Guest guest Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Haribol, I thought this was an excellent Q and A relevant to the present discussion. So, rupa-vilas prabhu, you said (as I had in a previous email to Sumeet) that the Lord can convert matter to spirit at will - but Bhanu maharaj's reply below seems to suggest that Lord Krishna does not do so. Any thoughts? iys Aravind. ****************** Q from a devotee to Bhanu Maharaj: Hare Krishna, Maharaj, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. We know that the Supreme Lord Vishnu is present in His Deity forms, as He, being the saktiman, can transform His material energy into spirit, and accept worship through the multitude of such forms simultaneously. What about the vigraha-murtis of devatas? How are they able to accept worship through the vigraha (in other words, which principle enables them to do so?) On which grounds they can be non-different from their stone image? (considering that they are NOT able to manipulate with energies, as Vishnu does?) ---------- Answer ------- HH Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN) In any case the Lord does not transform brass into spiritual substance. He becomes present within that substance by devotion. One can also call devatas in arca forms. They have some amount of sakti to expand their presence. However, their powers are not equal to the Lords. Aravind Mohanram Ph.D. Candidate Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg., Penn State University, University Park, PA 16801 www.personal.psu.edu/aum105 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 In a message dated 1/13/2005 12:24:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, psuaravind writes: So, rupa-vilas prabhu, you said (as I had in a previous email to Sumeet) that the Lord can convert matter to spirit at will - but Bhanu maharaj's reply below seems to suggest that Lord Krishna does not do so. Any thoughts? Haribol, According to acintya-bheda-abheda tattva, the Lord, the souls, and matter are all simultaneously one and different. A member of one category can't convert into a member of another on this principle. If matter can be converted to spirit, then why can't the jiva be converted into the Lord, or the Lord into a jiva or matter? I suppose the Deity is a close identification of the Lord with matter to such an extent that we can't tell the actual difference. The Neo-Vedantins and Bheda-bheda school also talk of change from one category to another, but even the Advaitins don't make this mistake. ys Gerald Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 The conception of matter being transformed into spirit is understood more in terms of function than category. For example, the analogy is given of an iron rod in a fire which ACTS as fire. In that case its category might still be said to be iron, but its function is fire. Distinquishing it as iron when it acts as fire becomes to some degree an exercise in pedantry. This point is an active principle in our philosophy so much so that in Padma Purana it is stated that to draw a distinction between the arca-vigraha and Krsna, between the Holy Name and Krsna, etc. (the Deity is wooden or the Holy Name is composed of mundane syllables) is considered to be an atheistic or hellish mentality. arcye visnau sila-dhir...(See CC Madhya 20.217 and SB 4.21.12) Also see CC Antya ch. 5 in which Svarupa Damodara Prabhu lambasts the poet who makes a distinction between the body and Lord Jagannatha and the Lord. Also consider the following: "Similarly, the material conception of a thing is at once changed as soon as it is put into the service of the Lord. That is the secret of spiritual success...Everything is an emanation from the Supreme Spirit, and by His inconceivable power He can convert spirit into matter and matter into spirit. Therefore a material thing (so-called) is at once turned into a spiritual force by the great will of the Lord. The necessary condition for such a change is to employ so-called matter in the service of the spirit. That is the way to treat our material diseases and elevate ourselves to the spiritual plane where there is no misery, no lamentation and no fear. When everything is thus employed in the service of the Lord, we can experience that there is nothing except the Supreme Brahman. The Vedic mantra that "everything is Brahman" is thus realized by us." (S.B. 1.5.33 purport by Srila Prabhupada) > I thought this was an excellent Q and A relevant to the present discussion. So, rupa-vilas prabhu, you said (as I had in a previous email to Sumeet) that the Lord can convert matter to spirit at will - but Bhanu maharaj's reply below seems to suggest that Lord Krishna does not do so. Any thoughts? > Aravind. