Narayaneeyam

[Guest guest]

dear krisha_susarla -

 

hare krishna. please accept my humble obeisances. all glories to sri

guru and sri govinda.

 

during the course of a discussion, there was a mention that

narayaneeyam talks about the lord being of material nature. legend

has it that narayaneeyam is approved by the lord himself. there was

one verse that is interpreted as you said by a translator.

i "misinterpreted"/ "corrected" it due to my "wishful thinking".

Hope you enjoy it.

 

 

sattvam yattat parAbhyAm aparikalanatho nirmalam tena

bhutair bhutendriyaiste vapur iti bahu sahsruyate vyasa vakyam

 

sat - absolute truth; tvam - you; yat - proceed;tat - to

descend;parabhyam - beyond matter; aparikalanatho -

defectless;nirmalam -pure;tena - about you;

tavad - in such a number;bhutair - living entities;

bhutendriyaiste - with their bodies; vapur - the seed; iti - all

these; bahu - many; sah - he; sruyate - says; vyasavakyam - the

Vedas (words of Vyasa);

 

 

Oh! You the absolute truth beyond all illusion proceed to descend

without defects and are completely pure. Abaout you Vyasa says, "He

is the seed of all these many living entities and their bodies". Oh

the archa vigraha!who is full of consciousness and bliss, the

forunate relish your service. You are full of mellows to see and

hear.

 

your servant

rajaram v.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> during the course of a discussion, there was a mention that

> narayaneeyam talks about the lord being of material nature.

 

If you could point me in the direction of where that discussion was

mentioned, I would appreciate it. I don't recall saying any such

thing myself, and I looked through the archives to see also. Perhaps

you could provide a URL.

 

legend

> has it that narayaneeyam is approved by the lord himself.

 

There are many such legends about many poetic works. Popular myths

are not proof of anything in and of themselves.

 

there was

> one verse that is interpreted as you said by a translator.

 

I don't recall saying such a thing. Again, perhaps you could point me

to the message (in our archives) in which I brought this up.

 

I myself do not believe I made any such claim about Naaraayaneeyam.

 

> i "misinterpreted"/ "corrected" it due to my "wishful thinking".

> Hope you enjoy it.

 

I'm still waiting for your answer to our questions regarding your

views on Shankara. Specifically, your thoughts on his gita commentary

2.12, the identity of that mysterious "other" mayavadi commentator

whom Lord Chaitanya supposedly meant when He condemned the mayavadi

commentary, your evidence that Shankara accepts transcendental

personalism in any of his philosophical writings, etc.

 

yours,

 

K