Arca Murti and Sat Chit Ananda Brahman Svarupa -- Part 1

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

The position which opposite party has to support is that Deity of

Visnu is not just simple spirit, but it is absolutely identical with

a very unique spirit brahman. So the people who are saying about

transformation from material to spiritual, should actually be ready

to substantiate from vedic literature that material entity changes

its svarupa [essential nature] from material/maya/prakrti to svarupa

of brahman. If you say that it simply changes to spirit, then that

doesn't makes it same as Svarupa of brahman. Because even jiva atman

is spirit, but it is not same as brahman svarupa. There is

ontological difference between the two. Srutis like nityo nityam

according to Vaishnava interpretation talks about this.

 

1) On svarupa of brahman

 

Taitt Up II.1 "brahman is real, knowledge and infinite."

These three words denote the essential nature of svarupa of brahman

as well its distinguishing attributes.

 

Brih Ar. Up II.1.20 "Brahman is reality of real."

Here satya stands for the svarupa of brahman in the sense of

unchanging reality.

 

Brih Ar. Up II.4.12 "Brahman is mass of conciousness/knowledge."

 

Ait Up III.1.3 "Brahman is prajna/conciousness."

 

Now Brahman being infinite means that it is omnipresent, prevading

all the entities other than it at all times.

 

Mund Up I.1.6 says brahman is all pervdaing.

Isv. Up I says brahman pervades entire universe.

Chan. Up VII.24 describes brahman as bhuma. According to explanantion

for this term provided by Upanisad this term which is equated with

sukha or bliss signifies brahman is infinetly great.

 

All these statements convey that brahman is infinite both in respect

of its svarupa[essential nature] and dharma[attribute].

 

2) On existence of three ontological entities

 

"There are two unborn ones, the omniscient and the ignorant, the one

all powerful, the other powerless.Indeed, there is another one

[prakriti] which is unborn connected with the enjoyer and the objects

of experience. The infinite atman which is the Self of universe is

non doer. When one realizes properly this distinct nature of these

three, he becomes freed." [svet. Up I.9]

 

The distinctive characteristic of the three entities is clearly

brought out in subsequent verse:

 

"The primordial cosmic matter is perishable, jiva is immortal and

imperishable. The one Lord(devah ekah) rules over both." [svet Up

I.10]

 

 

3)Brahman as distinct from other Ontological Entities

 

Brahman is distinct from non-sentient ontological entities as sun,

moon, ether, wind, fire, lightning etc.... This is stated in Balaki

Brahmana of Brih Ar. Up II.1.16 The grounds for rejecting them as

Brahman is that attributes qualifying these are are different

attributes that qualify Brahman.

 

Now in Bhuma Vidya Section of Chandogya VII.1.15, name, speech, mind,

mental strength, water etc......... upto individual self are to be

concieved as symbol of brahman for meditation. But none of these are

admitted to be brahman since brahman is not only extolled greater

than them but also infinitely great and blissfull, beyond which there

is nothing.

 

Now coming to antaryami vidya of Brh. Ar. Up III.7, here distinction

between brahman and sentient entity [jiva atman] and brahman and non

sentinent entities are clearly taught.

 

So in upanisad all these entities are regarded as distinct from each

other ****because their essential nature and essential attributes are

different from each other****. This is the principal established in

above mentioned Srutis. PLEASE NOTE: Upanisad doesn't teach that one

entity can be transformed into other. There is no such teaching

either in VS. Making one entity other will ***INVALIDATE*** srutis

stating they are distinct. Just like abheda Sruti, one knows in Sruti

there are texts which can be classified as abheda Sruti. But when

advaitins on there basis go one to establish absolute identity

between jivaatman and brahman, vaishnavas pull them back and brings

into their attention numerous bheda Sruti which cannot be ignored and

which get voilated when absolute identity is established. So if

opposition wants to believe in this theory of transformation of

material entity into brahma svarupa then they have to quote scripture

saying that material entities can be transformed into brahma svarupa

and then they become absolutely identical to brahma svarupa and at

the same time reconcile those quotes with the ones teaching bheda.

Remember even Vaishnavas reconcile both types of quotes. Likewise

opposition also needs to do that. Transformation into brahma svarupa

means getting all the attributes of brahman and attaining essential

nature absolutely identical to him. Kindly note this point. It not

just becoming spirit but a very unique spirit viz brahman.