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 rupavi <rupavi wrote: The conception of matter being transformed into spirit is understood more in terms of function than category. For example, the analogy is given of an iron rod in a fire which ACTS as fire. In that case its category might still be said to be iron, but its function is fire. Distinquishing it as iron when it acts as fire becomes to some degree an exercise in pedantry. Ok, understanding it this way makes sense. I believe, this also does not contradict Gerald's point that souls remain souls and matter remains matter. Further, it is probably helpful to understand the notion of a transcendental deity in the light of pandita-sama-darsinah verse of the Gita - a learned person sees every living being as a soul beyond material covering - similarly, a devotee whose eyes are anointed with pure love for Krishna sees beyond the brass or wood apparently covering the deity. He directly perceives the Lord. Understood this way, there is no need to say that the Lord changes wood or brass into spirit (which HH Bhanu maharaj pointed out) - it is just that the intervening matter is not perceived when pure consciousness takes over (sarvam khalvidam brahman). Is this correct understanding? 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind> wrote: > Haribol, > > I thought this was an excellent Q and A relevant to the present discussion. So, rupa-vilas prabhu, you said (as I had in a previous email to Sumeet) that the Lord can convert matter to spirit at will - but Bhanu maharaj's reply below seems to suggest that Lord Krishna does not do so. Any thoughts? > > iys > > Aravind. Aravind it doesn't matters if matter is converted into spirit or not. The point is matter cannot be converted into Bhagavat svarupa. At the most it can ***acquire*** quality similar to Bhagavat Murti but it cannot **become** bhagavat svarupa. Bhagavan is an all pervading immutable entity; you cannot add or subtract things from it. There is DIFFERENCE between arca murti made by man installed in our temples and Bhagavan present in it. However because of presence of bhagavan the matter acquires spiritual nature just as iron becomes firey in presence of fire but at the same time just like iron ***doesn't becomes*** fire so also the vigraha made of matter doesn't becomes bhagavan. I have quoted Bhagavatam to explain how presence of bhagavan can infuse his distinct spirituality into spiritual bodies of muktas like devaki, vasudeva what to talk about bodies made up of mere matter. "While carrying the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead within the core of his heart, Vasudeva bore the Lord's transcendentally illuminating effulgence, and thus he became as bright as the sun. He was therefore very difficult to see or approach through sensory perception. Indeed, he was unapproachable and unperceivable even for such formidable men as Kamsa, and not only for Kamsa but for all living entities." [sB 10.2.17] "Thereafter, accompanied by plenary expansions, the fully opulent Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-auspicious for the entire universe, was transferred from the mind of Vasudeva to the mind of Devaki. Devaki, having thus been initiated by Vasudeva, became beautiful by carrying Lord Krishna, the original consciousness for everyone, the cause of all causes, within the core of her heart, just as the east becomes beautiful by carrying the rising moon." [sB 10.2.18] Kindly note the way vyasa deva describes the beauty of devaki. East becomes beautiful because of it carrying moon, so devaki becomes beautiful because of her carrying Supreme Lord. Same way arca becomes as if it possesses enchanting beauty when brahman becomes samagaatya in/with it. "Because the Supreme Personality of Godhead was within her womb, Devak?illuminated the entire atmosphere in the place where she was confined. Seeing her jubilant, pure and smiling, Kamsa thought, "The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vishnu, who is now within her, will kill me. Devak?has never before looked so brilliant and jubilant." [sB 10.2.20] See over here both devaki and vasudeva, even though possess cit sarira or according to some prakrtic sarira, becomes very different from their normal states when they bear presence of Vishnu in them. All this actually establishes the glorious/supreme nature of visnu. He can make both matter and spirit look glorious by being present within them, just because he possesses Supreme nature. So even murti of Visnu becomes effulgent and sanctified by His divine presence. This