arca-murti

[Guest guest]

In the story of Saksi-gopala, the Deity talks, walks and interacts with His

devotees. In fact, the young brahmana uses the logic of his being able to

converse with the Lord as proof (which the Lord accepts) of his being not a

statue but "directly the son of Maharaja Nanda..." (CCMadhya 5.97)

 

Prahupada purports in the commentary to the next verse 5.98:

 

"The conversation between Lord Sri Krsna and the brahmana is proof that the Lord

in His arca-murti, or form made of material elements, is not material, for those

elements, although separated from the Lord, are also a part of the Lord's

energy, as stated in BG. Because the elements are the Lord's own energy, and

because there is no difference between the energy and energetic, the Lord can

appear through any element. Just as the sun can act through the sunshine and

thus distribute its light and heat, so Krsna, by His inconceivable power, can

appear in His original spiritual form in any material element, including stone,

wood, paint, gold, silver and jewels, because the material elements are all His

energy. The sastras warn, arcye visnau sila-dhih: one should never think of the

arca-murti, the Deity within the temple, as stone, wood or any other material

element...the younger brahmana knew that although the Deity of Gopala appeared

to be stone, He was not stone. He was the son of Nanda Maharaja,

Vrajendra-nandana Himself.

 

"As such, the Deity can act exactly as the Lord did in His original form as

Krsna. Lord Krsna was talking the young brahmana just to test his knowledge

about the arca-vigraha. In other words, those who have understood the science of

Krsna--Krsna's name, form, quality and so forth--can also talk to the Deity. To

an ordinary person, however, the Deity will appear to be made of stone, wood or

some other material. In the higher sense, since all material elements ultimately

emanate the supreme spiritual entity, nothing is really material. Being

omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, Krsna can deal with His devotees in any

form without difficulty. By the mercy of the Lord, the devotee knows perfectly

well about the Lord's dealings. Indeed, he can talk face to face with the Lord."

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "rupavi" <rupavi@n...> wrote:

> In the story of Saksi-gopala, the Deity talks, walks and interacts

>with His devotees. In fact, the young brahmana uses the logic of his

>being able to converse with the Lord as proof (which the Lord

>accepts) of his being not a statue but "directly the son of Maharaja

>Nanda..." (CCMadhya 5.97)

 

Bhagavan is well present in the arca, that is why arca is installed

in the first place. To give easy access to Bhagavat. I am trying to

find a quote from a pancartra text which talks about how God becomes

present within a man made arca. That i think will resolve the matter.

And being a quote from mainstream scripture it will be more

authoritative than CC.

 

> Prahupada purports in the commentary to the next verse 5.98:

>

> "The conversation between Lord Sri Krsna and the brahmana is proof

>that the Lord in His arca-murti, or form made of material elements,

>is not material, for those elements, although separated from the

>Lord, are also a part of the Lord's energy, as stated in BG. Because

>the elements are the Lord's own energy, and because there is no

>difference between the energy and energetic, the Lord can appear

>through any element.

 

This is incorrect. There is both difference and non difference

between energy and energetic. If there was only identity, then why

call gaudiya philosophy achintya **"bheda"** abheda. Why not simply

call it achintya abheda ? Saying that Lord can appear through any

element because there is no difference between Him and any of these

elements is wrong. The distinctions between Soul, matter, God are

eternal and immutable. God is different from all other kinds of

ontological realities.

 

 

>Just as the sun can act through the sunshine

>and thus distribute its light and heat, so Krsna, by His

>inconceivable power, can appear in His original spiritual form in

>any material element, including stone, wood, paint, gold, silver and

>jewels, because the material elements are all His energy.

 

I am not disagreeing with the fact that Krishna can appear **in** any

entity in His original spiritual form. But what i don't agree with is

that Krishna becomes absolutely identical with the deity. SP says

above that Krishna can appear **in** any element. That is not

trouble. But if anyone says that the material element becomes

absolutely identical to krishna then that is wrong, unacceptable.

 

>sastras warn, arcye visnau sila-dhih: one should never think of the

>arca-murti, the Deity within the temple, as stone, wood or any other

>material element...

 

Yes one shouldn't consider them ordinary because Lord Krishna is

present in them in His corresponding form. And they are not ordinary

then.Remember when Bhagavan manifested in Vasudeva and devaki, they

weren't same as before. Status of anything can be elevated by

manifestation of bhagavan in it. In my other post i wrote:

 

"Therefore one should never think arca to be identical with bhagavan,

who only manifests His form within arca in response to love call of a

devotee and in doing so elevates the status of that arca."

 

>the younger brahmana knew that although the Deity of Gopala appeared

>to be stone, He was not stone. He was the son of Nanda Maharaja,

>Vrajendra-nandana Himself.

