Arca Murti and Sat Chit Ananda Brahman Svarupa -- Part 3

[Guest guest]

5) Correct Interpretation of Padma Purana Verse

Now lets discuss the Padma Purana verse which according to opposition

seems to support absolute identity between Arca and Brahman svarupa.

 

It states arcye visnau sila-dhir or "One who considers Vishnu's Deity

to be dead matter.......... is considered to possess a hellish

mentality. A person who thinks in this way is certainly a resident of

hell."

 

One should first ask himself, what is dead matter and what is

opposite of it namely living matter... answer is matter[body] in

which soul resides is living body, and body in which there is no soul

is dead body. PLEASE NOTE: No one in his right state of mind call

body of a living person as dead matter or dead body. This is an

***established fact*** also accepted by scriptures. As long as soul

is there any body though made up of dead matter is considered living

both by world as well as scriptures. And living bodies is occupied

with souls of different calibres. There are many souls and some are

better than others, Jiva Svarupa Taratamya. But who is greatest only

one, Vishnu. Recall katha and svetasvatara Sruti says nityo

nityam........ That one alone is best amongst so many souls. So if

Vishnu resides in matter/body to consider it dead is worst type of

mentality one can have. To call any normal entities living body dead

or think it equivalent to dead matter like stone or stray pebble is

sign of stupidity and other people will consider that guy weird and

stupid. So to call Visnus deity dead matter is greatest stupidity.

And this verse especially warns people that out ignorance one should

not think of Visnus Deity as dead matter equivalent to stone or

pebble lying on ground, for it is not dead owing to Vishnus presence.

 

Now had the purport of the verse been to establish ABSOLUTE IDENTITY

between bhagavan or brahma svarupa and arca, then verse would have

said that "One who considers Vishnu's Deity(arca) as not Absolutely

Identical with Visnu/brahma svarupa...possesses hellish mentality."

Opposition party should note in establishing the ABSOLUTE IDENTITY

between Mula Murti and Avatar Murti, scriptures have very

emphatically declared "Whoso here sees as though different, passes

from death to death." The words "What indeed is here is there; what

is there is here again." means that there is absolutely no difference

between mula rupa of bhagavan in Vaikuntha and his incarnation which

descends in this world. So why are they silent on issue of Arca Murti

and Brahma Svarupa ?

 

Now you may say we don't agree with your interpretation of padma

purana verse, and in reply i say its is supported both by bhagavata

and satvata samhita pancratra and as well as by logic based on

scriptural reasoning stated above.

 

That Vishnu resides in a Deity is established from Chapter 27 of

Bhagavata "Lord Krishna's Instructions on the Process of Deity

Worship"

 

Uddhva approaches Krishna and asks him about deity worship.

 

and in SB 11.27.24 Krishna says:

aavaahyaarcaadishu sthaapya ..... "The Lord is called or invited into

the arca".... mam prapjayet..."then the devotee should worship Me."

 

Lord Krishna never says that He becomes absolutely identical with

arca.

 

and in 11.27.47 we see Krishna says:

udvsayec ced ....... "And if the particular Deity is meant to be sent

away at the end of the worship".

 

So just think if bhagavat is being called into the deity and sent

back, then how can you take arca murti to be absolutely identical to

brahman svarupa. Your theory of transformation cannot apply here.

Lets see why it cannot: if you say that when bhagavan enters into the

deity, then applying transformation of ontological entities the murti

becomes absolutely identical with brahma svarupa and when bhagavan

leaves we have the transformation reversed and this time brahman

svarupa get transformed back into material nature. So now because of

your transformation theory you not only have put brahmans

immutability into trouble but you have also created a new trouble viz

transformation of brahman svarupa into material nature for which you

will never find any support in scripture. Neither can you say that

once bhagavan has touched the arca it becomes brahma svarupa forever,

because if it so then there is no question of bhagavata leaving the

deity. I mean you have brahma svarupa in front of you and you say

bhagavan has left, this doesn't makes any sense.

 

Now coming to Sattvata Samhita which is a Pancaratra text,

 

verse VI.22 "bimbaakrytaatmana bimbe samaagatya avatisthate"

"In a form corresponding to Arca, bhagavan join the deity, thus

establishing himself"

 

In this word the key word to look for is samaagatya which means come

together, or joined. Check Monier Williams dictionary page 1159 for

it. This word itself negates absolute identity of brahma svarupa with

arca. Lord Krishna in Srimad Bhagavatam describes the process of

inviting Bhagavan. Nowhere is absolute identity between Mula rupa and

arca rupa established. So the verse is very clear. You make an arca

[bimbe] and brahman in a form corresponding to that of arca

[bimbaakrytaatmana] joins the arca or comes together with it[bimbe

samaagatya] and thus gets established [avatisthate]. The word

established indicates that there is only so much to the relation

between brahman and arca. What is that so much ? that brahman joins

it in a corresponding form. In this way Satavata Samhita which is one

of the oldest and most authoritative pancaratra agama presents the

concept of arca and bhagavan. It doesn't entertains absolute identity.