mutri can talk, do anything as per will of Lord. BUT at no time things distinct from Bhagavan be transformed into immutable all perfect bhagavata svarupa which exist as it is from time immemorial. At the most one can attain qualitative similarity owing to presence of brahman but NEVER NEVER anything can attain essential identity with brahman. I have not denied qualitative similarity but only have denied essential identity. The arca made by man can only acquire qualitative similarity but never essential identity. Please note the words qualitative similarity and essential identity. Therefore one should not worship arca with the understanding that it is essentially identical with bhagavat svarupa. That is wrong knowledge. Padma Purana simply says: 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." It says: Vishnu's arca should not be considered dead matter. And how in the whole world does this mean that one should not distinguish between Vishnu's arca and Vishnu himself ? The sanskrit words of that verse does not yeild such meaning. antaryami vidya of Brh. Ar Up clearly says: Bhagavan is the inner controller.It is bhagavan only who makes Sun luminous. It is bhagavan who makes jivatman luminous and imparts it all spiritual attributes. So murti also becomes special and IS NOT AT ALL like stray stone or pebble lying on ground. The Padma Purana verse addresses this type of mentality: http://www.sikhs.org/philos.htm "The stone he calls his god, in the end, drowns him with itself... Know that a boat of stone carries one not across" (Guru Arjan Dev, Suhi) "The stone neither speaks nor gives anything. Therefore its service is fruitless and its worship is of no avail." (Bhagat Kabir, Bhairo) I repeat the point i have made earlier: "I have not denied qualitative similarity but only have denied essential identity. The arca made by man can only acquire qualitative similarity but never essential identity. Please note the words qualitative similarity and essential identity. Therefore one should not worship arca with the understanding that it is essentially identical with bhagavat svarupa because that is wrong knowledge." Always remember becoming merely spiritual or acquiring certain spiritual qualities does not makes that thing essentially identical with Bhagavan, it at the best makes it qualitatively similar to Bhagavan and nothing more than it. So in short: 1) There is no difference between essence of Vishnu and Vishnu's body. They are absolutely identical. 2) But arca murti is only qualitatively similar to Vishnu's essence or body. There is no absolute/essential identity here. There is a quote from Madhvacarya which goes like this: "pratimasvaprupaabuddhanam ..." [i don't remember fully but will ask fellow dvaitins and let you know.] Again relying on my memory Madhva here is calling those people who consider Lord as being "pratima svarupa" or of the form of the archa "itself" as abuddhanam or foolish or lacking discrimination. Let me ask Shirsha or Krishna K to produce the exact quote if they can, so that we can learn what Madhvacarya has to say on this issue. Your Servant Always, Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote: > The Padma Purana verse addresses this type of mentality: > > http://www.sikhs.org/philos.htm > "The stone he calls his god, in the end, drowns him with itself... > Know that a boat of stone carries one not across" (Guru Arjan Dev, > Suhi) > > "The stone neither speaks nor gives anything. Therefore its service > is fruitless and its worship is of no avail." (Bhagat Kabir, Bhairo) Um, I don't see a Padma Puraana quote here. Since when has quoting from Sikh websites become as good as quoting from Padma Puraana? > I repeat the point i have made earlier: > > "I have not denied qualitative similarity but only have denied > essential identity. The arca made by man can only acquire qualitative > similarity but never essential identity. Please note the words > qualitative similarity and essential identity. Therefore one should > not worship arca with the understanding that it is essentially > identical with bhagavat svarupa because that is wrong knowledge." The question here is whether this is your view based on your understanding of the scripture, or is it the view held by the Gaudiiya aachaaryas. > There is a quote from Madhvacarya which goes like this: > "pratimasvaprupaabuddhanam ..." [i don't remember fully but will ask > fellow dvaitins and let you know.] > > Again relying on my memory Madhva here is calling those people who > consider Lord as being "pratima svarupa" or of the form of the > archa "itself" as abuddhanam or foolish or lacking discrimination. Again, although