Let me tell you, that Shandilya's Pancharatra has been highly condemned by Shankara, for holding Veda-opposing views. How fair it would be to interpret the Vedas, in accordance to a philosophy which is opposing them? > Prabhuji I request you to understand that it's not vaishnavas who try to give finite attributes to God, it is the advaitins who say that He does not have form, He does not have Name, and finally make Him absolutely zero, just like how the Buddhists do. Sorry, for disagreeing with you. But this is just an utter misunderstanding of advaitins. They attribute everything to God, and finally free him from them. This is the supreme Vedic philosophy and becomes very very clear by a contemplation in to Atharva Veda's Prashnopanishad, 6th Prashna, where first the 16 Kalas have been attributed to the Supreme Purusha, and then in the end it has been said, "in fact, he is devoid of them". However, buddhists make it zero, but advaitins make it "one". ekamevaadvitiyam, say the Vedas very clearly in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and many times elsewhere. >>>>>>We say, if we have form, and everything emanates from the Lord, as the Vedanta sutra says, janmadya asya yathah, then the Lord must have a form too. One thing is clear, that we all emanate from a state of formlessness and then immerge in to a state of formlessness, this is a supreme truth and even Mahabharata declares it, "we have fallen from formlessness, we would again vanish, therefore you are not his and he is not yours, then what is there to grieve about". >>>>Why are we limiting Him by saying that He does not have a form? I would like to ask this question to you, why are you limiting Him by saying that He has a form? I think, formless sky is rather unlimited, than a pot, which has a form. It is form which limits something. This is very clearly described in Chandogya Upanishad, in the context of Uddalaka and Shwetaketu. >>>>>>>>According to scriptures, He has all - the personal, localized and all-pervading features, just as i'd quoted the verse, brahmaneti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate. Making Him nameless is restricting Him. Saying that He has millions and millions of Names according to His dealings with His millions and zillions of devotees is not limiting Him. Millions-zillions are limits. His dealings would have a limit. His names would have a limit. Please try to see it from a scientific and realistic point of view. If you say he has endless names, it is because your mind can not trace its end, but they are words and every word is a form and a form has to have an end. If our mind can not trace it in this way, we are allowed to apply logic and logic allows to conclude this. >>>>But we still cannot equate the demigods with the Supreme. Indeed not, they are just different manifestation if Him. >>>>>>yanti deva-vrata devan pitrn yanti pitr-vratah bhutani yanti bhutejya yanti mad yajino pi mam >>>>>>Those who worship other demigods take birth in the planets of the demigods, those worhipping the ancestors are born in Pitrlokas, those who worship ghosts and hobglobins take birth among such abominable species and those who worship the Supreme Lord Hari go to live with Him. This shloka has a very different meaning, if seen in accordance to the Upanishads and Vedas. However, to write it down for now, would be a long task. If you are interested, I may write it down for you and send it as an extra mail to you. >>>>>One has to come to the platform of a true Vaishnava, to be able to achieve the highest benefit of being transferred to Goloka Vrndavana, the abode of the all-attractive Personality of Godhead, Sri Krsna. A supreme abode having that name is nowhere mentioned in the Vedas or any other authoritative scripture, I even doubt that something like that is mentioned in the Bhagavatam, at least till now I can't remember. Please enlighten me if you can find it. >>> > Dear Prabhuji, Please refer kalishantarana upanishad wherein it is clearly mentioned in kaliyuga Sankritan is the easiest way to achieve transcedental state. I have read it. I would just like to tell you that it is not among the authoritative Upanishads and is also not a part of any VedaSamhita, Brahmana or Aranyaka, the only three forms of the Vedas. The 10 Upanishads, which have been commented by Shri Shankaracharya are the only Upanishads, which one can find in the existing books of the four Vedas. >>>>>>The ultimate source of acquiring Absolute Knowledge, is not by mental speculation, or performance of sacrifices, or by fruitive activities. That is also what Shankaracharya says and Shankara's philosophy is not based on mental speculation, it is based on the Vedas. And Vedas are based on direct visions/experiences of our great saints. >>>>>In the age of Kali, the process recommended is sankirtana. krte yad dhyayatho vishnum tretayam yajato makhaih dvapare paricharyayam kalau tad hari kirtanat "Whatever results where obtained by meditating on the Personality of Lord Vishnu in Satya yuga, or by performing elaborate sacrifices in Treta yuga, I disagree with that statement. The oldest books, called Vedas tell how to perform sacrifices. Those are the oldest documents from the Sat Yuga (Kirta Yuga), if one accepts this concept of Yugas. There was nothing existing before the Vedas, as Vedas were existing even before the first Human appeared on this earth. Therefore, this statement has a fundamental error. >>>>> I had to delete some very valid quotes from you due to space contraints. But ultimately what I could gather from your quotes is that you are trying to convey that Sri Krishna is impersonal brahman. But prabhuji in Harivamsha Charite Krsna says " Even Nirguna Brahman's illumination (Nirakara jyoti) which illuminates Loukika & Adhyatmika worlds eminates from him i.e. personified form of Sri Krishna. That is again a statement against the Vedas, and therefore it can be called a speculation of the author, whoever may it be. > Moreover, Krishna says in BG : Mamivamsho jeevaloke jeevabhutah sanatanaha - This amsha you mean to say Poorna. If it is poorna in real nature Y krishna addresses it Amsha then?? It is like an amsha of ether (akasha), limited by a pot. But, when the pot is broken, the amsha just becomes one with the poorna akaasha. Therefore, it was the pot, who limited it for a while, and as it was for a while, it was not true, because if it would have been true, it should have remained even after the pot has been broken. Therefore, even then poorna was its real nature. A statement of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (shukla yajurveda), Om purnamadah purnamidam etc. makes this view very clear and in fact, again, this view is not a view of Shankaracharya, but of the Upanishads. > Here *I* represents jeevatma/jeeva there is a clear definition in Shwetashwatara Up. (5.9) about size and form of jeevatma (balaagra shatabhagascha...) Look at the later part of the Mantra, "he is fit for aanantya, endlessness". This Shruti just tries to show how small it can be, it wants to say that it is even smaller than the smaller particle, you may call it atom. But it exists even in an atom. The atom's nucleus contains a power in it, atman is supreme power. Atman is the nucleus of the entire universe. However, the shruti you have quoted has to be seen from a point of view as mentioned in this shruti, "he is the smallest and he is the biggest", anoraniyan mahato mahiyaan aatmaasya jantor nihito guhaayam. i.e. "The Atman, which is existing in this body, is the smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest." > In Mundakopanishad (1-1-9) & (2-1-7) also we could find something of this order : (1-1-9) Yah Sarvagnah sarvavidyasya Gnanamayam tapa.h! tasmadetadbrahma nama rupamannam cha jayate!! & (2-1-7) Tasmacha deva bahudha samprasutaa.h saadhya manushyaa.h pashavo vayamse! praanaapaanau vreeheyantau tapascha shradda satyam brahmacharyam vidhischa!! Would you kindly state what you would like to conclude from them? Your humble servant Siddhartha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.