 

Remember identity cuts both ways. The condition/status of prakrtic

object shall be enhanced but the status of brahman will come down. I

am sure you are aware of this that the chief reason why in vedanta

God is called different from material elements even though they are

His energy, is if he were identical with them all the defects

corresponding to them will become his own defects too. This is one

objection Srila Jiva Goswami raises against Svabhavika bheda abheda

the philosophy preached by Sri Nimbarkacarya in Savra Samvadini.

 

> "As such, the Deity can act exactly as the Lord did in His original

>form as Krsna. Lord Krsna was talking the young brahmana just to

>test his knowledge about the arca-vigraha. In other words, those who

>have understood the science of Krsna--Krsna's name, form, quality

>and so forth--can also talk to the Deity. To an ordinary person,

>however, the Deity will appear to be made of stone, wood or some

>other material.

 

Well all these points will be resolved if i can get hold of that text

from pancartra. I believe it is in Satavata Samhita.

 

 

>In the higher sense, since all material elements ultimately emanate

>the supreme spiritual entity, nothing is really material.

 

This is clearly wrong from point of view of Vedanta which treats

Brahman, jiva and maya as ontologically different entities.

 

While referring to these three entities Vedanta never uses any lower

or higher sense or points of view.

 

One thing let me point out. I am not against deity worship. Neither

Madhvacarya whose opinion i am following in this case was against

deity worship. Instead he installed the murti of bala krishna in

udupi. But i don't agree with accepting absolute identity of arca

with sat chit ananda bhagavat murti. thats my only point.

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

I am trying to find a quote from a pancartra text which talks about how God

becomes present within a man made arca. That i think will resolve the matter.

And being a quote from mainstream scripture it will be more

authoritative than CC.

 

>> Maybe, a better term than 'authoritative' is 'generally acceptable'. CC is

the Supreme authority for not just Gaudiyas for everyone, because it talks about

the most lofty topics. Others haven't realized it, Gaudiyas have.

 

This is incorrect. There is both difference and non difference between energy

and energetic. If there was only identity, then why call gaudiya philosophy

achintya **"bheda"** abheda. Why not simply call it achintya abheda ? Saying

that Lord can appear through any

element because there is no difference between Him and any of these elements is

wrong. The distinctions between Soul, matter, God are eternal and immutable. God

is different from all other kinds of ontological realities.

 

>> I think Srila Prabhupada emphasizing the non-difference aspect of the

philosophy does not disprove/contradict ABA. Also, if Krishna chooses to

spiritualize a material object, where is the question of difference between Him

and His energy. That difference exists only for a person in material

consciousness or if Krishna wills it. For a pure devotee, there is no question

of difference between the arca-vigraha and Krishna, because Krishna has chosen

to appear through His material energy - that's His choice.

 

Also, you put forward an argument about tying the arca form with a rope and that

anyone could do it - but, how do we know Krishna didn't will that to happen -

don't we say that behind every action there is Krishna's will. Or, put in other

way, even if a person desires to tie the arca form, it is Krishna Who sanctions

the desire. Without His sanction, there is no question anyone doing anything.

 

The distinctions between Krishna, matter and soul are eternal, but still the

Person who makes the ultimate choices is Krishna - if He wills, the distinctions

can disappear.

 

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

 

in your service,

 

Aravind.

 

 

 

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

 

> >> Maybe, a better term than 'authoritative' is 'generally

acceptable'. CC is the Supreme authority for not just Gaudiyas for

everyone, because it talks about the most lofty topics. Others

haven't realized it, Gaudiyas have.

>

 

Thank you for pointing this out. Of course, every sampradaaya will

say the same about their particular scriptures (Divya-Prabandham for

Sri Vaishnavas, etc), but CC should still be acceptable if the

discussion is in regards to what the Gaudiiya view is. However, I do

not think that is where Sumeet is going with this one.

 

I would point out to Sumeet that the chances of finding a "generally

acceptable" source which spells the matter out clearly are minimal at

best. Think about it. Is it likely that you will find a canonical

reference saying that the archa-vigraha is the Lord Himself when

maadhva scholars have held the opposite for centuries? Similarly, it

is unlikely that you will find a source which spells out the

difference between the Lord and His archa-vigraha, because belief in

the sameness is unlikely to be assumed of the audience, and because

such a find would mean that the Sri Vaishnavas and Gaudiiyas have

somehow neglected it despite their respective scholarly researches

into the matter!

 

It is more likely that whatever source you find that discusses the

matter, will simply be regarded by one or more parties as "bogus"

or "interpolated," depending on what they stand to lose from its

alleged authenticity. For example, I have recently become aware that

some maadhvas consider the 108 Principle Upanishads described in the

Muktika Upanishad (which includes Krishna Upanishad, Gopaala-taapanii

Upanishad, etc) as "bogus" scriptures composed in relatively recent

times by Advaitins. So, be prepared for these kinds of irrational and

arbitrary pronouncements by people who just want to save face.