it maybe obvious to most, it should be pointed out that quotes from Madhva do not prove the Gaudiiya position. Nor do they necessarily prove what is fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 achintya, "krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla> wrote: > > achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote: > > > The Padma Purana verse addresses this type of mentality: > > > > http://www.sikhs.org/philos.htm > > "The stone he calls his god, in the end, drowns him with itself... > > Know that a boat of stone carries one not across" (Guru Arjan Dev, > > Suhi) > > > > "The stone neither speaks nor gives anything. Therefore its service > > is fruitless and its worship is of no avail." (Bhagat Kabir, Bhairo) > > Um, I don't see a Padma Puraana quote here. Since when has quoting > from Sikh websites become as good as quoting from Padma Puraana? Sumeet: I don't think you understood me. Padma Purana verse talks about people who think Lords form to be dead matter. And to just give an instance of that I quoted these from a sikh website. Rupa Vilasa prabhu was interpreting that quote to mean that those who distinguish between arca of Vishnu and Vishnu are residents of hell, i just wanted to point out that what he is saying is not at all implied by the verse as it is worded. And then i quoted from this sikh website to show what kind of mentality that verse is addressing. If you read those quotes and then read Padma Purana verse which says "those who consider Vishnu's deity to be dead matter ....." you will understand why Sikh website was quoted. > The question here is whether this is your view based on your > understanding of the scripture, or is it the view held by the > Gaudiiya aachaaryas. Sumeet: Well i don't see Gaudiya acaryas holding this view. The question is which stance is scripturally justified. Just because Gaudiya acaryas have some view that doesn't makes it automatically scripturally correct. Ramanuja and Madhva have also differentiated between Brahman svarupa and arca vigraha/murti. In case of Ramanuja: He differentiates Svarupa[essence] of Brahman from Suddhasatvam which makes the eternal form of Lord in Vaikuntha known to him as Para Vasudeva and same principle is extended to Brahman Svarupa and arca vigraha. In case of Madhva: Svarupa[essence/soul] and Rupa[form/body] of Brahman are absolutely identical. And also both of them are different from Arca murti for Madhva. However, in my talks with Rompada swami maharaj on same topic he conveyed me that there is difference. Please read his reply carefully. I wrote to him: Dear Swamiji Please accept my dandvats In Digest 104 you said: "We also sometimes say that the Lord kindly agrees to come and 'reside' in the Deity form, but once He manifests Himself thus, He is non-different from the archa-vigraha." In this quote what do you exactly mean by saying Krishna is "non-different" from archa vigraha ? Does it means: 1) Essentially[and qualitatively] one and the same, implying absolute identity. 'or' 2) Essentially and Qualitatively ***similar***. Example of 1st is: Krishna, Narayana, Rama etc.......... are one in essence. So if i say Krishna is non different from Narayana - it means two are ***essentially one - same entity***. Svarupa of Narayana and Krishna is one and same - identical. Hence there is Svarupaikya[essential oneness] between them. Example of 2nd is: Krishna is ***similar*** in essence and qualities[of course in certain respects only ] to an individual jivaatma. Here non difference means essential and qualitative ***similarity*** which causes one to say that the two things are actually one. But this doesn't mean both are essentially one and the same entity. There is no essential oneness[svarupaikya] between Svarupa of Krishna and jivaatma [as there is between Krishna and Narayana], even though there is essential and qualitatively similarity between these two ***distinct*** entities. They are not same entities. So is Arca Vigraha and Krishna Non-different in 1st or the 2nd sense ? Please note: 1st type of non difference is different from 2nd one as explained above. ------------- His disciple forwarded his response to me. ------------- Response from His Holiness Romapada Swami "He (meaning you - Sumeet Prabhu) has given two options for the meaning of 'non-difference'. I would prefer a 3rd articulation of the definition of 'non-difference'. The 2nd definition is quite wrong. The 1st definition is closer to the real situation. There obviously is a difference between the Deity and Krsna, indicated by the use of the term itself "archa vigraha", as opposed to the term for the scheduled incarnation