 

Also another objection that can be raised against absolute identity

of brahma svarupa and arca is:

 

Arca is made up of material substance. Prakrtic stuff is distinct

from the Lord, brahma svarupa. Prakrtic stuff as vaishnava theology

says is real not illusory. So we have a real and distinct[from

brahman svarupa] entity existing. Now when we make arca out of this

and say that somehow this substance which was previously material

[hence distinct reality from brahman] has now become transformed into

brahma svarupa, alas we have just contradicted numerous srutis which

say brahma svarupa is immutable. You cannot add to that svarupa

especially something which was distinct from it earlier. Before the

arca was ready, the substance making it was distinct from brahman. It

was something other than brahman. And now when arca is ready, you

have ***transformed*** this distinct entity and added it to brahma

svarupa. The transformation which you speak of is nothing but

addition to already existing brahma svarupa. So yeah the theory of

transformation will contradict immutable nature of brahman svarupa.

This is another objection to theory of transformation of ontological

entities into one another submitted by opposition party and

especially to the theory of transformation of one entity into brahma

svarupa since immutablity of brahman is vociferously taught in Vedas.

 

Neither can one just say that transformation of ontological entities

is true because Supreme is omnipotence. Because if that is allowed

then anyone will arbitrarily attribute anything to Supreme under

pretext of omnipotence. Like one can say Supreme has created this

world out of nothing. And then argue why he can't create out of

nothing because he is all powerful. He can do as He wills. But we

know this has not happened, despite being a theoretical possibility

since ***scripture*** speak otherwise. For anything to be attributed

to brahman one must substantiate their claims with scriptures. So

also for this theory of transformation we need to see scriptural

backing.

 

Vedanta Sutra 1.1.3 "Brahman is known through scriptures only".

 

Even Vedas says "na tasya pratima asti" => "There is no image of

Him." [Yajurveda 32:3]

[Yajurveda by Devi Chand M.A. page 377]

 

The above verse from vedas is especially applicable in present

context of our discussion.

 

Unless theory of transformation of ontological entities isn't

established on firm scriptural basis and all the above objections

explained away, there is no way absolute identity of arca and Sat

Chit Ananda brahma can be established. Especially one needs to prove

that any substance distinct from brahma svarupa can be transformed

into the same.

 

Please go to Part 2 now.

[Guest guest]

Sumeet, I have not had the chance to go through this in any great

detail. I skimmed over most of it, and I have basically two questions

at this point:

 

1) From which guru have you been trained in the study of the

Upanishads?

 

I think it is a fair question, since you obviously disagree with the

Gaudiiya view on this point, you cannot claim to be quoting these

pramaanas as Gaudiiyas understand them. As you know, the shrutis are

traditionally studied at the feet of a master. Before getting into a

long and drawn out discussion of theology, should you not first make

sure you can legitimately represent a particular sampradaaya when you

start quoting the shruti?

 

2) I previously gave this argument, but I do not think you responded

to it. Here it is again:

 

You argue that Lord's archa-murti is not nondifferent from Him, on

the grounds that the archa-murti can be harmed, common sense holds

this, sense perception confirms it, empiric deduction also confirms

it, etc. Well, Shriimad Bhaagavatam also documents the fact that Lord

Krishna's body was pierced by the hunter Jaraa, after which

He "died." By your logic, since it is demonstrated that Krishna's

body can be harmed, we must accept that He is not the same as His

body.

 

Do you accept it?

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

 

>

> 1) From which guru have you been trained in the study of the

> Upanishads?

 

I have never recieved traditional sort of training from Guru.

However, i have read bhasyas of Madhva translated by KT Pandurangi.

Have read ramanuja's commentary on selected upanisadic texts in

Philosophy of Upanisad by SMS Chari and also Vedartha Samagraha. Have

referred to parts of Sri Bhasya especially when i needed to compare

something with Govinda Bhasya. Have read Ramanujas commentary on

Gitopanisad. I do have some questions about Vishsistadvaita and so i

am currently thinking of getting Fund. of Vishistadvaita Vedanta by

SMS Chari.

 

 

> I think it is a fair question, since you obviously disagree with

the

> Gaudiiya view on this point, you cannot claim to be quoting these

> pramaanas as Gaudiiyas understand them.

 

Well the srutis i have quoted for showing difference in ontological

entities comes under heading of bheda sruti. The verses of

Svetasvatara quoted in section 2 and verses quoted in section 3 are

consequently interpretted as telling difference by Ramanuja and by

Baladeva in Govinda Bhasya. I can give you page numbers to refer to

in GB if you possess it. So in context of our topic it is irrelevant

whether it is in accordance with Ramanuja school or Baladeva school.