 

As an aside, Sumeet, I want to point out that many views of Madhva

are likely to appeal to you because of the fairly straightforward

logic upon which they are based. This is probably their greatest

strength, as well as their greatest weakness. Gaudiiyas do not

dispense with logic, but they recognize that at some level, it fails

to fully account for the Lord's fantastic abilities which supersede

our minimal mental faculties.

 

Sure, the archa-vigraha appears to be made of material elements, and

sure, we know that statues made of material elements can be harmed,

are not permanent, etc. Thus, we can infer with fairly

straightforward "logic" that statues of Krishna are also material and

thus not the same as Krishna Himself. But what exactly is "material?"

The external potency, being one of the Lord's energies, is eternal.

And since it is one of His energies, it is only reasonable to call

into question the distinction between "spiritual" and "material"

energy. At the most basic level, there is little difference. The

difference is in how they are used.

 

You could then argue that it is the forms created by the material

energy which are temporary (such as archa-vigrahas). Thus, the fact

that stone statues can be harmed (rather than the fact that they are

apparently made from material energy) which shows that they are

material, and thus the Deity form is not Krishna. But, why stop

there? Even Krishna's body was harmed by a hapless hunter according

to the Bhaagavatam. By the same logic you just used, Krishna is not

only not His form, His form is also material!

 

Using this "logic," I could similarly take issue with many other

stories from the Bhaagavatam, on the grounds that they depict

apparently "materialistic" activities of Lord Krishna, contradict

principles delineated in shruti, and are thus fit to be rejected.

Then when asked why I rebel against Sri Vedavyaasa's authority on the

matter of Krishna's pastimes, I could make up some bogus excuse to

the effect that those "materialistic" pastimes are

just "interpolation," thus allowing me to sleep at night though it

fails to be convincing from an objective point of view.

 

At some point, you are going to have to decide to how much to put

your faith in the Bhaagavatam. Yes, you can argue that it apparently

contradicts shruti - you would not be the first. Indologists also see

many contradictions between shruti and smriti, and even between

different shrutis, thus leading them to postulate that the Veda-

Samhitaas, Upanishads, and Puraanas represent distinct literary

traditions.

 

Please note that I am not criticizing logical analysis at all. I am

only pointing out that, when used inappropriately, it really fails to

be "logic" and instead becomes something else. Perhaps the following

pramaana can better clarify the relationship:

 

puurvaaparaavirodhena ko'nvartho 'bhimato bhavet |

ityaadyam uuhana.m tarkaH shuShkatarka.m tu varjayet ||

 

"Understanding the meaning of a scriptural passage without

contradicting the statements preceding and following it is called

proper logic. However, one should abandon dry logic."

 

This is a quote from the Kuurma Puraana quoted in Jiiva Gosvaamii's

Sarva-samvaadinii. It certainly bears some consideration.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

> achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

> wrote:

>

> > >> Maybe, a better term than 'authoritative' is 'generally

> acceptable'. CC is the Supreme authority for not just Gaudiyas for

> everyone, because it talks about the most lofty topics. Others

> haven't realized it, Gaudiyas have.

> >

>

> Thank you for pointing this out. Of course, every sampradaaya will

> say the same about their particular scriptures (Divya-Prabandham

for

> Sri Vaishnavas, etc), but CC should still be acceptable if the

> discussion is in regards to what the Gaudiiya view is. However, I

do

> not think that is where Sumeet is going with this one.

 

Let me say something real quick. This discussion i am having with

people from different backgrounds including a muslim friend. I need

to find source which is generally termed as Vedic literature. And i

believe there is something in Pancartra texts regarding this. When

Ramanuja was writing his work he never quoted divya prabhandam

because other parties won't accept them. So placing my self as a

regular hindu, who especially needs to present his religion to others

i am looking for text which are mainstream vedic literature. Image

worship is something which many people including my muslim and jew

friends ask me. So i am in search of standard mainstream text to

resolve the issue. And i do believe i read something to this effect

in a quote from Satvata Samhita. And i desperately want it now.

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> Let me say something real quick. This discussion i am having with

> people from different backgrounds including a muslim friend. I need

> to find source which is generally termed as Vedic literature. And i

> believe there is something in Pancartra texts regarding this. When

> Ramanuja was writing his work he never quoted divya prabhandam

> because other parties won't accept them. So placing my self as a

> regular hindu, who especially needs to present his religion to

others

 

In that case, you are going about this the wrong way. Rather than

presenting any one view as representative, you should represent the

diversity of opinions. Icon worship is sacred to all schools to one

extent or another. For most, the conception is that the Lord is

invited to be present in the archa-vigraha during the praana-

pratishtha ceremony. For others, the archa-vigraha is Himself the

Lord.

 

> i am looking for text which are mainstream vedic literature. Image

> worship is something which many people including my muslim and jew

> friends ask me. So i am in search of standard mainstream text to

> resolve the issue. And i do believe i read something to this effect

> in a quote from Satvata Samhita. And i desperately want it now.

 

I think I have a Saatvata Tantra somewhere, but why bother? I doubt

it is concerned "mainstream Vedic literature."