of the Lord when He comes, "lila avatara". A connected issue is related to the Deity forms of the Lord fashioned by the hands of man via the archa vigraha process, versus the forms manifested in other ways such as the self-manifested Deities." In the discussion between a Bengali brahmana and Srila Svarupa Damodara Gosvami described in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta, the brahmana is mistakenly considering the Lord to be "within" the deity form, as opposed to the Deity being the Lord. Srila Svarupa Damodara clarifies by explaining that Lord Jagannatha is a standing form of the Lord and Lord Caitanya is the moving form of the same Lord. In this connection His Holiness Romapada Swami has requested that you are welcome to please read the section of Caitanya-caritamrta Antya Lila Chapter 5 from Text 112 to Text 154, with special emphasis on the following texts and their purports (I have only reproduced only some of the texts for the sake of brevity in this email): http://www.vedabase.net/cc/antya/5/112/en http://www.vedabase.net/cc/antya/5/118/en http://www.vedabase.net/cc/antya/5/148/en "There is no difference between Lord Jagannatha and Krsna, but here Lord Jagannatha is fixed as the Absolute Person appearing in wood. Therefore He does not move." http://www.vedabase.net/cc/antya/5/149/en "Thus Lord Jagannatha and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, although appearing as two, are one because They are both Krsna, who is one alone." http://www.vedabase.net/cc/antya/5/151/en/ "To deliver all the materially contaminated people of the world, that same Krsna has descended in the moving form of Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu." http://www.vedabase.net/cc/antya/5/153/en/ "Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, however, moves from one country to another, personally or by His representative. Thus He, as the moving Brahman, delivers all the people of the world." ---------- I hope this helps. Again main point is whether this conclusion of Gaudiyas is justified on the basis of scriptures or not. So why not find out whether R and M are correct or Gaudiyas ? Scripture is deciding authority in case of knowledge about Brahman. Your Servant Always, Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote: > Sumeet: I don't think you understood me. Padma Purana verse talks > about people who think Lords form to be dead matter. And to just give > an instance of that I quoted these from a sikh website. Nevermind, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. Rupa Vilasa > prabhu was interpreting that quote to mean that those who distinguish > between arca of Vishnu and Vishnu are residents of hell, i just > wanted to point out that what he is saying is not at all implied by > the verse as it is worded. While we are on that subject, can you please parse out the Sanskrit of that verse, with precise declension and conjugation of each word, and explain on a grammatical basis what you feel the correct understanding is? > > The question here is whether this is your view based on your > > understanding of the scripture, or is it the view held by the > > Gaudiiya aachaaryas. > > Sumeet: Well i don't see Gaudiya acaryas holding this view. The > question is which stance is scripturally justified. Just because > Gaudiya acaryas have some view that doesn't makes it automatically > scripturally correct. To be honest, I have plenty of doubts as to your command of scripture to begin with. Hair-splitting literalism does not a convincing interpretation make. While we are on that subject, I question your ability to come up with interpretations based solely on translations which are obviously not your own. Nor am I convinced that you understand the basis for why those translations are given as they are, i.e. the grammatical basis for those translations. Furthermore, the last time this discussion incarnated on this list, you never bothered to answer my single and yet quite significant objection: if you argue that by one's senses, one can conclude that the Lord's archa-vigraha is made of material elements and thus different from Him, then why not use the same logic to conclude that the Lord's own form is material, based on observations about His disappearance lIla recorded in 11th Canto? You cannot build up a conclusion based on a series of logical arguments only to dispense with those arguments when they are used to come to an undesireable conclusion. Either the logic is correct, and thus the conclusions based on them as well, or your conclusions must be based on some other source of evidence. Clearly, there is no scriptural injunction saying "Lord