The srutis teach difference and they have been accordingly

interpretted in both Govinda and Sri Bhasya.

 

>2) I previously gave this argument, but I do not think you responded

> to it. Here it is again:

 

Sorry may be while writing this big post i forgot about it. So yeah

sorry for missing on it.

 

> You argue that Lord's archa-murti is not nondifferent from Him, on

> the grounds that the archa-murti can be harmed, common sense holds

> this, sense perception confirms it, empiric deduction also confirms

> it, etc. Well, Shriimad Bhaagavatam also documents the fact that

> Lord Krishna's body was pierced by the hunter Jaraa, after which

> He "died."

 

Some Remarks:

1) Wait, you cannot use the word died in literal sense for Krishna.

For embodied Jiva it means exiting from acquired body but for Krishna

whose body is atman it won't mean that. So died doesn't means Lord

krishna had to leave his body, and his body had to be cremated. It

just means Lord Krishna wrapped up his lila on earth.

 

2)Doctrine of apparent limitation holds in case of lila murti.

Quoting Visnhu Tattva Vinirnaya of Madhva:

Page 226, translation by KT Pandurangi

 

87) Lord Visnu is absolutely free from the defects.

 

Narada said:

If vishnu is free from all drwabacks, how is it that he too is born

among men and seen suffering from worry, fatigue, wounds, ignorance

and sorrow ? Oh Lord Brahma this doubt is piercing my heart like a

dart. ...........

 

Brahma Said:

Lord Vishnu will not assume body that is generated by contact of man

and woman.But he reveals himself through his eternal body consisting

of bliss and consciousness that is absolutely free from defects. This

is his birth and nothing else.

 

However, to mislead the evil souls and those who have to be delayed

in obtaining liberation, he will show as if he also has sorrow,

ignorance, fatigue etc.. though he is always pure and possess

auspicious attributes.

 

How can there be any any wounds or ignorance to the One who is

independent and has unique qualities ? He will show these only to

make the liberation difficult for some. These evil persons will not

attain liberation consequent on their wrong knowledge. These will go

to darkness.

 

Therefore, one should realize that the Supreme God is free from

defects and he only reveals himself.

 

Thus in Brahma Purana.

 

3) After this one should read the entire purport of SP to SB 1.9.34

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/9/34/en

Some selected text i have copied and pasted below:

 

"Therefore Bhismadeva's piercing of the body of Lord

Krisna is a sort of bewildering problem for the nondevotee atheist,

but those who are devotees, or liberated souls, are not bewildered."

 

"Besides that, since the Lord's body and the Lord are identical,

there was no possibility of wounds in the absolute body. The apparent

wounds caused by the sharpened arrows are misleading to the common

man, but one who has a little absolute knowledge can understand the

transcendental exchange in the chivalrous relation."

 

but yeah one should read the entire purport.

 

So yeah no one can actually meaning in reality harm Vishnu. the

substance of Lord cannot be harmed. On the other hand one can destroy

not just harm substance making the deity. One cannot conclude it to

be apparent.

 

Like in case of temporary deity, the deity is traced on ground and

then deity is called and later sent when worshipping is over. And the

trace of bhagavan on ground is naturally destroyed.

 

SB 11.27.14: The Deity that is temporarily established can optionally

be called forth and sent away, but these two rituals should always be

performed when the Deity is traced upon the ground. Bathing should be

done with water except if the Deity is made of clay, paint or wood,

in which cases a thorough cleansing without water is enjoined.

 

now see things like bathing have been prescribed in accordance with

the material with which deity is made up of. The use of water is

prohibited for deity traced on ground with clay as that can harm the

deity made out of clay. This is because of the property of clay.

While if deity is made up of other things you can cleanse it with

water. If the susbstance of deity is actually absolute spirit which

is infinite in svarupa and attributes as well magnitude of attribute

then why not cleanse it with water ? I mean the deity is pure

spiritual substance, the clay has been transformed into spirit to

quote a few members[that to unique spirit - brahman], so why be so

cautious about using water ? What difference does it make ? If the

difference meaning the substance is percieved to be clay by ignorant

and is spiritual for the wise, then why does scripture writer

prohibits using water ? He should see it as spirit and spirit is not

gonna behave as clay. So why worry ?

 

the doctrine of apparent limitation is taught with respect to actual

avatars of Krishna and not arca vigraha.

 

> By your logic, since it is demonstrated that Krishna's

> body can be harmed, we must accept that He is not the same as His

> body.

>

> Do you accept it?