is different from His form." All you have quoted are known pramaanas saying that Lord is different from matter, which no one has contested. Of course, you knit these arguments together by quoting Madhva, et. al., but the mere fact that they have a particular view does not make such views "automatically scripturally correct" as I am sure you agree. Then you have argued based on the above that Lord must be different from archa-vigraha, though archa-vigraha being material is not sufficiently proven (unless we are to accept this based on anumaan and pratyaksha alone). Please note that I am not against logic, anumaan, pratyaksha, etc. I merely point out that your logic leads to intolerable conclusions - i.e., since Lord is different from matter, and Lord cannot be harmed by anything material, then Lord's form is also different from Him since it was slain by Jara the hunter. You will recall that you used the specific example of invaders attacking Deities, thus "proving" that the Deities were material. There obviously > is a difference between the Deity and Krsna, indicated by the use of > the term itself "archa vigraha", as opposed to the term for the > scheduled incarnation of the Lord when He comes, "lila avatara". I don't understand why Romapada Swami feels that former term "obviously" implies a difference between this form and the Lord. > In the discussion between a Bengali brahmana and Srila Svarupa > Damodara Gosvami described in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta, the brahmana > is mistakenly considering the Lord to be "within" the deity form, as > opposed to the Deity being the Lord. Srila Svarupa Damodara clarifies > by explaining that Lord Jagannatha is a standing form of the Lord and > Lord Caitanya is the moving form of the same Lord. Here is what Svarupa Daamodara Gosvaamii had to say to the Bengali braahmana who compared the Jaganaatha deity to an inert form which was "energized" by Sri Chaitanya: puurNaananda-chit-svaruupa jagannaatha-raaya taañre kaili jaDa-nashvara-praakR^ita-kaaya "Lord Jagannâtha is completely spiritual and full of transcendental bliss, but you have compared Him to a dull, destructible body composed of the inert, external energy of the Lord." (CC, antya 5.118) Let us be clear on the Gaudiiya view - the Deity is not material. Period. Perhaps if you want to be ultra-literal, you could argue that only the Jagannaatha deity is being referred to, but I don't see any context to suggest that this is not true of other Krishna Deities. Please also note that Prabhupada here quotes the Padma Puraana verse in question: "If one thinks that the form of Lord Jagannaatha is an idol made of wood, he immediately brings ill fortune into his life. According to the direction of the Padma Puraana, arcye viShNau shilaa-dhhiiH . . . yasya vaa naarakii saH: "Anyone who considers the Deity in the temple to be made of stone or wood is a resident of hell." Thus one who thinks that the body of Lord Jagannaatha is made of matter and who distinguishes between Lord Jagannaatha's body and His soul is condemned, for he is an offender. A pure devotee who knows the science of Krishna consciousness makes no distinction between Lord Jagannaatha and His body. He knows that they are identical, just as Lord Krrishna and His soul are one and the same. When one's eyes are purified by devotional service performed on the spiritual platform, one can actually envision Lord Jagannaatha and His body as being completely spiritual. The advanced devotee, therefore, does not see the worshipable Deity as having a soul within a body like an ordinary human being. There is no distinction between the body and the soul of Lord Jagannaatha, for Lord Jagannaatha is sach-chid-aananda-vigraha [bs. 5.1], just as the body of Krishna is sach-chid-aananda-vigraha." Let us therefore be clear on the Padma Puraana's meaning and Srila Prabhupada's comments: the archa-vigraha is NOT made of material elements and NOT different from the Lord Himself. This is obvious from the above. > I hope this helps. Again main point is whether this conclusion of > Gaudiyas is justified on the basis of scriptures or not. So why not > find out whether R and M are correct or Gaudiyas ? Scripture is > deciding authority in case of knowledge about Brahman. The only scriptural pramaana we have seen quoted is the verse from Padma Puraana. You have contested this translation but I am not convinced you have sufficient knowledge of Sanskrit grammar to do so. All other pramaanas, i.e. stating that Lord is distinct from matter, etc, are not the issue, since no one is claiming otherwise. 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.