 

I don't accept it for above mentioned reasons. Raja Ram i have read

your post will reply soon. Thanks in advance for waiting for me to

respond. I am in hurry right now. This post took longer than what i

thought it woudl take.

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote:

 

1) From which guru have you been trained in the study of the

Upanishads?

 

I think it is a fair question, since you obviously disagree with the

Gaudiiya view on this point, you cannot claim to be quoting these

pramaanas as Gaudiiyas understand them. As you know, the shrutis are

traditionally studied at the feet of a master. Before getting into a

long and drawn out discussion of theology, should you not first make

sure you can legitimately represent a particular sampradaaya when you

start quoting the shruti?

 

>>> Is this not a bit unfair, given that many on this group including yourself

often quote from shrutis (defending Gaudiya viewpoints)? I haven't seen anyone

talk about their training. Am I wrong?

 

iys

 

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:

 

> >>> Is this not a bit unfair, given that many on this group

including yourself often quote from shrutis (defending Gaudiya

viewpoints)? I haven't seen anyone talk about their training. Am I

wrong?

>

 

When dealing with unqualified individuals who quote from shruti to

establish wrong conclusions, I am not above quoting from the shrutis

to "fight fire with fire." An example is the J Dhaa book which

purports to prove that cows were not considered holy. Since

individuals like him care less about qualification and more about

appearing scholarly, I have no problem with quoting shrutis back to

such people.

 

On the other hand, when it is a question of determining what Gaudiiya

Vaishnava siddhaanta is, I will quote the shrutis only as our

aachaaryas have quoted them. The simple fact of the matter is that I

do not have any faith in my ability to understand the shrutis on my

own, and besides, this is not how the shrutis are to be understood

anyway. I don't mind being wrong when dealing with an imbecilic

Marxist pseudo-scholar who quotes out of context from the Vedas,

because the issues in such discussions are usually less abstract/more

concrete. But when it is a question of philosophical conclusions, I

default to our aachaaryas' interpretations.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> I have never recieved traditional sort of training from Guru.

> However, i have read bhasyas of Madhva translated by KT Pandurangi.

> Have read ramanuja's commentary on selected upanisadic texts in

> Philosophy of Upanisad by SMS Chari and also Vedartha Samagraha.

Have

> referred to parts of Sri Bhasya especially when i needed to compare

> something with Govinda Bhasya. Have read Ramanujas commentary on

> Gitopanisad. I do have some questions about Vishsistadvaita and so

i

> am currently thinking of getting Fund. of Vishistadvaita Vedanta by

> SMS Chari.

 

I think the basic point is that you have not studied the shrutis in

the traditional way. Let us be clear on that.

 

> Well the srutis i have quoted for showing difference in ontological

> entities comes under heading of bheda sruti. The verses of

> Svetasvatara quoted in section 2 and verses quoted in section 3 are

> consequently interpretted as telling difference by Ramanuja and by

> Baladeva in Govinda Bhasya.

 

Yes, but these are not interpreted as referring to difference between

Lord and His archa-murti, at least, not according to Baladeva. You

are merely extending the concept without any Gaudiiya backing for it.

 

> > You argue that Lord's archa-murti is not nondifferent from Him,

on

> > the grounds that the archa-murti can be harmed, common sense

holds

> > this, sense perception confirms it, empiric deduction also

confirms

> > it, etc. Well, Shriimad Bhaagavatam also documents the fact that

> > Lord Krishna's body was pierced by the hunter Jaraa, after which

> > He "died."

 

> So yeah no one can actually meaning in reality harm Vishnu. the

> substance of Lord cannot be harmed. On the other hand one can

destroy

> not just harm substance making the deity. One cannot conclude it to

> be apparent.

 

I disagree, and frankly Sumeet, I am disappointed in your selective

application of the logic. On one hand, you acknowledge that the Lord

can mislead others by "apparently suffering" or "apparently being

harmed." Yet you do not extend the same logic to the Lord's Deity

form. Yet your whole point is that the Lord's Deity is not the same

as Him on the count of the fact that the temple Deity can be harmed.

 

If the Lord can leave behind a "material body" to mislead "evil

souls," then there is no reason why He cannot leave behind a "stone

statue" to break the hearts of devotees who fail to protect Him in

the temple. The Deity in the temple has to appear helpless, or much

of the point is lost.

 

The rest of the evidence you quoted is tangential. No one denies that

the Lord is free from defects. And as far as misleading "evil souls,"

such a concept as "evil souls" and "good souls" are not a part of

Chaitanya's/Baladeva's system of Vedaanta.

 

yours,

 

K